I have 2 containers on a docker bridge network. One of them has an apache server that i am using as a reverse proxy to forward user to server on another container. The other container contains a server that is listening on port 8081. I have verified both containers are on the same network and when i log into an interactive shell on each container i tested successfully that i am able to ping the other container.
The problem is, is that when i am logged into the container with the apache server, i am not able to ping the actual server in the other container.
the ip address of container with server is 172.17.0.2
How i create the docker network
docker network create -d bridge jakeypoo
How i start the containers
docker container run -p 8080:8080 --network="jakeypoo" --
name="idpproxy" idpproxy:latest
docker run -p 8081:8080 --name geoserver --network="jakeypoo" geoserver:1.1.0
wouldn't the uri to reach out to the server be
http://172.17.0.2:8081/
?
PS: I am sure more information will be needed and i am new to stack overflow and will happily answer any other questions i can.
Since you started the two containers on the same --network, you can use their --name as hostnames to talk to each other. If the service inside the second container is listening on port 8080, use that port number. Remappings with docker run -p options are ignored, and you don't need a -p option to communicate between containers.
In your Apache config, you'd set up something like
ProxyPass "/" "http://geoserver:8080/"
ProxyPassReverse "/" "http://geoserver:8080/"
It's not usually useful to look up the container-private IP addresses: they will change whenever you recreate the container, and in most environments they can't be used outside of Docker (and inside of Docker the name-based lookup is easier).
(Were you to run this under Docker Compose, it automatically creates a network for you, and each service is accessible under its Compose service name. You do not need to manually set networks: or container_name: options, and like the docker run -p option, Compose ports: are not required and are ignored if present. Networking in Compose in the Docker documentation describes this further.)
Most probably this can be the reason.
when you log into one of the container that container do not know anything about the other container network. when you ping, that container think you are try to ping a service inside that container.
Try to use docker compose if you can use it in your context. Refer this link:
https://docs.docker.com/compose/
I am trying to make a portable solution to having my application container connect to a postgres container. By 'portable' I mean that I can give the user two docker run commands, one for each container, and they will always work together.
I have a postgres docker container running on my local PC, and I run it like this,
docker run -p 5432:5432 -v $(pwd)/datadir:/var/lib/postgresql/data -e POSTGRES_PASSWORD=qwerty -d postgres:11
and I am able to access it from a python flask app, using the address 127.0.0.1:5432.
I put the python app in a docker container as well, and I am having trouble connecting to the postgres container.
Address 127.0.0.1:5432 does not work.
Address 172.17.0.2:5432 DOES work (172.17.0.2 is the address of the docker container running postgres). However I consider this not portable because I can't guarantee what the postgres container IP will be.
I am aware of the --add-host flag, but it is also asking for the host-ip, which I want to be the localhost (127.0.0.1). Despite several hits on --add-host I wasn't able to get that to work so that the final docker run commands can be the same on any computer they are run on.
I also tried this: docker container port accessed from another container
My situation is that the postgres and myApp will be containers running on the same computer. I would prefer a non-Docker compose solution.
The comment from Truong had me try that approach (again) and I got it working. Here are my steps in case it helps out another. The crux of the problem was needing one container to address another container in a way that was static (didn't change). Using user defined network was the answer, because you can name a container, and thus reference that container IP by that name.
My steps,
docker network create mynet
docker run --net mynet --name mydb -v $(pwd)/datadir:/var/lib/postgresql/data -e POSTGRES_PASSWORD=qwerty -d postgres:11
Now the IP address of the postgres database is mydb, and all the ports of this container are exposed to any other container running in this network.
Now add the front end app,
docker run --net mynet -ti -p 80:80 -v mydockerhubaccount/myapp
I'm trying to run multiple containers with the same ports on docker.
