Get docker-compose.yml file location from running container? - docker

I have a few running docker containers created by executing docker-compose up.
Is there any way to get the exact file path of the corresponding docker-compose.yml file used to start these containers, just by inspecting the running containers?
As far as I can see, docker inspect CONTAINER_NAME does not provide this information, nor does docker-compose provide a method to get compose-related information from a running container.
What I'd like to do in a script:
list certain running containers on a docker host
get the corresponding docker-compose.yml file locations
use docker-compose to restart all containers of the corresponding docker-compose projects at once

The answer to this question seems to have changed with new versions of docker-compose.
There is a label "com.docker.compose.project.working_dir": "/var/opt/docker", that points to the directory where I started docker-compose. I have not checked if that is pwd or the actual location of the docker-compose.yml file.
This got me interesting information about docker-compose:
samuel#vmhost1:~$ docker inspect fc440a1afbaa | grep com.docker.compose
"com.docker.compose.config-hash": "89069285a4783b79b421ea84f2b652becbdee148fbad095a6d9d85aab67ececc",
"com.docker.compose.container-number": "1",
"com.docker.compose.oneoff": "False",
"com.docker.compose.project": "docker",
"com.docker.compose.project.config_files": "docker-compose.yml",
"com.docker.compose.project.working_dir": "/var/opt/docker",
"com.docker.compose.service": "jenkins",
"com.docker.compose.version": "1.25.0"
samuel#vmhost1:~$
I'm running docker-compose.yml configuration version 3.6

It is not currently possible.
As an alternative might find the following helpful:
Use docker ps -a | grep <certain_container>
Use locate docker-compose.yml and find the one that you want
Use docker-compose restart (do docker-compose to see option)

You can identify it using the inspect command, as follow:
docker inspect <container_id> | grep compose

Update: Since this was asked, docker compose v2 was released, which is written in Go and accessible from docker compose instead of docker-compose (there may also be a shim directing docker-compose to this new version depending on your install). This version now embeds the directory into the image labels that you can retrieve with:
docker container inspect ${container_name_or_id} \
--format '{{ index .Config.Labels "com.docker.compose.project.working_dir" }}'
This isn't perfect for the OP's request since there may be more than one compose file, the file could be located in a different directory from where compose was run, and it doesn't capture things like environment variables or profiles that may modify how compose starts the project. However I suspect it gets most people close enough to find the source.
If you're using an older version of compose, you can use one of the options in the original answer below:
As far as I can see, docker inspect CONTAINER_NAME does not provide
this information, nor does docker-compose provide a method to get
compose-related information from a running container.
From an already running container that you do not control, the information is not there. You can infer the location using bind mount directories if the container creates any host mounts to relative directories. Otherwise, it's possible to deploy containers without compose, and it's possible to use compose without a compose file on the filesystem (piped via stdin), and compose does not store these details on running containers for you.
What I'd like to do in a script:
list certain running containers on a docker host
get the corresponding docker-compose.yml file locations
use docker-compose to restart all containers of the corresponding docker-compose projects at once
If you just want to run a restart on all containers in the same project, you don't need the first two steps, or even docker-compose. Instead, you can run:
docker ps --filter "label=com.docker.compose.project=${your_compose_project}" -q \
| xargs docker restart
Which uses a label docker-compose adds to each project it deploys.
If you want to proactively store the compose file location for later use, you can inject that as a label in your compose file:
version: '2'
services:
test:
image: busybox
command: tail -f /dev/null
labels:
COMPOSE_PATH: ${PWD} # many Linux shells define the PWD variable
If your shell does not set a ${PWD} environment variable, you can start compose with:
PWD=$(pwd) docker-compose up -d
Then you can later inspect containers for this label's value with:
docker inspect --format '{{.Config.Labels.COMPOSE_PATH}}' ${your_container_id}
And you can chain a filter and inspect command together to find the path for a specific project:
docker ps --filter "label=com.docker.compose.project=${your_compose_project}" -q \
| xargs docker inspect --format '{{.Config.Labels.COMPOSE_PATH}}'

you know, your question turns to be a useful answer to the same issue I have.
I used docker inspect <containerID> and then it gave me the location that I should look into. specifically in these lines:
HostConfig": {
"Binds": [
....
...
],

If you mounted a local volume, e.g ./data then inspecting the container will give you the path, e.g docker inspect peertube_peertube_1 | jq .[0].HostConfig.Binds. It doesn't work for containers without volumes but it's rare enough.

