I have a Python app using a SQLite database (it's a data collector that runs daily by cron). I want to deploy it, probably on AWS or Google Container Engine, using Docker. I see three main steps:
1. Containerize and test the app locally.
2. Deploy and run the app on AWS or GCE.
3. Backup the DB periodically and download back to a local archive.
Recent posts (on Docker, StackOverflow and elsewhere) say that since 1.9, Volumes are now the recommended way to handle persisted data, rather than the "data container" pattern. For future compatibility, I always like to use the preferred, idiomatic method, however Volumes seem to be much more of a challenge than data containers. Am I missing something??
Following the "data container" pattern, I can easily:
Build a base image with all the static program and config files.
From that image create a data container image and copy my DB and backup directory into it (simple COPY in the Dockerfile).
Push both images to Docker Hub.
Pull them down to AWS.
Run the data and base images, using "--volume-from" to refer to the data.
Using "docker volume create":
I'm unclear how to copy my DB into the volume.
I'm very unclear how to get that volume (containing the DB) up to AWS or GCE... you can't PUSH/PULL a volume.
Am I missing something regarding Volumes?
Is there a good overview of using Volumes to do what I want to do?
Is there a recommended, idiomatic way to backup and download data (either using the data container pattern or volumes) as per my step 3?
When you first use an empty named volume, it will receive a copy of the image's volume data where it's first used (unlike a host based volume that completely overlays the mount point with the host directory). So you can initialize the volume contents in your main image as a volume, upload that image to your registry and pull that image down to your target host, create a named volume on that host, point your image to that named volume (using docker-compose makes the last two steps easy, it's really 2 commands at most docker volume create <vol-name> and docker run -v <vol-name>:/mnt <image>), and it will be populated with your initial data.
Retrieving the data from a container based volume or a named volume is an identical process, you need to mount the volume in a container and run an export/backup to your outside location. The only difference is in the command line, instead of --volumes-from <container-id> you have -v <vol-name>:/mnt. You can use this same process to import data into the volume as well, removing the need to initialize the app image with data in it's volume.
The biggest advantage of the new process is that it clearly separates data from containers. You can purge all the containers on the system without fear of losing data, and any volumes listed on the system are clear in their name, rather than a randomly assigned name. Lastly, named volumes can be mounted anywhere on the target, and you can pick and choose which of the volumes you'd like to mount if you have multiple data sources (e.g. config files vs databases).
Related
I am creating a core library for Blazor server Apps creating a core DB automatically at runtime.
Until now, I create the database in Environment.SpecialFolder.LocalApplicationData which I got working on multiple platforms (OSX, Ubunt and Windows).
As I just discovered Docker's simplicity for deploying images, I am trying to make my library compatible with it.
So I face two issues:
Determine if the app is hosted on a Docker image or not
Persist data on a different volume that is NOT on the host if running Docker.
Of course, if in Docker, I shall not use Environment.SpecialFolder.LocalApplicationData as this is not a persistent location on the image itself. I can mount a volume when starting the image as described here.
So my natural idea is to assume users will mount a volumne with a specific path when starting the image, say
docker volume create MyAppDB
and run it with
docker run -dp 3000:3000 -v MyAppDB:/app/Data/MyAppDB myBuildDockerImage
can be verified by testing the existance of folder /app/Data/MyAppDB, and once 1. is verified, 2. become trivial.
If the folder does not exist, I am for sure on non-docker image... Well am I? What if users forgot to mount the volume? Or misspelled it? Maybe the folder does not exist because I am running on a non-docker environment...!
Is there a way to tweak my docker image when building it to force the mount volumes - i.e. created by ME and not the end-user? That seems safest... Alternatively, if not possible, can I add some specific element in Docker image to make absolutely sure I am running on the docker image I built or not?
Let's say you are trying to dockerise a database (couchdb for example).
Then there are at least two assets you consider volumes for:
database files
log files
Let's further say you want to keep the db-files private but want to expose the log-files for later processing.
As far as I undestand the documentation, you have two options:
First option
define managed volumes for both, log- and db-files within the db-image
import these in a second container (you will get both) and work with the logs
Second option
create data container with a managed volume for the logs
create the db-image with a managed volume for the db-files only
import logs-volume from data container when running db-image
Two questions:
Are both options realy valid/ possible?
What is the better way to do it?
br volker
The answer to question 1 is that, yes both are valid and possible.
My answer to question 2 is that I would consider a different approach entirely and which one to choose depends on whether or not this is a mission critical system and that data loss must be avoided.
Mission critical
If you absolutely cannot lose your data, then I would recommend that you bind mount a reliable disk into your database container. Bind mounting is essentially mounting a part of the Docker Host filesystem into the container.