For this, I have created a network in brigde mode and specified a subnet.
docker network create -d --subnet 192.168.99.0/24 mynetwork
Then connected the docker containers to it with a static IP.
docker run -i -t -d -p 2377:2377 -p 7946:7946 -p 4789:4789-name container image
docker network connect --ip 192.168.99.98 mynetwork container
I did this with three containers (using different IP's), after starting the second one I got:
Error response from daemon: driver failed programming external connectivity on endpoint container(...): Bind for 0.0.0.0:7946 failed: port is already allocated
As far as I'm concerned, I should not be getting this error, due to bridge mode.
The docker run -p option allocates a port on the host system; those are shared across all containers, independently of what Docker-private network they’re using. These also will conflict with non-Docker processes running on the host.
If your goal is just to be able to communicate between containers on the same network, you don’t need a -p option at all. They can use each others’ --name and the port the service inside the container is listening on to connect.
If you’re trying to run multiple Docker container stacks at the same time, you need to decide which specific instance port 2377 on your host will route to, and change the other container’ -p option.
Specifically setting the Docker-internal private IP addresses (or worrying about them at all) is almost never necessary. I’d delete those --subnet and --ip options. To communicate between containers, put them on the same network as described above; from outside you need a (unique) -p option.
I'm new to docker and maybe this is something I don't fully understand yet, but what I'm trying to do is connect to an open port in a running docker container. I've pulled and run the rabbitmq container from hub (https://hub.docker.com/_/rabbitmq/). The rabbitmq container should uses port 5672 for clients to connect to.
After running the container (as instructed in the hub page):
$ docker run -d --hostname my-rabbit --name some-rabbit rabbitmq:3
Now what I want to do is telnet into the open post (it is possible on a regular rabbitmq installation and should be on a container as well).
I've (at least I think I did) gotten the container IP address using the following command:
docker inspect -f '{{range .NetworkSettings.Networks}}{{.IPAddress}}{{end}}' container_name_or_id
And the result I got was 172.17.0.2. When I try to access using telnet 172.17.0.2 5672 it's unsuccessful.
The address 172.17.0.2 seems strange to me because if I run ipconfig on my machine I don't see any interface using 172.17.0.x address. I do see Ethernet adapter vEthernet (DockerNAT) using the following ip: 10.0.75.1. Is this how it is supposed to be?
If I do port binding (adding -p 5672:5672) then I can telnet into this port using telnet localhost 5672 and immidiatly connect.
What am I missing here?
As you pointed out, you need port binding in order to achieve the result you need because you are running the application over the default bridge network (on Windows i guess).
From the official docker doc
Containers connected to the same user-defined bridge network automatically expose all ports to each other, and no ports to the outside world. [...]
If you run the same application stack on the default bridge network, you need to open both the web port and the database port, using the -p or --publish flag for each. This means the Docker host needs to block access to the database port by other means.
Later in the rabbitmq hub there is a reference to a Management Plugin which is run by executing the command
docker run -d --hostname my-rabbit --name some-rabbit -p 8080:15672 rabbitmq:3-management
Which exposes the port 8080 used for management which I think is what you may need.
You should also notice that they talk about clusters and nodes there, maybe they meant the container to be run as a service in a swarm (hence using the overlay network and not the bridge one).
Hope I could help somehow :)
I created two docker containers based on two different images. One of db and another for webserver. Both containers are running on my mac osx.
I can access db container from host machine and same way can access webserver from host machine.
However, how do I access db connection from webserver?
The way I started db container is
docker run --name oracle-db -p 1521:1521 -p 5501:5500 oracle/database:12.1.0.2-ee
I started wls container as
docker run --name oracle-wls -p 7001:7001 wls-image:latest
I can access db on host by connecting to
sqlplus scott/welcome1#//localhost:1521/ORCLCDB
I can access wls on host as
http://localhost:7001/console
It's easy.
If you have two or more running container, complete next steps:
docker network create myNetwork
docker network connect myNetwork web1
docker network connect myNetwork web2
Now you connect from web1 to web2 container or the other way round.
Use the internal network IP addresses which you can find by running:
docker network inspect myNetwork
Note that only internal IP addresses and ports are accessible to the containers connected by the network bridge.
