I created two docker containers with compose on Docker for Windows, using wordpress and mariadb. I've created a volume for wordpress that points to my PC's normal filesystem, but mariaDB's is still contained within the Hyper-V's Virtual Hard Disk.
The mount point is at /var/lib/docker/volumes/1995...ca3/_data
I've tried looking at previous answers, but the link that would explain how to backup, copy, or restore volumes redirects to a general volume explanation. Most plugins or scripts I've seen for Docker typically refers to a *nix environment.
Would anyone know of a modern method to export and import volumes mounted to Linux containers in Docker for Windows?
The way I normally do this is to start a container that mounts two volumes, the source volume and the destination volume, and I run a command in that container that copies the contents of one volume to another. I don't have a copy of windows at hand to find out how to copy all files recursively, but I'm sure it can do it quite easily.
Related
I am running windows 10 and the most recent version of docker. I am trying to run a docker image and transfer files to and from the image.
I have tried using the "docker cp" command, but from what I've seen online, this does not appear to work for docker images. It only works for containers.
When searching for info on this topic, I have only seen responses dealing with containers, not for images.
A docker image is basically a template used for containers. If you add something to the image it will show up in all of the containers. So if you just want to share a single set of files that don't change you can add the copy command to your docker file, and then run the new image and you'll find the container.
Another option is to use shared volumes. Shared volumes are basically folders that exist on both the host machine and the running docker container. If you move a file on the host system into that folder it will be available on the container (and if you put something from the container into the folder on the container side you can access it from the host side).
I want to create some docker images that generates text files. However, since images are pushed to Container Registry in GCP. I am not sure where the files will be generated to when I use kubectl run myImage. If I specify a path in the program, like '/usr/bin/myfiles', would they be downloaded to the VM instance where I am typing "kubectl run myImage"? I think this is probably not the case.. What is the solution?
Ideally, I would like all the files to be in one place.
Thank you
Container Registry and Kubernetes are mostly irrelevant to the issue of where a container will persist files it creates.
Some process running within a container that generates files will persist the files to the container instance's file system. Exceptions to this are stdout and stderr which are both available without further ado.
When you run container images, you can mount volumes into the container instance and this provides possible solutions to your needs. Commonly, when running Docker Engine, it's common to mount the host's file system into the container to share files between the container and the host: docker run ... --volume=[host]:[container] yourimage ....
On Kubernetes, there are many types of volumes. An seemingly obvious solution is to use gcePersistentDisk but this has a limitation in that it these disks may only be mounted for write on one pod at a time. A more powerful solution may be to use an NFS-based solution such as nfs or gluster. These should provide a means for you to consolidate files outside of the container instances.
A good solution but I'm unsure whether it is available, would be to write your files as Google Cloud Storage objects.
A tenet of containers is that they should operate without making assumptions about their environment. Your containers should not make assumptions about running on Kubernetes and should not make assumptions about non-default volumes. By this I mean, that your containers will write files to container's file system. When you run the container, you apply the configuration that e.g. provides an NFS volume mount or GCS bucket mount etc. that actually persists the files beyond the container.
HTH!
I want to know why we have two different options to do the same thing, What are the differences between the two.
We basically have 3 types of volumes or mounts for persistent data:
Bind mounts
Named volumes
Volumes in dockerfiles
Bind mounts are basically just binding a certain directory or file from the host inside the container (docker run -v /hostdir:/containerdir IMAGE_NAME)
Named volumes are volumes which you create manually with docker volume create VOLUME_NAME. They are created in /var/lib/docker/volumes and can be referenced to by only their name. Let's say you create a volume called "mysql_data", you can just reference to it like this docker run -v mysql_data:/containerdir IMAGE_NAME.
And then there's volumes in dockerfiles, which are created by the VOLUME instruction. These volumes are also created under /var/lib/docker/volumes but don't have a certain name. Their "name" is just some kind of hash. The volume gets created when running the container and are handy to save persistent data, whether you start the container with -v or not. The developer gets to say where the important data is and what should be persistent.
What should I use?
What you want to use comes mostly down to either preference or your management. If you want to keep everything in the "docker area" (/var/lib/docker) you can use volumes. If you want to keep your own directory-structure, you can use binds.
Docker recommends the use of volumes over the use of binds, as volumes are created and managed by docker and binds have a lot more potential of failure (also due to layer 8 problems).
If you use binds and want to transfer your containers/applications on another host, you have to rebuild your directory-structure, where as volumes are more uniform on every host.
Volumes are the preferred mechanism for persisting data generated by and used by Docker containers. While bind mounts are dependent on the directory structure of the host machine, volumes are completely managed by Docker. Volumes are often a better choice than persisting data in a container’s writable layer, because a volume does not increase the size of the containers using it, and the volume’s contents exist outside the lifecycle of a given container. More on
Differences between -v and --mount behavior
Because the -v and --volume flags have been a part of Docker for a long time, their behavior cannot be changed. This means that there is one behavior that is different between -v and --mount.
If you use -v or --volume to bind-mount a file or directory that does not yet exist on the Docker host, -v creates the endpoint for you. It is always created as a directory.
If you use --mount to bind-mount a file or directory that does not yet exist on the Docker host, Docker does not automatically create it for you, but generates an error. More on
Docker for Windows shared folders limitation
Docker for Windows does make much of the VM transparent to the Windows host, but it is still a virtual machine. For instance, when using –v with a mongo container, MongoDB needs something else supported by the file system. There is also this issue about volume mounts being extremely slow.