So taking the database files as an example, you could image these steps:
Create a reliable disk e.g. NFS that is backed-up on a regular basis
Attach this disk to your Docker host
Bind mount this disk into my database container which then writes database files to this disk.
So following the above example, lets say I have created a reliable disk that is shared over NFS and mounted on my Docker Host at /reliable/disk. To use that with my database I would run the following Docker command:
docker run -d -v /reliable/disk:/data/db my-database-image
This way I know that the database files are written to reliable storage. Even if I lose my Docker Host, I will still have the database files and can easily recover by running my database container on another host that can access the NFS share.
You can do exactly the same thing for the database logs:
docker run -d -v /reliable/disk/data/db:/data/db -v /reliable/disk/logs/db:/logs/db my-database-image
Additionally you can easily bind mount these volumes into other containers for separate tasks. You may want to consider bind mounting them as read-only into other containers to protect your data:
docker run -d -v /reliable/disk/logs/db:/logs/db:ro my-log-processor
This would be my recommended approach if this is a mission critical system.
Not mission critical
If the system is not mission critical and you can tolerate a higher potential for data loss, then I would look at Docker Volume API which is used precisely for what you want to do: managing and creating volumes for data that should live beyond the lifecycle of a container.
The nice thing about the docker volume command is that it lets you created named volumes and if you name them well it can be quite obvious to people what they are used for:
docker volume create db-data
docker volume create db-logs
You can then mount these volumes into your container from the command line:
docker run -d -v db-data:/db/data -v db-logs:/logs/db my-database-image
These volumes will survive beyond the lifecycle of your container and are stored on the filesystem if your Docker host. You can use:
docker volume inspect db-data
To find out where the data is being stored and back-up that location if you want to.
You may also want to look at something like Docker Compose which will allow you to declare all of this in one file and then create your entire environment through a single command.
I'm confused about common consensus that one shouldn't use data containers. I have specific use case that I want to accomplish.
I want to have docker nginx container and behind it some other container with application. To run newest version of my app I want to download ready container from my private docker registry. The application is for now purely static html, javascript something.
So my plan is to create docker image which will hold the files, and will specify a named volume in some /webapp folder. The nginx container will serve this volume. I do not see any other way how to move bunch of files to remote system the "docker containerized" way. Am I not actually creating cursed data container?
Anyway what happens during app containers exchange? When I stop the app container the volume remains accesible, as it is placed on host. When I pull and start new version of app container. The volume will be created again and prefiled with image files stored at the same location, replacing the content on host so the nginx container will server from now new version of the application.Right? What happens when I will reference volume that does not exist yet from the nginx container.
It seem that named values are not automatically filed with the content of the image. As well I'm not sure how to create named volume in docker file as this syntax taken from here doesn't work
FROM training/webapp
VOLUME webapp:/webapp
I think you might want what i have described here https://stackoverflow.com/a/41576040/3625317
The problem with volumes is, that when a container is recreated, not docker-compose down but rather docker-compose pull + up, the new container will not have your "new code stored in the volume" but rather, due to the recycled volume, still the old anon volume. The point is, you will need a anon-volume for the code anyway, since you want it redeployable, not a named volume since you want the code to be exchangeable.
On re-create the anon-volume is not removed, that said, lets say you have the image:v1 right now and you pull image:v2 and then do a docker-compose up. It will recreate your container based on image:v2 - when this finished, you will have a new container, but the code is still from the old container, which was based on image:v1, since the anon-volume has not been replaced, it was re-assigned. docker-compose down && docker-compose up will resolve that for you - but you have to keep this in mind when dealing with your idea. (down removes anon-volumes)
In general, there is a pro / con, see my other post.
Data-containers in general have a other meaning and have been replaced by so called named volumes. Data-containers have been used to establish a volume-mount which is "named" and not based on a anon-volume.
In the past, you had to create a container with a volume, and later use a container-name based mount of this volume ( the container would be the static / name part ), today, you just create a named volume name and mount by this volume-name, no need for a busybox killed after start based container-name based volume mount.
What is the main purpose of Docker data volume created by -v option without specified host file? For example docker run -v /data -ti my-image. Doc says it creates a new filesystem mapped to host filesystem to persist data (at some random-ish location). I understand that. But containers also persist all data when they are stopped and started again. So what is the difference between persisted data in stopped container vs. data volume?
I understand use-case for its advanced usage to map specific host file with -v /data:/data/host.
Off the top of my head:
If you are planning on using docker commit at some point, then an ephemeral volume like that can be used to intentionally prevent some contents from getting committed to the new filesystem image (because the contents of volumes are not preserved as part of the image).
If you will be generating a lot of temporary data and you are worried about filling up the root container filesystem, using a volume will give you more space (because your data won't be sharing space with operating system files).
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