First of all, I want to make it clear I've done due diligence in researching this topic. Very closely related is this SO question, which doesn't really address my confusion.
I understand that when VOLUME is specified in a Dockerfile, this instructs Docker to create an unnamed volume for the duration of the container which is mapped to the specified directory inside of it. For example:
# Dockerfile
VOLUME ["/foo"]
This would create a volume to contain any data stored in /foo inside the container. The volume (when viewed via docker volume ls) would show up as a random jumble of numbers.
Each time you do docker run, this volume is not reused. This is the key point causing confusion here. To me, the goal of a volume is to contain state persistent across all instances of an image (all containers started from it). So basically if I do this, without explicit volume mappings:
#!/usr/bin/env bash
# Run container for the first time
docker run -t foo
# Kill the container and re-run it again. Note that the previous
# volume would now contain data because services running in `foo`
# would have written data to that volume.
docker container stop foo
docker container rm foo
# Run container a second time
docker run -t foo
I expect the unnamed volume to be reused between the 2 run commands. However, this is not the case. Because I did not explicitly map a volume via the -v option, a new volume is created for each run.
Here's important part number 2: Since I'm required to explicitly specify -v to share persistent state between run commands, why would I ever specify VOLUME in my Dockerfile? Without VOLUME, I can do this (using the previous example):
#!/usr/bin/env bash
# Create a volume for state persistence
docker volume create foo_data
# Run container for the first time
docker run -t -v foo_data:/foo foo
# Kill the container and re-run it again. Note that the previous
# volume would now contain data because services running in `foo`
# would have written data to that volume.
docker container stop foo
docker container rm foo
# Run container a second time
docker run -t -v foo_data:/foo foo
Now, truly, the second container will have data mounted to /foo that was there from the previous instance. I can do this without VOLUME in my Dockerfile. From the command line, I can turn any directory inside the container into a mount to either a bound directory on the host or a volume in Docker.
So my question is: What is the point of VOLUME when you have to explicitly map named volumes to containers via commands on the host anyway? Either I'm missing something or this is just confusing and obfuscated.
Note that all of my assertions here are based on my observations of how docker behaves, as well as what I've gathered from the documentation.
Instructions like VOLUME and EXPOSE are a bit anachronistic. Named volumes as we know them today were introduced in Docker 1.9, almost three years ago.
Before Docker 1.9, running a container whose image had one or more VOLUME instructions (or using the --volume option) was the only way to create volumes for data sharing or persistence. In fact, it used to be a best practice to create data-only containers whose sole purpose was to hold one or more volumes, and then share those volumes with your application containers using the --volumes-from option. Here's some articles that describe this outdated pattern.
Docker Data Containers
Why Docker Data Containers (Volumes!) are Good
Also, check out moby/moby#17798 (Data-only containers obsolete with docker 1.9.0?) where the change from data-only containers to named volumes was discussed.
Today, I consider the VOLUME instruction as an advanced tool that should only be used for specialized cases, and after careful thought. For example, the official postgres image declares a VOLUME at /var/lib/postgresql/data. This can improve the performance of postgres containers out of the box by keeping the database data out of the layered filesystem. Docker doesn't have to search through all the layers of the container image for file requests at /var/lib/postgresql/data.
However, the VOLUME instruction does come at a cost.
Users might not be aware of the unnamed volumes being created, and continuing to take up storage space on their Docker host after containers are removed.
There is no way to remove a volume declared in a Dockerfile. Downstream images cannot add data to paths where volumes exist.
The latter issue results in problems like these.
How to “undeclare” volumes in docker image?
GitLab on Docker: how to persist user data between deployments?
For the GitLab question, someone wants to extend the GitLab image with pre-configured data for testing purposes, but it's impossible to commit that data in a downstream image because of the VOLUME at /var/opt/gitlab in the parent image.
tl;dr: VOLUME was designed for a world before Docker 1.9. Best to just leave it out.
Related
First of all, I want to make it clear I've done due diligence in researching this topic. Very closely related is this SO question, which doesn't really address my confusion.