Related

Completely reset a single service in Docker Compose, including deleting the volumes?

I want to recreate a service, including its volumes. The closest I got was the following commands:
docker-compose stop foo
docker-compose rm -f foo
docker-compose up --renew-anon-volumes -d foo
docker-compose start foo
The issue here is --renew-anon-volumes recreates all services that have anonymous volumes, not just foo's volumes. If I don't use --renew-anon-volumes, then I think I need a named volume to do docker volume rm myvolume. However, with named volumes, Docker Compose always prepends a project name. Since my script doesn't know the project name, I can't programmatically delete the volume. I can't enforce that the user uses a particular project name. I know I can set the project name using an environment variable, but there's no guarantee that the user won't run Docker Compose with a different project name.
I think there are 2 potential solutions:
Make --renew-anon-volumes only recreate the volumes for the service I specified
Use a named volume and somehow figure out the correct prefix
Are either of these doable, or is there another solution?
Many roads leading to Rome, depending on your prerequisites:
Do docker volume ls and regex the result for your named volume (just working if volume name is unique)
Use external volumes and volume create them with known names by bootstrap script before running docker-compose up (not working if volumes must be instantiated)
Set project name to a known value. Normally it takes the folder name, but can explicitly given in docker-compose command (-p NAME) or by environment variable (COMPOSE_PROJECT_NAME=NAME).
Setup a dummy compose-file just containing this single service with its volumes for your script. Doing a docker-compose -f 'your-down-file.yml' down -v which removes all named and anonymous volumes belonging to this service and docker-compose -f .. up on this file.
Edit (#DavidMaze):
You're right, docker compose recognizes that fact. But it does NOT remove it, just warning. If you want to remove all "orphans" you need the flag --remove-orphans.
But for some reasons the down does not remove volumes then, even if flag -v is given. This could be reported because it is not behaving like described.
And errata: the flag -f must go before up/down and not after!
docker-compose rm has a -v option to delete anonymous volumes attached to a container, and also a -s option to stop the container. For your particular use case it should be enough to:
docker-compose rm -s -f -v foo
docker-compose up -d foo
This will only help for anonymous volumes, that is, where the Compose file has volumes: with only a container path and there is no corresponding top-level volumes: entry. I don't immediately see a Compose option to list, remove, or otherwise manage named volumes that Compose created.

How to restart the ROS docker container with GUI enabled [duplicate]

