I am new in prometheus.
I want to monitor all docker containers inside many servers.
The case is like this:
I have 3 servers -> server A, B, and C (all running with Ubuntu).
Each server has many docker containers for difference project.
I will add one server (server D) and I want to install Prometheus on
this server.
My questions:
is it possible, If I want to install Prometheus to server D and
monitor all docker containers in server A, B, and C?
is it possible if I want to monitor all containers sorted by
project? for example I use Gravana dashborad. Can I have one gravana
dashboard for each project?
Yes, Prometheus can monitor them. You'll need to let Prometheus know what's running where, either by hand in the config or by using service discovery such as Consul.
On the Grafana side if you've got Prometheus labels setup to distinguish the projects, then the Grafana templates feature will let you do that.
There is very nice project which I found and now I can solved my problem.
I used dockprom which created by stefan you can visit this github link .
These are streps that I used:
I use one server as a master (I deploy dockprom project on this server).
There are two ways to monitor another server by using this project;
You can only deploy cadvisor and nodeexporter containers on another
server then connect to prometheus master, but you need to add some configurations.
The second way which I used was more simple, I deploy dockprom to
all servers then I added datasource on master server (I filled the
data source IP with IP server which I want to monitor plus
prometheus port).
Related
I'm using Docker I have implemented a system to deploy environments (on a single server) based on Git branches using Traefik (*.dev.domain.com) and Docker Compose templates.
I like Kubernetes and I've never switched to it since I'm limited to one single server for my infrastructure. I've only used it using local installations (Docker for Windows).
So, my question is: does it make sense to run a Kubernetes "cluster" (master and nodes) on a single server to orchestrate and route containers (in place of Traefik/Rancher/Docker Compose)?
This use is for development and staging only for the moment, so high availability is not a prerequisite.
Thanks.
If it is not a production environment, it doesn't matter how many nodes you are using. So yes, it should be just fine in this case. But make sure all the k8s features you will need in production are available in test/dev, to keep things similar and portable.
AFAIU,
I do not see a requirement for kubernetes unless we are doing below at least for single host using native docker run or docker-compose or docker engine swarm mode -
Make sure there are enough(>=2) replicas of your app in a single server and you are balancing the load across those apps docker containers.
If you want to go bit advanced, we should be able to scale up & down dynamically (docker swarm mode supports this out of the box else use jwilder nginx proxy).
Your deployment should not cause a downtime. Make sure a single container is always healthy at any instant of time while deploying.
Container should auto heal(restart automatically) in case your HTTP or TCP health check fails.
Doing all of the above will certainly put you in a better place but single host is still a single source of failure which you got to deal with at regular intervals.
Preferred : if possible try to start with docker engine swarm mode or kubernetes single master or minikube. This will automatically take care of all the above scenarios out of the box and will also allow you to further scale up anytime by adding more nodes without changing much in your YML files for docker swarm or kubernetes.
Ref -
https://kubernetes.io/docs/setup/independent/create-cluster-kubeadm/
https://docs.docker.com/engine/swarm/
I would use single host k8s only if I managed clusters with the same project that I would like to deploy to the said host. This enables you to reuse manifests and all the automation you've created for your clusters.
Have I had single host environments only, I would probably stick to docker-compose.
If you're looking to try it out your easiest options are probably minikube (easy to run single-node cluster locally but without some features) or using one of the free trial accounts for a managed Kubernetes service from one of the big cloud providers (fully-featured and multi-node but limited use before you have to pay).
I am building a web app using docker swarm.
Manager machine will have database and load balancer.
Next I have two pieces of software: tornado server, which acts as middle layer between user and node server. They should always be served together. And one tornado server should always talk to one node server.
I want containers to be as isolated as possible (in order to keep scalability), but how I ensure that kind of communication?
Right now my approach is to build two separate images - one for tornado and one for node and then create muli-stage container which connects them both. I do not feel this is optimal as I have to run two start commands in CMD.
What is preferable solution? Can you force docker to couple images (e.g. without specifying IPs)?
There is a link feature in docker compose files: https://docs.docker.com/compose/compose-file/#links. But recently Docker marked it as deprecated and suggests using user-defined networks: https://docs.docker.com/network/.
P.S: Also pay attention to the notes:
- If you define both links and networks, services with links between them must share at least one network in common to communicate.
- This option is ignored when deploying a stack in swarm mode with a (version 3) Compose file.
In our company ~7 projects, each based on Docker. Each project contain base services, like MySQL, Nginx, PHP. Some of projects communicate with other projects. Because of many services on same port, we make new docker host (docker-machine) for each project. From here few problems are coming:
VirtualBox assign random IP to each Docker host, depends on sequence of executing.
Hard to switch from project to project, need to set different shell envs all the time. Easy to make mistake.