I understand that when VOLUME is specified in a Dockerfile, this instructs Docker to create an unnamed volume for the duration of the container which is mapped to the specified directory inside of it. For example:
# Dockerfile
VOLUME ["/foo"]
This would create a volume to contain any data stored in /foo inside the container. The volume (when viewed via docker volume ls) would show up as a random jumble of numbers.
Each time you do docker run, this volume is not reused. This is the key point causing confusion here. To me, the goal of a volume is to contain state persistent across all instances of an image (all containers started from it). So basically if I do this, without explicit volume mappings:
#!/usr/bin/env bash
# Run container for the first time
docker run -t foo
# Kill the container and re-run it again. Note that the previous
# volume would now contain data because services running in `foo`
# would have written data to that volume.
docker container stop foo
docker container rm foo
# Run container a second time
docker run -t foo
I expect the unnamed volume to be reused between the 2 run commands. However, this is not the case. Because I did not explicitly map a volume via the -v option, a new volume is created for each run.
Here's important part number 2: Since I'm required to explicitly specify -v to share persistent state between run commands, why would I ever specify VOLUME in my Dockerfile? Without VOLUME, I can do this (using the previous example):
#!/usr/bin/env bash
# Create a volume for state persistence
docker volume create foo_data
# Run container for the first time
docker run -t -v foo_data:/foo foo
# Kill the container and re-run it again. Note that the previous
# volume would now contain data because services running in `foo`
# would have written data to that volume.
docker container stop foo
docker container rm foo
# Run container a second time
docker run -t -v foo_data:/foo foo
Now, truly, the second container will have data mounted to /foo that was there from the previous instance. I can do this without VOLUME in my Dockerfile. From the command line, I can turn any directory inside the container into a mount to either a bound directory on the host or a volume in Docker.
So my question is: What is the point of VOLUME when you have to explicitly map named volumes to containers via commands on the host anyway? Either I'm missing something or this is just confusing and obfuscated.
Note that all of my assertions here are based on my observations of how docker behaves, as well as what I've gathered from the documentation.
Instructions like VOLUME and EXPOSE are a bit anachronistic. Named volumes as we know them today were introduced in Docker 1.9, almost three years ago.
Before Docker 1.9, running a container whose image had one or more VOLUME instructions (or using the --volume option) was the only way to create volumes for data sharing or persistence. In fact, it used to be a best practice to create data-only containers whose sole purpose was to hold one or more volumes, and then share those volumes with your application containers using the --volumes-from option. Here's some articles that describe this outdated pattern.
Docker Data Containers
Why Docker Data Containers (Volumes!) are Good
Also, check out moby/moby#17798 (Data-only containers obsolete with docker 1.9.0?) where the change from data-only containers to named volumes was discussed.
Today, I consider the VOLUME instruction as an advanced tool that should only be used for specialized cases, and after careful thought. For example, the official postgres image declares a VOLUME at /var/lib/postgresql/data. This can improve the performance of postgres containers out of the box by keeping the database data out of the layered filesystem. Docker doesn't have to search through all the layers of the container image for file requests at /var/lib/postgresql/data.
However, the VOLUME instruction does come at a cost.
Users might not be aware of the unnamed volumes being created, and continuing to take up storage space on their Docker host after containers are removed.
There is no way to remove a volume declared in a Dockerfile. Downstream images cannot add data to paths where volumes exist.
The latter issue results in problems like these.
How to “undeclare” volumes in docker image?
GitLab on Docker: how to persist user data between deployments?
For the GitLab question, someone wants to extend the GitLab image with pre-configured data for testing purposes, but it's impossible to commit that data in a downstream image because of the VOLUME at /var/opt/gitlab in the parent image.
tl;dr: VOLUME was designed for a world before Docker 1.9. Best to just leave it out.
When a Dockerfile contains VOLUME instruction (say) VOLUME [/opt/apache2/www, ...] (hope this path exists in real installation), it means this path is going to be mounted to something (right?). And this VOLUME instruction is for the image and not for one instance of it (container) but for every instance.
Anyway irrespective of whether an image contains a VOLUME defined or not, at the time of starting a container the run command can create a volume by mapping a local host path to a container path.
docker run --name understanding_volumes -v /localhost/path1:/opt/apache2/www -v /localhost/path2:/any/container/path image_name
The above should make it clear that though /any/container/path is not defined as a VOLUME in Dockerfile, we are able to mount it while running container.