Let's say I have pulled the official mysql:5.6.21 image.
I have deployed this image by creating several docker containers.
These containers have been running for some time until MySQL 5.6.22 is released. The official image of mysql:5.6 gets updated with the new release, but my containers still run 5.6.21.
How do I propagate the changes in the image (i.e. upgrade MySQL distro) to all my existing containers? What is the proper Docker way of doing this?
After evaluating the answers and studying the topic I'd like to summarize.
The Docker way to upgrade containers seems to be the following:
Application containers should not store application data. This way you can replace app container with its newer version at any time by executing something like this:
docker pull mysql
docker stop my-mysql-container
docker rm my-mysql-container
docker run --name=my-mysql-container --restart=always \
-e MYSQL_ROOT_PASSWORD=mypwd -v /my/data/dir:/var/lib/mysql -d mysql
You can store data either on host (in directory mounted as volume) or in special data-only container(s). Read more about it
About volumes (Docker docs)
Tiny Docker Pieces, Loosely Joined (by Tom Offermann)
How to deal with persistent storage (e.g. databases) in Docker (Stack Overflow question)
Upgrading applications (eg. with yum/apt-get upgrade) within containers is considered to be an anti-pattern. Application containers are supposed to be immutable, which shall guarantee reproducible behavior. Some official application images (mysql:5.6 in particular) are not even designed to self-update (apt-get upgrade won't work).
I'd like to thank everybody who gave their answers, so we could see all different approaches.
I don't like mounting volumes as a link to a host directory, so I came up with a pattern for upgrading docker containers with entirely docker managed containers. Creating a new docker container with --volumes-from <container> will give the new container with the updated images shared ownership of docker managed volumes.
docker pull mysql
docker create --volumes-from my_mysql_container [...] --name my_mysql_container_tmp mysql
By not immediately removing the original my_mysql_container yet, you have the ability to revert back to the known working container if the upgraded container doesn't have the right data, or fails a sanity test.
At this point, I'll usually run whatever backup scripts I have for the container to give myself a safety net in case something goes wrong
docker stop my_mysql_container
docker start my_mysql_container_tmp
Now you have the opportunity to make sure the data you expect to be in the new container is there and run a sanity check.
docker rm my_mysql_container
docker rename my_mysql_container_tmp my_mysql_container
The docker volumes will stick around so long as any container is using them, so you can delete the original container safely. Once the original container is removed, the new container can assume the namesake of the original to make everything as pretty as it was to begin.
There are two major advantages to using this pattern for upgrading docker containers. Firstly, it eliminates the need to mount volumes to host directories by allowing volumes to be directly transferred to an upgraded containers. Secondly, you are never in a position where there isn't a working docker container; so if the upgrade fails, you can easily revert to how it was working before by spinning up the original docker container again.
Just for providing a more general (not mysql specific) answer...
In short
Synchronize with service image registry (https://docs.docker.com/compose/compose-file/#image):
docker-compose pull
Recreate container if docker-compose file or image have changed:
docker-compose up -d
Background
Container image management is one of the reason for using docker-compose
(see https://docs.docker.com/compose/reference/up/)
If there are existing containers for a service, and the service’s configuration or image was changed after the container’s creation, docker-compose up picks up the changes by stopping and recreating the containers (preserving mounted volumes). To prevent Compose from picking up changes, use the --no-recreate flag.
Data management aspect being also covered by docker-compose through mounted external "volumes" (See https://docs.docker.com/compose/compose-file/#volumes) or data container.
This leaves potential backward compatibility and data migration issues untouched, but these are "applicative" issues, not Docker specific, which have to be checked against release notes and tests...
I would like to add that if you want to do this process automatically (download, stop and restart a new container with the same settings as described by #Yaroslav) you can use WatchTower. A program that auto updates your containers when they are changed https://github.com/v2tec/watchtower
Consider for this answers:
The database name is app_schema
The container name is app_db
The root password is root123
How to update MySQL when storing application data inside the container
This is considered a bad practice, because if you lose the container, you will lose the data. Although it is a bad practice, here is a possible way to do it:
1) Do a database dump as SQL:
docker exec app_db sh -c 'exec mysqldump app_schema -uroot -proot123' > database_dump.sql
2) Update the image:
docker pull mysql:5.6
3) Update the container:
docker rm -f app_db
docker run --name app_db --restart unless-stopped \
-e MYSQL_ROOT_PASSWORD=root123 \
-d mysql:5.6
4) Restore the database dump:
docker exec app_db sh -c 'exec mysql -uroot -proot123' < database_dump.sql
