How to use confluent/cp-kafka image in docker compose with exposing on localhost and my network container name kafka?
Do not link this as duplicate of:
Connect to docker kafka container from localhost and another docker container
Cannot produce message to kafka from service running in docker
These do not solve my issue because the methods they use are depreciated by confluent/cp-kafka and I want to connect on localhost and on the docker network.
In the configure script on confluent/cp-kafka they do this annoying task:
# By default, LISTENERS is derived from ADVERTISED_LISTENERS by replacing
# hosts with 0.0.0.0. This is good default as it ensures that the broker
# process listens on all ports.
if [[ -z "${KAFKA_LISTENERS-}" ]]
then
export KAFKA_LISTENERS
KAFKA_LISTENERS=$(cub listeners "$KAFKA_ADVERTISED_LISTENERS")
fi
It always sets whatever I give KAFKA_ADVERTISED_LISTENERS to 0.0.0.0! Using the docker network, doing
KAFKA_ADVERTISED_LISTENERS: PLAINTEXT://localhost:9093,PLAINTEXT://kafka:9093
I expect the listeners to be either localhost:9092 or 0.0.0.0:9092 and some docker ip PLAINTEXT://172.17.0.1:9093 (whatever kafka resolves to on the docker network)
Currently I can get only one or the other to work. So using localhost, it only works on the host system, no docker containers can access it. Using kafka, it only works in the docker network, no host applications can access it. I want it to work with both. I am using docker compose so that I can have zookeeper, kafka, redis, and my application start up. I have other applications that will startup without docker.
Update
So when I set PLAINTEXT://localhost:9092 I can access kafka running docker, outside of docker.
When I set PLAINTEXT://kafka:9092 I cannot access kafka running docker, outside of docker.
This is expected, however doing this: PLAINTEXT://localhost:9092,PLAINTEXT://kafka:9093 I would expect to access kafka running docker, both inside and outside docker. The confluent/cp-kafka image is wiping out localhost and kafka. Setting them both to 0.0.0.0, then throwing an error that I set 2 different ports to the same ip...
Maybe I'm just clashing into some opinionated docker image and should look for a different image...
Maybe I'm just clashing into some opinionated docker image and should look for a different image...
The image is fine. You might want to read this explanation of the listeners.
tl;dr - you don't want to (and shouldn't?) use the same listener "protocol" in different networks.
Use the advertised.listeners, no need to edit the listeners
KAFKA_ADVERTISED_LISTENERS: PLAINTEXT://broker:9092,PLAINTEXT_HOST://localhost:29092
When PLAINTEXT://localhost:9093 is being loaded inside of the container, you need to add port mappings for 9093, which should be self explanatory, and you connect to localhost:9093 and it should work.
Then, if you also had PLAINTEXT://kafka:9092, that will only work within the Docker Compose network overlay, not externally to your DNS servers, because that's how Docker networking works. You should be able to run other applications as part of that Docker network with the --network flag, or link containers using Docker Compose
Keep in mind that if you're running on Mac, the recommended way (as per the Confluent docs) is to run these containers in Docker Machine, in a VM, where you can manage the external port mappings correctly using the --net=host flag of Docker. However, using the blog above, it all works fine on a Mac outside a VM.
Related
Context, I'm currently dockerizing an application in windows containers, the application
will connect to a Sql Server database from outside the container, normally working with linux containers I could use host driver, but since that is not available in windows containers. How could I connect to that database outside my windows container?
So, the answers provided before are all valid. I'd just add that while Host network is not available on Windows, you can still use the same concept - albeit a bit different.
The native network driver on Windows is Network Address Translation. With that driver, the container will get a private IP address and the ports from the container host can be mapped to the ports on the container, by use of the docker run -p 8080:80, for example.
That way, if you want to continue to use the option to call the localhost between the app container and the database container you can. You just need to specify the port: localhost:8080. Note that if the host is not using that port, you can even map it directly, such as: docker run -p 80:80. The caveat here is: The container host cannot be using the port already, and you can't map the same port to another container. So, if you need another instance, you can map to something like: docker run -p 81:80.
I blogged about this here: https://cda.ms/4nB
I'm trying to build and run a simple Docker container (using docker-compose to do this) on a GCP Instance (Ubuntu 20.04), and it seems that the container cannot access the internet, unless I run it using
docker run --net=host [...]
or use in my docker-compose.yml something like:
service:
build:
...
network: host
network_mode: host
...
I'm wondering why it is so, that a simple docker container on a standard GCP instance with Ubuntu 20.04 should require some specific configuration to access Internet, and why I see almost no mention of this while searching for this issue on the web.
Am I doing something wrong, is there a better way to do this?
See Container networking for Docker and the principle is applied consistently across other container runtimes too.
Using --net=host or network_mode: host binds container(s) to the host's network.