That said, this SOF question throws some light on it - What is the purpose of defining VOLUME mount points within DockerFile rather than adhoc cmd-line -v?. Here one benefit of VOLUME instruction is mentioned. Which is, other containers can benefit from it. Using the --from-container (could not find this option for docker run --help, not sure if the answer meant --volumes-from) Anyway thus the mount point is accessible to other container in some kind of automatic way. Great.
My first question is, is the other volume path /any/container/path image_name mounted on to the container understanding_volumes also available to the second container using --from-container or --volumes-from (whichever option is correct)?
My next question is, is the use of VOLUME instruction just to let the other containers link to this path --> that is to make the data on /opt/apache2/www available to other containers through easy linking. So it's just sharing out. Or is there any data that can be made available to first container too.
Defining a volume in a Dockerfile has the advantage of specifying the volume location inside the image definition as documentation from the image creator to the user of the image. That's just about the only upside.
It was added to docker very early on, quite possibly when data containers were the only way to persist data. We now have a solution for named volumes that has obsoleted data containers. We have also added the compose file to define how containers are run in an easy to understand and reuse syntax.
While there is the one upside of self documented images, there are quite a few downsides, to the point that I strongly recommend against defining a volume inside the image to my clients and anyone publishing images for general reuse:
The volume is forced on the end user, there's no way to undefine a volume in the image.
If the volume is not defined at runtime (with a -v or compose file), the user will see anonymous volumes in their docker volume ls that have no association to what created them. These are almost always useless wastes of disk space.
They break the ability to extend the image since any changes to a volume in an image after the VOLUME line are typically ignored by docker. This means a user can never add their own initial volume data, which is very confusing because docker gives no warning that it is ignoring the user changes during the image build.
If you need to have a volume as a user a runtime, you can always define it with a -v or compose file, even if that volume is not defined in the Dockerfile. Many users have the misconception that you must define it in the image to be able to make it a named volume at runtime.
The ability to use --volumes-from is unaffected by defining the volume in the image, but I'd encourage you to avoid this capability. It does not exist in swarm mode, and you can get all the same capabilities along with more granularity by using a named volume that you mount in two containers.
Let's say you are trying to dockerise a database (couchdb for example).
Then there are at least two assets you consider volumes for:
database files
log files
Let's further say you want to keep the db-files private but want to expose the log-files for later processing.
As far as I undestand the documentation, you have two options:
First option
define managed volumes for both, log- and db-files within the db-image
import these in a second container (you will get both) and work with the logs
Second option
create data container with a managed volume for the logs
create the db-image with a managed volume for the db-files only
import logs-volume from data container when running db-image
Two questions:
Are both options realy valid/ possible?
What is the better way to do it?
br volker
The answer to question 1 is that, yes both are valid and possible.
My answer to question 2 is that I would consider a different approach entirely and which one to choose depends on whether or not this is a mission critical system and that data loss must be avoided.
Mission critical
If you absolutely cannot lose your data, then I would recommend that you bind mount a reliable disk into your database container. Bind mounting is essentially mounting a part of the Docker Host filesystem into the container.
So taking the database files as an example, you could image these steps:
Create a reliable disk e.g. NFS that is backed-up on a regular basis
Attach this disk to your Docker host
Bind mount this disk into my database container which then writes database files to this disk.
So following the above example, lets say I have created a reliable disk that is shared over NFS and mounted on my Docker Host at /reliable/disk. To use that with my database I would run the following Docker command:
docker run -d -v /reliable/disk:/data/db my-database-image
This way I know that the database files are written to reliable storage. Even if I lose my Docker Host, I will still have the database files and can easily recover by running my database container on another host that can access the NFS share.
You can do exactly the same thing for the database logs:
docker run -d -v /reliable/disk/data/db:/data/db -v /reliable/disk/logs/db:/logs/db my-database-image
Additionally you can easily bind mount these volumes into other containers for separate tasks. You may want to consider bind mounting them as read-only into other containers to protect your data:
docker run -d -v /reliable/disk/logs/db:/logs/db:ro my-log-processor
This would be my recommended approach if this is a mission critical system.