How to update MySQL container using an external volume
Using an external volume is a better way of managing data, and it makes easier to update MySQL. Loosing the container will not lose any data. You can use docker-compose to facilitate managing multi-container Docker applications in a single host:
1) Create the docker-compose.yml file in order to manage your applications:
version: '2'
services:
app_db:
image: mysql:5.6
restart: unless-stopped
volumes_from: app_db_data
app_db_data:
volumes: /my/data/dir:/var/lib/mysql
2) Update MySQL (from the same folder as the docker-compose.yml file):
docker-compose pull
docker-compose up -d
Note: the last command above will update the MySQL image, recreate and start the container with the new image.
Similar answer to above
docker images | awk '{print $1}' | grep -v 'none' | grep -iv 'repo' | xargs -n1 docker pull
Here's what it looks like using docker-compose when building a custom Dockerfile.
Build your custom Dockerfile first, appending a next version number to differentiate. Ex: docker build -t imagename:version . This will store your new version locally.
Run docker-compose down
Edit your docker-compose.yml file to reflect the new image name you set at step 1.
Run docker-compose up -d. It will look locally for the image and use your upgraded one.
-EDIT-
My steps above are more verbose than they need to be. I've optimized my workflow by including the build: . parameter to my docker-compose file. The steps looks this now:
Verify that my Dockerfile is what I want it to look like.
Set the version number of my image name in my docker-compose file.
If my image isn't built yet: run docker-compose build
Run docker-compose up -d
I didn't realize at the time, but docker-compose is smart enough to simply update my container to the new image with the one command, instead of having to bring it down first.
If you do not want to use Docker Compose, I can recommend portainer. It has a recreate function that lets you recreate a container while pulling the latest image.
You need to either rebuild all the images and restart all the containers, or somehow yum update the software and restart the database. There is no upgrade path but that you design yourself.
Taking from http://blog.stefanxo.com/2014/08/update-all-docker-images-at-once/
You can update all your existing images using the following command pipeline:
docker images | awk '/^REPOSITORY|\<none\>/ {next} {print $1}' | xargs -n 1 docker pull
Make sure you are using volumes for all the persistent data (configuration, logs, or application data) which you store on the containers related to the state of the processes inside that container. Update your Dockerfile and rebuild the image with the changes you wanted, and restart the containers with your volumes mounted at their appropriate place.
Tried a bunch of things from here, but this worked out for me eventually.
IF you have AutoRemove: On on the Containers you can't STOP and EDIT the contianers, or a Service is running that can't be stopped even momentarily,
You must:
PULL latest image --> docker pull [image:latest]
Verify if the correct image is pulled, you can see the UNUSED tag in the Portainer Images section
UPDATE the service using Portainer or CLI and make sure you use LATEST VERSION of the image, Portainer will give you the option to do same.
THis would not only UPDATE the Container with Latest Image, but also keep the Service Running.
This is something I've also been struggling with for my own images. I have a server environment from which I create a Docker image. When I update the server, I'd like all users who are running containers based on my Docker image to be able to upgrade to the latest server.
Ideally, I'd prefer to generate a new version of the Docker image and have all containers based on a previous version of that image automagically update to the new image "in place." But this mechanism doesn't seem to exist.
So the next best design I've been able to come up with so far is to provide a way to have the container update itself--similar to how a desktop application checks for updates and then upgrades itself. In my case, this will probably mean crafting a script that involves Git pulls from a well-known tag.
The image/container doesn't actually change, but the "internals" of that container change. You could imagine doing the same with apt-get, yum, or whatever is appropriate for you environment. Along with this, I'd update the myserver:latest image in the registry so any new containers would be based on the latest image.
I'd be interested in hearing whether there is any prior art that addresses this scenario.
Update
This is mainly to query the container not to update as building images is the way to be done
I had the same issue so I created docker-run, a very simple command-line tool that runs inside a docker container to update packages in other running containers.
It uses docker-py to communicate with running docker containers and update packages or run any arbitrary single command
Examples:
docker run --rm -v /var/run/docker.sock:/tmp/docker.sock itech/docker-run exec
by default this will run date command in all running containers and return results but you can issue any command e.g. docker-run exec "uname -a"
To update packages (currently only using apt-get):
docker run --rm -v /var/run/docker.sock:/tmp/docker.sock itech/docker-run update
You can create and alias and use it as a regular command line
e.g.
alias docker-run='docker run --rm -v /var/run/docker.sock:/tmp/docker.sock itech/docker-run'

