I am running an Elasticsearch in a Docker container. To access this from an app running inside another container I can specify elasticsearch host as the machine local IP address on a Mac.
I want to bundle the es host config inside the image, to make it just work without external files, but the issue I have is the image will only work with that IP, so a different mac on the network will not be able to use the image as the es host config will not be correct.
Any ideas how I can use a single IP in the config that will work in all cases, regardless if IP changes?
Linking both containers solved the issue (thanks for suggestion héctor)
By creating a custom network and adding both containers to the network, this allows them to communicate.
I then set Elasticsearch host to container name (of es container), as Docker will automatically resolve the container name to its internal IP.
Created network e.g. docker network create mynet
used --network mynet when running both containers & specified --name
Specified elasticsearch host using container name e.g. es-container
Related
Here is my situation：
First，I run a MySQL container(IP:172.17.0.2) on centOS;
Then I run a Nacos contanier with specified datasource(MySQL above) on the same host, but i didn't use the ip of the MySQL container, instead I used the ip of the bridge Gateway(172.17.0.1)(two containers both link to the default bridge).
What surprised me was that Nacos works well, it can query config data from MySQL container normally.
How did this happen? I have read some documention but didn't get the answer.It really confused me.
On modern Docker installations, try to avoid using the default bridge network. docker network create a network (it doesn't need any special options, but it does need to be created) and then launch your containers on --net that network. If you're using Compose, it creates a ("user bridge") network named default for you.
On your CentOS host, if you run ifconfig, you should see a docker0 interface with the 172.17.0.1 address. When you launch a container with the docker run -p option, that container is accessible via the first port number on all host interfaces, including the docker0 interface.
Meanwhile, inside a container (on the default bridge network), it sees that same IP address as the normal IPv4 gateway address (try docker run --rm busybox route -n). So, when you connect to 172.17.0.1:3306, you're connecting out to the host, and then connecting to the published port of the database container.
This isn't a totally standard way to connect between containers, though it will work. You should prefer using Docker named networks, which will let you connect to another container using the container's name without manually doing any IP-address lookups. If you really can't move off of the default bridge network, then the standard approach is to --link to the other container, but this entire path is considered outdated.
My program is consisting of a network of ROS1 and ROS2 nodes, which are software that work with a publish/subscribe way of communication.
Assume there is 4 nodes running inside a custom network: onboard_network.
Those 4 nodes (ROS1) can only communicate together, therefore we have a bridge node (ROS1 & ROS2) that needs to be sitting on the edge on both onboard_network and host network. The reason why we need the host network is because the host is inside a VPN (Zerotier). Inside the VPN we have also our server (ROS2).
We also need the bride node to work with host network because ROS2 work with some multicast stuff that works only on host mode.
So basically, I want a docker compose file running 4 containers inside an onboard_network & a container running inside the host network. The last container needs to be seen from the containers in the onboard_network and being able to see them too. How could I do it ? Is it even possible ?
If you're running a container on the host network, its network setup is identical to a non-container process running on the host.
A container can't be set to use both host networking and Docker networking.
That means, for your network_mode: host container, it can call other containers using localhost as a hostname and their published ports: (because its network is the host's network). For your bridge-network containers, they can call the host-network container using the special hostname host.docker.internal on MacOS or Windows hosts, or on Linux they need to find some reachable IP address (this is discussed further in From inside of a Docker container, how do I connect to the localhost of the machine?.
For regular docker containers (say the hello world example), after you run it, it is accessible thought localhost, where you can make a request it through your browser.
But sometimes it seems to access a container you need a special IP address. I'm wondering what's this behavior of docker container networking called and where is it defined/documented.
Let's say my local ip address is 10.0.75.1 (got from Network properties in Windows settings named, vEthernet (DockerNAT)). But in order to connect to a container running I had to use ip address 10.0.75.2. Why is this?
If try to inspect existing docker networks using docker network [cmd], the containers seem to be on different subnets, for example '172.17.0.0/16'
we have two machine…one is windows machine and another in Linux machine. My application is running under Docker Container at Linux machine. our data base is running at Windows machine.our application need to get data from windows machine DB.
As we have given proper data source detail like IP, username ,password in our application. it works when we do not use docker container but when we use docker container it do not work.
Can anyone help me out to get this solution that how we can connect outside DB from Docker enabled application as we are totally new guys in term of Docker.
Any help would be much appreciated.
Container's default network is "bridge",you should choose macvlan or host network.
method 1
docker run -d --net host image
this container will share your host IP address and will be able to access your database.
method 2
Use docker network create command to create a macvlan network,refrence here
then create your container by
docker run -d --net YOURNETWORK image
The container will have an IP address which is the same gateway with its host.
There are a lot of issues that could be affecting your container's ability to communicate with your database. In the future you should compose your question with as much detail as possible. To correctly answer this you will, at a minimum, need to include the following details:
Linux distribution name & version
Docker version
Output of docker inspect from the container
Linux firewall configuration
Network configuration
Is your Windows machine running on the same local network / subnet as your Linux machine? If so, please provide information about the subnet, as the default bridge set up by Docker may restrict access to local resources, whereas those over a wide area network would still be accessible.
You can try passing the --network=host option to your docker run command like so: docker run --network=host <image name>. Doing so eliminates the need to specify port mappings in your run command, as they are ignored when using the host's network.
Please edit your question and include the above requested details to get a complete answer.
I would like to install or add a mysql instance in my docker container and would like to access that mysql instance in my application in another docker container. So basically I'm creating one docker container that contains my application and I want to access a mysql inside that container
You can connect using networks. Take a look at this file which builds a mysql container and connects it to a network. And then connects another container to the same network. The required container accesses the mysql container using its ip address and port. I had to use IP address due to following reasons.
The Docker embedded DNS server enables name resolution for containers connected to a given network. This means that any connected container can ping another container on the same network by its container name. From within container2, you can ping container3 by name.
This functionality is not available for the default bridge network.
Both container1 and container2 are connected to the bridge network,
but you cannot ping container1 from container2 using the container
name.
Source:Working with networks
While I was trying to do this process, I wrote about it in my blog. Might help you.