Well, I'm searching for more enterprise solution to manage many docker machines. Or a some technique that can help me with current situation.
I had similar problems last summer.
First, I started to deploy my projects to swarm-cluster as services, instead of clustering several docker VMs. This enabled me to play around services with only the service IDs. It is important that how to separate projects into services, this part may be cumbersome depending on your project.
https://docs.docker.com/engine/swarm/swarm-tutorial/deploy-service/
Then, I build my configuration and monitoring software once on swarm-manager and use it. You can use your automation tools on docker-manager to control services.
A virtual machine consumes resources and it is better to avoid it if is not necessarily. Instead you could deploy the projects in the docker swarm on bare metals.
But because every project has an entry point that needs to be accesible from the outside world (i.e. https://site1.com and https://site2.com) you can't expose the same port (443 or 80) for all the frontend services in the same swarm. For this you can use a reverse proxy like HAProxy or Nginx that forwards the requests to the right service based on the hostname. The reverse proxy could be also a service in the swarm. In this situation you should not expose the projects' ports anymore.
A reverse proxy has many other advantages, like SSL termination (this makes the SSL certificate management a lot easier).
If you add the projects to the same custom network then the services from different projects could communicate securely and directly, using their docker service name and the internal port (i.e. 80).
I want to communicate between 2 apps stored in different docker containers, both part of the same docker network. I'll be using a message queue for this ( RabbitMQ )
Should I make a 3rd Docker container that will run as my RabbitMQ server, and then just make a channel on it for those 2 specific containers ? So that later on I can make more channels if I need for example a 3rd app that needs to communicate with the other 2?
Regards!
Yes, it is the best way to utilize containers, and it will allow you to scale, also you can use the official RabbitMQ container and concentrate on your application.
If you started using containers, than it's the right way to go. But if you your app is deployed in cloud (AWS, Azure and so on) it's better to use cloud queue service which is already configured, is updated automatically, has monitoring and so on.
I'd like also to point out that docker containers it's only a way to deploy your application components. Application shouldn't take care about how your components (services, dbs, queues and so on) are deployed. For app service a message queue is simply a service located somewhere, accessible by connection parameters.
Please this is not asked anywhere I have checked. Here is what I have done. I am able to deploy single instance of mesos, marathon and docker. Moving next step ahead I want to have 2 mesos slave(docker containers) linked to each other. Just using docker the same can be achieved by using the docker link feature. But while using the orchestration(mesos) and scheduler(marathon)it seems u need to use service discovery.
My setup up is simple and runnning on a single host. So I will have 2 docker containers one running a simple pub/sub and one running rabbitmq. How can I use HA PRoxy in this setup. I have seen some documents provided by mesosphere
http://mesosphere.com/docs/getting-started/service-discovery/ but it is not clear how to go about it.
The canonical approach for service discovery with Mesos + Marathon + Docker is currently what is described in the document you linked.
I'm assuming you're able to get the two applications running in Marathon already.
Typically what happens is:
1) Configure your application definition to include the ports that your application requires.
2) You set up the provided haproxy-marathon-bridge script to run periodically using a utility like cron. This script scrapes Marathon's API to figure out what host and port the application instances are running on and what the known "friendly" port is.
In the example in the service discovery article, the first application has friendly ports of 80 and 443, whilst the second has a friendly port of 8081.
The script then generates a haproxy.cfg configuration that has rules mapping localhost:friendly_port to actual_host:actual_port.
3) Configure your applications to look for each other on localhost:friendly_port. HAProxy will route connections appropriately.
Hope this helps your understanding!
I created a haproxy service discovery docker container that you can run in mesos. It's not production ready but I am using it in my development environment doing exactly what you're trying to do. The reason I prefer this over what comes with marathon is I haven't found a good way to do complicated haproxy configurations with haproxy-marathon-bridge. With spiderweb you can create a template for the haproxy configuration which enables you to do things such as acl routing etc. It doesn't support health checks yet which is something that will need to be done before its production ready. You can see the project here https://github.com/SBRDevelopment/spiderweb.
We have combined Mesos and Marathon with consul and registartor,
so in the end you have haproxy configuration auto-generated with consul-template.
try https://github.com/eBayClassifiedsGroup/PanteraS
All in one container.
With Mesos-DNS you can also do the following:
Setup mesos-dns as in this guide: http://programmableinfrastructure.com/guides/service-discovery/mesos-dns-haproxy-marathon/ (you can skip HAProxy steps they are not required)
When you start your docker containers make sure that they have "namespace %slave_ip_with_mesos_dns%" (replace string with IP address) in their /etc/resolv.conf files.
if lets say name of an app is "peek" it should be reachable from other applications at peek.marathon.mesos