docker-compose vs creating and running an image

I'm new to docker and trying to understand what's best for my project (a webapp).
So far, I understand that I can either :
use docker-compose up -d to start a container defined by a set of rule in a docker-compose.yaml
build an image from a dockerfile and then create a container from this image
If I understand correctly, docker-compose up -d allows me (via volumes) to mount files (e.g my application) into the container. If i build an image however, I am able to embed my application natively in it (with a Dockerfile and COPY instruction).
Is my understanding correct ? How should I choose between those 2 choices ?
Docker Compose is simply a convenience wrapper around the docker command.
Everything you can do in docker compose, you can do plainly with running docker.
For example, these docker commands:
$ docker build -t temp .
$ docker run -i -p 3000:80 -v $PWD/public:/docroot/ temp
are similar to having this docker compose file:
version: '3'
services:
web:
build: .
image: temp
ports: ["3000:80"]
volumes:
- ./public:/docroot
and running:
$ docker-compose up web
Although docker compose advantages are most obvious when using multiple containers, it can also be used to start a single container.
My advice to you is: Start without docker compose, to understand how to build a simple image, and how to run it using the docker command line. When you feel comfortable with it, take a look at docker compose.
As for the best practice in regards to copying files to the container, or mounting them - the answer is both, and here is why:
When you are in development mode, you do not want to build the image on every code change. This is where the volume mount comes into play. However, your final docker image should contain your code so it can be deployed anywhere else. After all, this is why we use containers right? This is where the COPY comes into play.
Finally, remember that when you mount a volume to the container, it will "shadow" the contents of that folder in the container - this is how using both mount and COPY actually works as you expect it to work.
Docker-compose is just a container orchestrator.
I just provides you a simple way to create multiple related containers. The relationship between containers can be volumes, networks, start order, environment variables, etc.
In background, docker-compose uses plain docker. So, anything you can do using docker-compose (mounting volumes, using custom networks, scaling) can be done using docker commands (but of course is harder).

Rename a project by keeping containers

I decided to change the project name of a docker composition:
$ docker-compose -p old_name up -d # Before
Starting old_name_web_1
$ docker-compose -p new_name up -d # After
Creating new_name_web_1
But I don't wanted to delete my containers, so I renamed them:
$ docker rename old_name_web_1 new_name_web_1
...
I thought docker-compose was based on container names, but it does not seem to be the case:
$ docker-compose -p new_name up -d
ERROR: for web Cannot create container for service web: Conflict. The name "/new_name_web_1" is already in use by container 4930deaabb[...]. You have to remove (or rename) that container to be able to reuse that name.
ERROR: Encountered errors while bringing up the project.
How can I relink my old containers to the new composition ?
It looks like you are using one of the newer versions of docker compose which tracks containers by labels assigned to them rather than by their names. That is why renaming the container didn't work.
Updating labels
You can check container's labels through the docker inspect command.
$ docker inspect --format='{{json .Config.Labels }}' container_name
The project name is the value of the 'com.docker.compose.project' label.
Moving an existing container to a new project is as easy as changing the value of that label. However it is not yet supported by Docker CLI. There is an open issue requesting that feature.
Workaround
It still can be achieved by directly editing the configuration file of that particular container. There you will find labels currently assigned to that container.
$ nano /var/lib/docker/containers/$container_id/config.v2.json
Assign the new project name to the 'com.docker.compose.project' label and save the file. Next you have to restart the daemon. Otherwise the changes will not be visible to docker.
$ systemctl daemon-reload
While it is true docker-compose reuse existing containers, this comment mentions:
docker-compose by default uses the folder name of the yml file as the project name, and prefix that name to all container names.
This could explain why docker-compose up did not pick up the new container name.