So for example assuming that web1 container was started with: docker run -p 80:8888 web1 (meaning that its server is running on port 8888 internally), and inspecting myNetwork shows that web1's IP is 172.0.0.2, you can connect from web2 to web1 using curl 172.0.0.2:8888).
Easiest way is to use --link, however the newer versions of docker are moving away from that and in fact that switch will be removed soon.
The link below offers a nice how too, on connecting two containers. You can skip the attach portion, since that is just a useful how to on adding items to images.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160310072132/https://deis.com/blog/2016/connecting-docker-containers-1/
The part you are interested in is the communication between two containers. The easiest way, is to refer to the DB container by name from the webserver container.
Example:
you named the db container db1 and the webserver container web0. The containers should both be on the bridge network, which means the web container should be able to connect to the DB container by referring to its name.
So if you have a web config file for your app, then for DB host you will use the name db1.
if you are using an older version of docker, then you should use --link.
Example:
Step 1: docker run --name db1 oracle/database:12.1.0.2-ee
then when you start the web app. use:
Step 2: docker run --name web0 --link db1 webapp/webapp:3.0
and the web app will be linked to the DB. However, as I said the --link switch will be removed soon.
I'd use docker compose instead, which will build a network for you. However; you will need to download docker compose for your system. https://docs.docker.com/compose/install/#prerequisites
an example setup is like this:
file name is base.yml
version: "2"
services:
webserver:
image: moodlehq/moodle-php-apache:7.1
depends_on:
- db
volumes:
- "/var/www/html:/var/www/html"
- "/home/some_user/web/apache2_faildumps.conf:/etc/apache2/conf-enabled/apache2_faildumps.conf"
environment:
MOODLE_DOCKER_DBTYPE: pgsql
MOODLE_DOCKER_DBNAME: moodle
MOODLE_DOCKER_DBUSER: moodle
MOODLE_DOCKER_DBPASS: "m#0dl3ing"
HTTP_PROXY: "${HTTP_PROXY}"
HTTPS_PROXY: "${HTTPS_PROXY}"
NO_PROXY: "${NO_PROXY}"
db:
image: postgres:9
environment:
POSTGRES_USER: moodle
POSTGRES_PASSWORD: "m#0dl3ing"
POSTGRES_DB: moodle
HTTP_PROXY: "${HTTP_PROXY}"
HTTPS_PROXY: "${HTTPS_PROXY}"
NO_PROXY: "${NO_PROXY}"
this will name the network a generic name, I can't remember off the top of my head what that name is, unless you use the --name switch.
IE docker-compose --name setup1 up base.yml
NOTE: if you use the --name switch, you will need to use it when ever calling docker compose, so docker-compose --name setup1 down this is so you can have more then one instance of webserver and db, and in this case, so docker compose knows what instance you want to run commands against; and also so you can have more then one running at once. Great for CI/CD, if you are running test in parallel on the same server.
Docker compose also has the same commands as docker so docker-compose --name setup1 exec webserver do_some_command
best part is, if you want to change db's or something like that for unit test you can include an additional .yml file to the up command and it will overwrite any items with similar names, I think of it as a key=>value replacement.
Example:
db.yml
version: "2"
services:
webserver:
environment:
MOODLE_DOCKER_DBTYPE: oci
MOODLE_DOCKER_DBNAME: XE
db:
image: moodlehq/moodle-db-oracle
Then call docker-compose --name setup1 up base.yml db.yml
This will overwrite the db. with a different setup. When needing to connect to these services from each container, you use the name set under service, in this case, webserver and db.
I think this might actually be a more useful setup in your case. Since you can set all the variables you need in the yml files and just run the command for docker compose when you need them started. So a more start it and forget it setup.
NOTE: I did not use the --port command, since exposing the ports is not needed for container->container communication. It is needed only if you want the host to connect to the container, or application from outside of the host. If you expose the port, then the port is open to all communication that the host allows. So exposing web on port 80 is the same as starting a webserver on the physical host and will allow outside connections, if the host allows it. Also, if you are wanting to run more then one web app at once, for whatever reason, then exposing port 80 will prevent you from running additional webapps if you try exposing on that port as well. So, for CI/CD it is best to not expose ports at all, and if using docker compose with the --name switch, all containers will be on their own network so they wont collide. So you will pretty much have a container of containers.
