I can't understand one thing. I read about images and AUFS file system and I think that I got it. However, when I look at iso file on ubuntu site it is meaningfully more than 100MB. Where is key ? In graphical enviroment? (eg. KDE)
Docker Images are minimal meaning, they contain only a few number of libraries (needed libraries). They don't include kernel, because containers use docker host's kernel.
You can download and inspect official ubuntu cloud image (source of library/ubuntu yekkety) from here.
Another thing to note: Base images usually don't include window managers and desktop environments.
Related
I am a completely newbie when it comes to containers.
I am particularly interested into Windows Containers running in Process Isolation (not Hyper-V Isolation)
I have been doing a lot of reading and watching of videos but there is one fundamental question which has not be explained to me in the reading I have done so far.
Is it mandatory for Every Windows Container/Image to include a base image/layer of either nanoserver or servercore?
What confuses me are comments such as those made at 5m35sec in the following video;
Windows Container 101 Video on Channel9
He makes a statement (and I'm paraphrasing)
"that the only thing necessary to build a docker image is a statically
linked binary."
That to me implies that if my HOST operating system which is running the containers has all the dependencies necessary then it is possible to virtualise the kernel from the base operating system negating the requirement for a base operating system image/layer in the docker image.
What am I missing? Why do i need the nanoserver or servercore base image layer?
If my Host operating system is v1903 and the docker image requires a kernel of v1903 why can't it virtualise the kernel from the HOST operating system?
Thanks in Advance!
The basic thought of docker is to reuse the kernel of host system, see this for windows container:
Windows Server containers provide application isolation through process and namespace isolation technology, which is why these containers are also referred to as process-isolated containers. A Windows Server container shares a kernel with the container host and all containers running on the host. These process-isolated containers don't provide a hostile security boundary and shouldn't be used to isolate untrusted code. Because of the shared kernel space, these containers require the same kernel version and configuration.
But as you know, to make an os run, just kernel is not enough, you need the file system.
So, this is the root of base image comes, see this.
A file system is built up from a series of layers, this make you have possibility to separate some layers to one image, while separate other layers to another image. With base image, that is nanoserver or servercore here, different apps could reuse the same base image, and put just app binary to built upon the base images.
Just as next diagram shows: different container with its own binary could share the base images (ubuntu15.04 here for example), and every container's image plus the shared common image could be a complete file system to make container run.
I want to start writing a Docker image. I have a .net Core 2.0 Web Api service that I have deployed to an Amazon Linux machine. It runs fine, but I would like to automate the build and deployment process a bit.
As far as I am concerned, there is no need for a Parent image for the image I need to build. I might grab some files from a location, run some dotnet CLI commands, and run the service using Apache as a reverse proxy. I dont really see the need for a parent image in any of that.
I am asking this question because most of the examples I have seen include a base image. Most of the time its something very generic, like "From Ubuntu". I have read that most images will include a parent image. According to Docker's documentation:
A parent image is the image that your image is based on. It refers to the contents of the FROM directive in the Dockerfile. Each subsequent declaration in the Dockerfile modifies this parent image. Most Dockerfiles start from a parent image, rather than a base image. However, the terms are sometimes used interchangeably.
What exactly is the point of inheriting from Ubuntu? Even the Docker docs suggest using Debian "since it’s very tightly controlled and kept minimal". Does that just ensure that your Linux machine has an Ubuntu distribution? Does it even matter if I am using Amazon Linux but use the Debian image as my base?
A Docker image runs in a set of filesystem namespaces which are unconnected from the host's except where you've chosen to bind-mount a volume. This means that tools installed on the host are unavailable to the container: Just because the host runs Amazon Linux doesn't mean that the userspace commands Amazon Linux provides (and the libraries those commands use to run) are available to the guests.
Without a Linux distro available inside the container, you wouldn't have a package management tool (yum, apt-get, etc) with which to install the tools you need to download a file, run software (that presumably needs to be linked to a libc, a copy of OpenSSL, or other shared components). There are also runtime parts of a working Linux system such as the resolver that are provided in userland by your distro and not shared from the host in a Docker install.
Using a base image ensures that you have tools available inside your container -- and it ensures that that container will work consistently on any Linux system with a compatible kernel and hardware architecture.
It's possible in theory to bind-mount many of the tools from the host (as by exposing all of /usr as a volume), but doing so would defeat many of the advantages Docker offers in portability.
this might seems a stupid question, but here I am :
I'm running Ubuntu 16.04 and managed to install windows 10 in dual boot.
Running docker exclusively in linux so far, I decided to give it a try on Windows 10.