How to upgrade docker container after its image changed

Let's say I have pulled the official mysql:5.6.21 image.
I have deployed this image by creating several docker containers.
These containers have been running for some time until MySQL 5.6.22 is released. The official image of mysql:5.6 gets updated with the new release, but my containers still run 5.6.21.
How do I propagate the changes in the image (i.e. upgrade MySQL distro) to all my existing containers? What is the proper Docker way of doing this?
After evaluating the answers and studying the topic I'd like to summarize.
The Docker way to upgrade containers seems to be the following:
Application containers should not store application data. This way you can replace app container with its newer version at any time by executing something like this:
docker pull mysql
docker stop my-mysql-container
docker rm my-mysql-container
docker run --name=my-mysql-container --restart=always \
-e MYSQL_ROOT_PASSWORD=mypwd -v /my/data/dir:/var/lib/mysql -d mysql
You can store data either on host (in directory mounted as volume) or in special data-only container(s). Read more about it
About volumes (Docker docs)
Tiny Docker Pieces, Loosely Joined (by Tom Offermann)
How to deal with persistent storage (e.g. databases) in Docker (Stack Overflow question)
Upgrading applications (eg. with yum/apt-get upgrade) within containers is considered to be an anti-pattern. Application containers are supposed to be immutable, which shall guarantee reproducible behavior. Some official application images (mysql:5.6 in particular) are not even designed to self-update (apt-get upgrade won't work).
I'd like to thank everybody who gave their answers, so we could see all different approaches.
I don't like mounting volumes as a link to a host directory, so I came up with a pattern for upgrading docker containers with entirely docker managed containers. Creating a new docker container with --volumes-from <container> will give the new container with the updated images shared ownership of docker managed volumes.
docker pull mysql
docker create --volumes-from my_mysql_container [...] --name my_mysql_container_tmp mysql
By not immediately removing the original my_mysql_container yet, you have the ability to revert back to the known working container if the upgraded container doesn't have the right data, or fails a sanity test.
At this point, I'll usually run whatever backup scripts I have for the container to give myself a safety net in case something goes wrong
docker stop my_mysql_container
docker start my_mysql_container_tmp
Now you have the opportunity to make sure the data you expect to be in the new container is there and run a sanity check.
docker rm my_mysql_container
docker rename my_mysql_container_tmp my_mysql_container
The docker volumes will stick around so long as any container is using them, so you can delete the original container safely. Once the original container is removed, the new container can assume the namesake of the original to make everything as pretty as it was to begin.
There are two major advantages to using this pattern for upgrading docker containers. Firstly, it eliminates the need to mount volumes to host directories by allowing volumes to be directly transferred to an upgraded containers. Secondly, you are never in a position where there isn't a working docker container; so if the upgrade fails, you can easily revert to how it was working before by spinning up the original docker container again.
Just for providing a more general (not mysql specific) answer...
In short
Synchronize with service image registry (https://docs.docker.com/compose/compose-file/#image):
docker-compose pull
Recreate container if docker-compose file or image have changed:
docker-compose up -d
Background
Container image management is one of the reason for using docker-compose
(see https://docs.docker.com/compose/reference/up/)
If there are existing containers for a service, and the service’s configuration or image was changed after the container’s creation, docker-compose up picks up the changes by stopping and recreating the containers (preserving mounted volumes). To prevent Compose from picking up changes, use the --no-recreate flag.
Data management aspect being also covered by docker-compose through mounted external "volumes" (See https://docs.docker.com/compose/compose-file/#volumes) or data container.
This leaves potential backward compatibility and data migration issues untouched, but these are "applicative" issues, not Docker specific, which have to be checked against release notes and tests...
I would like to add that if you want to do this process automatically (download, stop and restart a new container with the same settings as described by #Yaroslav) you can use WatchTower. A program that auto updates your containers when they are changed https://github.com/v2tec/watchtower
Consider for this answers:
The database name is app_schema
The container name is app_db
The root password is root123
How to update MySQL when storing application data inside the container
This is considered a bad practice, because if you lose the container, you will lose the data. Although it is a bad practice, here is a possible way to do it:
1) Do a database dump as SQL:
docker exec app_db sh -c 'exec mysqldump app_schema -uroot -proot123' > database_dump.sql
2) Update the image:
docker pull mysql:5.6
3) Update the container:
docker rm -f app_db
docker run --name app_db --restart unless-stopped \
-e MYSQL_ROOT_PASSWORD=root123 \
-d mysql:5.6
4) Restore the database dump:
docker exec app_db sh -c 'exec mysql -uroot -proot123' < database_dump.sql
How to update MySQL container using an external volume
Using an external volume is a better way of managing data, and it makes easier to update MySQL. Loosing the container will not lose any data. You can use docker-compose to facilitate managing multi-container Docker applications in a single host:
1) Create the docker-compose.yml file in order to manage your applications:
version: '2'
services:
app_db:
image: mysql:5.6
restart: unless-stopped
volumes_from: app_db_data
app_db_data:
volumes: /my/data/dir:/var/lib/mysql
2) Update MySQL (from the same folder as the docker-compose.yml file):
docker-compose pull
docker-compose up -d
Note: the last command above will update the MySQL image, recreate and start the container with the new image.
Similar answer to above
docker images | awk '{print $1}' | grep -v 'none' | grep -iv 'repo' | xargs -n1 docker pull
Here's what it looks like using docker-compose when building a custom Dockerfile.
Build your custom Dockerfile first, appending a next version number to differentiate. Ex: docker build -t imagename:version . This will store your new version locally.
Run docker-compose down
Edit your docker-compose.yml file to reflect the new image name you set at step 1.
Run docker-compose up -d. It will look locally for the image and use your upgraded one.
-EDIT-
My steps above are more verbose than they need to be. I've optimized my workflow by including the build: . parameter to my docker-compose file. The steps looks this now:
Verify that my Dockerfile is what I want it to look like.
Set the version number of my image name in my docker-compose file.
If my image isn't built yet: run docker-compose build
Run docker-compose up -d
I didn't realize at the time, but docker-compose is smart enough to simply update my container to the new image with the one command, instead of having to bring it down first.
If you do not want to use Docker Compose, I can recommend portainer. It has a recreate function that lets you recreate a container while pulling the latest image.
You need to either rebuild all the images and restart all the containers, or somehow yum update the software and restart the database. There is no upgrade path but that you design yourself.
Taking from http://blog.stefanxo.com/2014/08/update-all-docker-images-at-once/
You can update all your existing images using the following command pipeline:
docker images | awk '/^REPOSITORY|\<none\>/ {next} {print $1}' | xargs -n 1 docker pull
Make sure you are using volumes for all the persistent data (configuration, logs, or application data) which you store on the containers related to the state of the processes inside that container. Update your Dockerfile and rebuild the image with the changes you wanted, and restart the containers with your volumes mounted at their appropriate place.
Tried a bunch of things from here, but this worked out for me eventually.
IF you have AutoRemove: On on the Containers you can't STOP and EDIT the contianers, or a Service is running that can't be stopped even momentarily,
You must:
PULL latest image --> docker pull [image:latest]
Verify if the correct image is pulled, you can see the UNUSED tag in the Portainer Images section
UPDATE the service using Portainer or CLI and make sure you use LATEST VERSION of the image, Portainer will give you the option to do same.
THis would not only UPDATE the Container with Latest Image, but also keep the Service Running.
This is something I've also been struggling with for my own images. I have a server environment from which I create a Docker image. When I update the server, I'd like all users who are running containers based on my Docker image to be able to upgrade to the latest server.
Ideally, I'd prefer to generate a new version of the Docker image and have all containers based on a previous version of that image automagically update to the new image "in place." But this mechanism doesn't seem to exist.
So the next best design I've been able to come up with so far is to provide a way to have the container update itself--similar to how a desktop application checks for updates and then upgrades itself. In my case, this will probably mean crafting a script that involves Git pulls from a well-known tag.
The image/container doesn't actually change, but the "internals" of that container change. You could imagine doing the same with apt-get, yum, or whatever is appropriate for you environment. Along with this, I'd update the myserver:latest image in the registry so any new containers would be based on the latest image.
I'd be interested in hearing whether there is any prior art that addresses this scenario.
Update
This is mainly to query the container not to update as building images is the way to be done
I had the same issue so I created docker-run, a very simple command-line tool that runs inside a docker container to update packages in other running containers.
It uses docker-py to communicate with running docker containers and update packages or run any arbitrary single command
Examples:
docker run --rm -v /var/run/docker.sock:/tmp/docker.sock itech/docker-run exec
by default this will run date command in all running containers and return results but you can issue any command e.g. docker-run exec "uname -a"
To update packages (currently only using apt-get):
docker run --rm -v /var/run/docker.sock:/tmp/docker.sock itech/docker-run update
You can create and alias and use it as a regular command line
e.g.
alias docker-run='docker run --rm -v /var/run/docker.sock:/tmp/docker.sock itech/docker-run'

Resources