UPDATE: After using features further and seeing how others have done it for CICD programs like Jenkins. Network is also a viable solution.
Example:
docker network create test_network
The above command will create a "test_network" which you can attach other containers too. Which is made easy with the --network switch operator.
Example:
docker run \
--detach \
--name db1 \
--network test_network \
-e MYSQL_ROOT_PASSWORD="${DBPASS}" \
-e MYSQL_DATABASE="${DBNAME}" \
-e MYSQL_USER="${DBUSER}" \
-e MYSQL_PASSWORD="${DBPASS}" \
--tmpfs /var/lib/mysql:rw \
mysql:5
Of course, if you have proxy network settings you should still pass those into the containers using the "-e" or "--env-file" switch statements. So the container can communicate with the internet. Docker says the proxy settings should be absorbed by the container in the newer versions of docker; however, I still pass them in as an act of habit. This is the replacement for the "--link" switch which is going away. Once the containers are attached to the network you created you can still refer to those containers from other containers using the 'name' of the container. Per the example above that would be db1. You just have to make sure all containers are connected to the same network, and you are good to go.
For a detailed example of using network in a cicd pipeline, you can refer to this link:
https://git.in.moodle.com/integration/nightlyscripts/blob/master/runner/master/run.sh
Which is the script that is ran in Jenkins for a huge integration tests for Moodle, but the idea/example can be used anywhere. I hope this helps others.
You will have to access db through the ip of host machine, or if you want to access it via localhost:1521, then run webserver like -
docker run --net=host --name oracle-wls wls-image:latest
See here
Using docker-compose, services are exposed to each other by name by default. Docs.
You could also specify an alias like;
version: '2.1'
services:
mongo:
image: mongo:3.2.11
redis:
image: redis:3.2.10
api:
image: some-image
depends_on:
- mongo
- solr
links:
- "mongo:mongo.openconceptlab.org"
- "solr:solr.openconceptlab.org"
- "some-service:some-alias"
And then access the service using the specified alias as a host name, e.g mongo.openconceptlab.org for mongo in this case.
Environment: Windows 10, Docker Desktop version 4.5.1.
Use hostname host.docker.internal to access services running on your host machine from inside a container.
See: https://docs.docker.com/desktop/windows/networking/#use-cases-and-workarounds
I run PostgreSQL in one container and my app in a separate container.
I configure the app database connection to use host.docker.internal as the hostname and it just works.
Consider Example
We Create two containers here PostgreSQL server and pgadmin(for accessing servers like PHPMyAdmin, SQL studio, workbench).
Exposed port
PostgreSql --->5436
Pgadmin --->5050
After adding a server in pgadmin hostname as localhost.It will show a connection error. Because Docker container pgadmin getting localhost as their system instead we need PostgreSQL IP to solve the problem.
docker network create con
docker network connect con app1
docker network connect con app2
This command gets connected container IP address and other details.
docker network inspect con
Now you can see the IP address shown in the network inspect. Choose the Postgres container IP. You can access other exposed ports through this IP. Here postgre 5432 is only exposed.Now set hostname as the container ip and it will work.
You can use the default docker network. If you don't want to go through any docker networking, you can do this:
Copy the ip address in Docker subnet in Resources>Network in Docker Preferences in Mac:
Docker preferences screenshot
As you can see from the screenshot link the ip address is
192.168.65.0
You just need to replace “localhost” in your containers config file with “192.168.65.1" (i.e. IP address picked + 1 ).
You can start your containers and should be set for local development/testing.
For some more details, you can see my article:
Connect Docker containers the easy way
In my case, the host connection in the application to a container from an other container by the IP provide by the bridge didn't work.
But it works with the name of the container (see my screenshot).
So you can replace the IP by the name of the container.