More on
Bind mounts are like a superset of Volumes (named or unnamed).
Bind mounts are created by binding an existing folder in the host system (host system is native linux machine or vm (in windows or mac)) to a path in the container.
Volume command results in a new folder, created in the host system under /var/lib/docker
Volumes are recommended because they are managed by docker engine (prune, rm, etc).
A good use case for bind mount is linking development folders to a path in the container. Any change in host folder will be reflected in the container.
Another use case for bind mount is keeping the application log which is not crucial like a database.
Command syntax is almost the same for both cases:
bind mount:
note that the host path should start with '/'. Use $(pwd) for convenience.
docker container run -v /host-path:/container-path image-name
unnamed volume:
creates a folder in the host with an arbitrary name
docker container run -v /container-path image-name
named volume:
should not start with '/' as this is reserved for bind mount.
'volume-name' is not a full path here. the command will cause a folder to be created with path "/var/lib/docker/volumes/volume-name" in the host.
docker container run -v volume-name:/container-path image-name
A named volume can also be created beforehand a container is run (docker volume create). But this is almost never needed.
As a developer, we always need to do comparison among the options provided by tools or technology. For Volume & Bind mounts, I would suggest to list down what kind of application you are trying to containerize.
Following are the parameters that I would consider before choosing Volume over Bind Mounts:
Docker provide various CLI commands to Volumes easily outside containers.
For backup & restore, Volume is far easier than Bind as it depends upon the underlying host OS.
Volumes are platform-agnostic so they can work on Linux as well as on Window containers.
With Bind, you have 2 technologies to take care of. Your host machine directory structure as well as Docker.
Migration of Volumes are easier not only on local machines but on cloud machines as well.
Volumes can be easily shared among multiple containers.
I have a Docker container and I am trying to make it so that all of the files in /var/www/ on the container will be saved on the host system at a location (/home/me), and vise-versa. Is it possible to have this shared space between the two?
Would you accomplish this with mount points, or is there a better method?
Thanks
You can use volumes for sharing between container and host.
docker run -v /home/me:/var/www <image>
If you have a fixed files/data, you can add to the image using dockerfile or committing after copying into container. If you want to share rw dir between host and container, you need to use the volumes. Your data will also be persisted even if you remove and recreate a new container.
There are three ways that you can do this
Use volumes. Official docs
Burn the files in your image. Basically include the creation of the files inside the Dockerfile. This means every container container from that image will have an initial state of sorts.
Use data-only containers. These are containers without a running process that contain the data that you need. This also uses volumes. But instead of mounting to the host, your containers mount on the data-only container (which in turn mounts on the host if you want to). This answer will be useful
I was reading Project Atomic's guidance for images which states that the 2 main use cases for using a volume are:-
sharing data between containers
when writing large files to disk
I have neither of these use cases in my example using an Nginx image. I intended to mount a host directory as a volume in the path of the Nginx docroot in the container. This is so that I can push changes to a website's contents into the host rather then addressing the container. I feel it is easier to use this approach since I can - for example - just add my ssh key once to the host.
My question is, is this an appropriate use of a data volume and if not can anyone suggest an alternative approach to updating data inside a container?
One of the primary reasons for using Docker is to isolate your app from the server. This means you can run your container anywhere and get the same result. This is my main use case for it.
If you look at it from that point of view, having your container depend on files on the host machine for a deployed environment is counterproductive- running the same container on a different machine may result in different output.
If you do NOT care about that, and are just using docker to simplify the installation of nginx, then yes you can just use a volume from the host system.
Think about this though...
#Dockerfile
FROM nginx
ADD . /myfiles
#docker-compose.yml
web:
build: .
You could then use docker-machine to connect to your remote server and deploy a new version of your software with easy commands
docker-compose build
docker-compose up -d
even better, you could do
docker build -t me/myapp .
docker push me/myapp
and then deploy with
docker pull
docker run
There's a number of ways to achieve updating data in containers. Host volumes are a valid approach and probably the simplest way to achieve making your data available.
You can also copy files into and out of a container from the host. You may need to commit afterwards if you are stopping and removing the running web host container at all.
docker cp /src/www webserver:/www
You can copy files into a docker image build from your Dockerfile, which is the same process as above (copy and commit). Then restart the webserver container from the new image.
COPY /src/www /www
But I think the host volume is a good choice.
docker run -v /src/www:/www webserver command
Docker data containers are also an option for mounted volumes but they don't solve your immediate problem of copying data into your data container.
If you ever find yourself thinking "I need to ssh into this container", you are probably doing it wrong.
Not sure if I fully understand your request. But why you need do that to push files into Nginx container.
Manage volume in separate docker container, that's my suggestion and recommend by Docker.io
Data volumes
A data volume is a specially-designated directory within one or more containers that bypasses the Union File System. Data volumes provide several useful features for persistent or shared data:
Volumes are initialized when a container is created. If the container’s base image contains data at the specified mount point, that existing data is copied into the new volume upon volume initialization.
Data volumes can be shared and reused among containers.
Changes to a data volume are made directly.
Changes to a data volume will not be included when you update an image.
Data volumes persist even if the container itself is deleted.
refer: Manage data in containers
As said, one of the main reasons to use docker is to achieve always the same result. A best practice is to use a data only container.
With docker inspect <container_name> you can know the path of the volume on the host and update data manually, but this is not recommended;
or you can retrieve data from an external source, like a git repository