As I already downloaded several docker images on my Linux system, I'm willing to have a "shared" like development environment. I must admit this would be a waste of time and disk space to download Docker images I already downloaded before (on linux) on my fresh windows install.
So my question is simple : Can I use my linux images / containers on windows. I'm thinking of something like a global path variable pointing to my linux images to configure on docker windows.
Any idea if this is possible, and if yes, the pros and cons and the caveats ?
Thanks for helping me on this one.
Well i would suggest to create your local registry and then push these images there and pull it in your windows docker.
Sonatype nexus(artifact storage repository) can be used to store your docker images. Check if this helps.
I guess it's not possible to share the same folder (to reduce disk usage) since the stored files are totally different:
Under Windows the file is:
C:\Users\Public\Documents\Hyper-V\Virtual hard disks \MobyLinuxVM.vhdx
the vhdx extension is specific to MS systems.
and under linux it consist of 2 files:
/var/lib/docker/devicemapper/devicemapper/data
/var/lib/docker/devicemapper/devicemapper/metadata
see here for details
Where are Docker images stored on the host machine?
The technology under this is to have a specific fileSystem optimal for docker. Even if they used the same fileSystem storage, it wouldn't be a good idea imho.
If the purpose is only to gain time for resintalling, just dump all the images from on system, and re-pull them on the other one.
docker images --format "{{.Repository}}" > image-list.txt
then loop on the other OS
while read p; do
docker pull $p
done < image-listtxt
I am trying to wrap my head around the Docker architecture, in particular figuring out what exactly a base image consists of, and in doing I have been exploring some of the images found on the docker hub. Specifically when looking at the following repo it references the centos-7.2.1511-docker.tar.xz file.
I've downloaded and examined the contents of the tar and it has your typical Linux filesystem.
As I understand it, this is not a complete Linux OS and is just a replica of a linux filesystem with all the non essentials removed? Where all other requirements are drawn from the Host OS when a container is run(?)
My question essentially boils down to how one would go about creating that tar file? What exactly do you need. My intention is not to create one but rather understand what portion of files/data/dependencies come from a target OS to create an image and what gets used on the Host OS
A Docker container is a set of processes, running a sandbox enabled by Linux namespaces, on top of the host kernel.
A Docker image is a set of layers, which are often simply tarballs, of files that are unpacked, and made to look as if they are the root of the filesystem when used to start a container.
A Docker image could be just a single statically-linked executable! You can create your own Docker image from scratch by simply creating a tarball of a single executable, and giving it to docker load which wI'll store it as the appropriate internal format and register it as an image.
As you can see then, a Docker image need not be much. It certainly doesn't need a kernel, or any of the components normally used for configuring the system, networking daemons, or even things like cron. Those are all left to the host.
Things that are usually available in an image are a dynamic library runtime, and files like /etc/hosts, /etc/resolv.conf, and other files which are referenced directly by libc. This allows you to add typical dynamically-linked executables which interact with the system as if they're running on a traditionalal OS.
I have successfully "Dockerized" a legacy CentOS 6-based VM by uninstalling as many packages as possible, then tar-ing up the filesystem (excluding directories like /proc, /sys, /dev, etc.) and loading this via docker load. Afterwards, I started a container and (sometimes forcefully) removed additional "system" packages that serve no purpose in a Docker image, like kernel, udev, etc.
This blog post goes into some of the specifics of docker load:
http://tuhrig.de/difference-between-save-and-export-in-docker/
I just get started with docker.
I'm really confused what should be packed as a docker image?
In docker hub, I can find a complete OS as a docker image: ubuntu, centos...
as well as popular platform and database like: nodejs, mongodb...
It seems to me docker hub is just like a software repository.
should everything be packed as an image? how about just a command line tool like: ls, cd, git??? they are also software, what is qualified to be a docker image??
please help clarify
Docker will provide some isolation between the programs in the image, and your host environment. In a docker image, one may package anything from a single binary, to a full environment (everything but the linux kernel).
See it as a convenience. It provides a convenient form to deploy programs that require a complex environment that may conflict with the programs installed on the host. For instance, if you're trying to package a webapp (e.g. some blog software), the docker container will allow you to ship your application code, along with a tested version of its interpreter (php, python, etc), a compatible webserver, and maybe a database environment -- together. From the perspective of the user installing your container/app, nothing else than the container is needed to run the app. It's all self-contained, and it's simpler than setting up a virtual machine.
If your binaries in the image depend on an ls command, then you'd include that as well. Generally, in the image, you include a binary (the entry point), as well as all its dependencies.
If you're familiar with chroots, you may see a docker image as a fancy chroot where the network, and process address space are also isolated, in addition to the file system.
You can think of dockerhub as an app-store.