Rather than broadly publishing all of a container's or service's ports to the host network (and thus making them host public), you can be more precise using --publish=[HOST-PORT]:[CONTAINER-PORT] or ports to expose container ports as host ports (and potentially remap these too).
One (of several advantages) to the not-published-by-default behavior is that you must take a second step to publish a container's ports to a host where there is increased possibility that the service may be accessed (via its ports) by undesired actors.
I have a container for which I expose my port to access a service running within the container. I am not exposing my ports outside the container i.e. to the host (using host network on mac). On getting inside the container using exec -t and running a curl for a post request, I get the error:
curl command: curl http://localhost:19999
Failed connect to localhost:19999; Connection refused.
I have the expose command in my dockerfile and do not want to expose ports to my host. My service is also up and running inside the container. I also have the property within config set as
"ExposedPorts": {"19999/tcp": {}}
(obtained through `docker inspect <container id/name>\ Any idea on why this is not working? Using docker for Mac
I'd post my docker-compose file too but this is being built through maven. I can ensure that I am exposing my port using 19999:19999. Another weird issue is that on disabling my proxies it would run a very light weight command for my custom service and wouldn't run it again returning the same error as above. The issue only occurs on my machine and not others
Hints:
The app must be listening on port 19999 which is probably not.
The EXPOSE that you're using inside the Dockerfile does nothing.
Usually there is no need to change the default port on which an application is listening, hence each container has its own IP and you shouldn't run in a port conflict.
Answer:
Instead of curling 19999 try to use the default port on which your app would normally be listening to(it's hard to guess what you are trying to run).
If you don't publish a port (with the docker run -p option or the Docker Compose ports: option), you cannot directly reach the container on Docker for Mac. See the Known limitations, use cases, and workarounds in the Docker Desktop for Mac documentation: the "per-container IP addressing is not possible" item ism what you're trying to attempt.
The docker inspect IP address is basically useless, except in one very specific Docker configuration (on a native-Linux host, calling from outside of Docker, on the same host); I wouldn't bother looking it up.
The Dockerfile EXPOSE directive and similar runtime options do very little and mostly serve as documentation. Even if you have that configured you still need to separately publish the port when you start the container to reach it from outside of Docker space.
I have a computer currently hosting the zookeeper and kafka servers.
I also have, in the same machine, a script that consumes messages sent to the local kafka server. The consumer script works as intended if I run it directly.
I want to run the consumer script from inside a docker container.
I have successfully built and run a container that runs the consumer script, but it waits forever for the kafka messages.
How can I make the kafka messages be redirected into the container? Is the only way to do this to host the zookeeper and kafka servers directly in the container?
By default, the consumer script's container is isolated from the host networking stack. The Kafka consumer needs to be able to see your brokers and Zookeeper instances running on your host machine.
There are number of solutions to this issue discussed here: Forward host port to docker container
A simple short-term solution is running your container on host networking by passing in --network=host, allowing the consumer container to share namespace with the host (e.g. you can use 'localhost:9092'). Note that this only works on Linux hosts.
Docker docs on using host networking: https://docs.docker.com/network/host/
An application server is running as one Docker container and database running in another container. IP address of the database server is obtained as:
sudo docker inspect -f '{{ .NetworkSettings.IPAddress }}' db
Setting up JDBC resource in the application server to point to the database gives "java.net.ConnectException".
Linking containers is not an option since that only works on the same host.
How do I ensure that IP address of the database container is visible to the application server container?
If you want private networking between docker containers on remote hosts you can use weave to setup an overlay network between docker containers. If you don't need a private network just expose the ports using the -p switch and configure the addresses of the host machine as the destination IP in the required docker container.
One simple way to solve this would be using Weave. It allows you to create many application-specific networks that can span multiple hosts as well as datacenters. It also has a very neat DNS-based service discovery mechanism.
I should disclaim, I am one of Weave engineering team.
Linking containers is not an option since that only works on the same host.
So are you saying your application is a container running on docker server 1 and your db is a container on docker server 2? If so, you treat it like ordinary remote hosts. Your DB port needs to be exposed on docker server 2 and that IP:port needs to be configured into your application server, typically via environment variables.
The per host docker subnetwork is a Private Network. It's perhaps possible to have this address be routable, but it would be much pain. And it's further complicated because container IP's are not static.
What you need to do is publish the ports/services up to the host (via PORT in dockerfile and -p in your docker run) Then you just do host->host. You can resolve hosts by IP, Environment Variables, or good old DNS.
Few things were missing that were not allowing the cross-container communication:
WildFly was not bound to 0.0.0.0 and thus was only accepting requests on eht0. This was fixed using "-b 0.0.0.0".
Firewall was not allowing the containers to communication. This was removed using "systemctl stop firewall; systemctl disable firewall"
Virtual Box image required a Host-only adapter
After this, the containers are able to communicate. Complete details are available at:
http://blog.arungupta.me/2014/12/wildfly-javaee7-mysql-link-two-docker-container-techtip65/