Not mission critical
If the system is not mission critical and you can tolerate a higher potential for data loss, then I would look at Docker Volume API which is used precisely for what you want to do: managing and creating volumes for data that should live beyond the lifecycle of a container.
The nice thing about the docker volume command is that it lets you created named volumes and if you name them well it can be quite obvious to people what they are used for:
docker volume create db-data
docker volume create db-logs
You can then mount these volumes into your container from the command line:
docker run -d -v db-data:/db/data -v db-logs:/logs/db my-database-image
These volumes will survive beyond the lifecycle of your container and are stored on the filesystem if your Docker host. You can use:
docker volume inspect db-data
To find out where the data is being stored and back-up that location if you want to.
You may also want to look at something like Docker Compose which will allow you to declare all of this in one file and then create your entire environment through a single command.
I want to commit the data in a container's shared volume to an image. I cannot seem to do it? I kind of get the impression this perhaps is not possible in Docker but that seems totally at odds with the whole philosophy of not leaving data on the host so part of me thinks there must be a way to do this.
1. Terminal 1
Start up a container in Terminal 1 with a volume.
$ docker run -it -v /data ubuntu:14.10 /bin/bash
root#19fead4f6a68:/# echo "Hello Docker Volumes." > /data/foo.txt
2. Terminal 2
Start up a second container in Terminal 2 the file from container 1 is there so docker volumes are all working.
$ docker run -it --volumes-from 19fead4f6a68 ubuntu:14.10 /bin/bash
root#5c7cdbfc67d8:/# cat /data/foo.txt
Hello Docker Volumes.
3. Terminal 3
My understanding is that I can only commit diffs to images so I check what the diffs are on both the containers. For some bizarre reason my changes do not show up!??
$ docker diff 19fead4f6a68
A /data
$ docker diff 5c7cdbfc67d8
A /data
4. Back in Terminal 1
I create a file outside of the volume folder
root#19fead4f6a68:/# echo "Docker you are a very strange beast...." > /var/beast.txt
5. Back in Terminal 3
We now have some changes we can commit although I am rather frustrated as this is not the data from the volume I needed to share with my other container.
$ docker diff 19fead4f6a68
A /data
C /var
A /var/beast.txt
Clearly this is by design. Anyone have any ideas as to why docker don't allow me to save volume data to a commit? Is there anyway at all to share files between containers and then save them to an image? I feel like there must be something I am missing? Especially to the ends of sharing data whilst avoiding host dependencies.
Volumes are outside of container images. That's exactly what they are for - bringing data inside a container that isn't in the image.
From the Docker docs:
A data volume is a specially-designated directory within one or more containers that bypasses the Union File System to provide several useful features for persistent or shared data:
Data volumes can be shared and reused between containers
Changes to a data volume are made directly
Changes to a data volume will not be included when you update an image
If you want to save some changes as part of an image, make the changes inside the image and not in a volume. If you want to share changes across multiple containers, put that data in a volume but you have to make your own arrangements for snapshots, rollback, etc., because Docker doesn't have that feature.
Maybe you would be interested in Flocker.
It looks as though there is an open issue around adding volume layers to docker:
https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/9382
Is there any way currently to create a dynamically named volume during Docker's build process? I'd like to see something like:
sudo docker run -e MOUNT_POINT="/path/to/mount" module/sub-module
and then in the Dockerfile have something like:
ln -s /internal/path/to/storage $MOUNT_POINT
VOLUME [$MOUNT_POINT]
This would allow the highly valuable volumes-from directive to be used but each storage container built could have a variant mount point (and avoid colliding with a consumer who wanted to consume more than one data-volume-container).
Any ideas would be VERY welcome.
Here is how one should use volumes.
You have one container, say your application container for e.g. a database.
You have another container, say your volumes container actually holding your data.
You start your volumes container with the volumes parameter -v. Here you can name your volume dynamically.
You start your application container with the option --volumes-from using your volumes container.
See the docs for detailed information https://docs.docker.com/userguide/dockervolumes/