Can I create a container using docker run <image> without the --link option and link other containers to it afterwards? If so, how do I link these containers then?
Thats how you normally would do it. Fire up container A and start container B with --link B:resourcename. Inside container B, you can now get to the stuff container A EXPOSEs, with the info you can see inside the environment-variables env (they will be named something with resourcename in this case.
You can not do this the other way around (as I thought your question was originally about). The information the container needs to get to resources on the other is available as environment-variables. Which you cant inject into a running process (as far as I know..).
Of course yes,but you can only access other containers by ip (usually 172.17.1.x).
You can use
docker inspect container_id
to find other containers ip.
Related
I am using the default bridge network for docker (and yes, I am relatively new to docker). I have two docker containers.
The first container provides a service on port 12345. When creating this container, I did not specify the --publish option because I did not want to expose this port to the outside world.
The second container needs to use the service from the first container. However, the application running in this second container was hardcoded to access the service at 127.0.0.1:12345. Clearly, the second container's localhost is not the same as the first container. Is there a way to course docker networking to think that localhost in the second container should actually be connected to the port in the first container, without exposing anything to the outside world?
Option N: (this works but may not be the best solution)
One way you can force this to behave the way you need is through injecting an additional service to bind to the port within on the application container and redirecting it outward.
socat TCP-LISTEN:12345,fork TCP:172.18.0.2:12345
A quick test here, I was able to confirm 127.0.0.1:12345 is treated as the remote 12345
Things to consider:
The two containers needs to be able to reach each other
It breaks the recommendation of one service per container.
Getting the app into the docker container. (yum / apt-get install socat, source build = ?)
Getting it to run on startup on container start/restart.
Say we provision an overlay network using docker swarm and create various containers with following names:
Alice
Bob
Larry
John
now if we try to ping any container from another it fails because it does not know how to do the IP lookup i.e., alice does not know bob's IP and so on. We have been taking care of this by manually editing the /etc/hosts on every container and entering the name/IP key value pair in that file but this is becoming very tedious with every restart of our network. There ought to be a better way of handling this.
E.g., services created using docker stack do not suffer from this problem. Due to various reasons we are stuck with creating containers using the vanilla docker create. How can we make containers discover each other on the overlay network without manual labor of editing /etc/hosts?
Below is detailed workflow we currently have to follow:
we first provision a docker swarm and overlay network
Then for each container, we create it using the docker create command and then start it using docker start command. we use the --network flag to attach the container to the overlay network at time of creation
We then use docker container inspect to get the IP address of each container. This involves running n commands and noting down IP address.
Then we log into each container and edit the /etc/hosts file by hand and enter the (name, IP) key-value pair of the other containers. So this means having to enter n*(n-1) records by hand when summed across containers.
Not sure why docker create does not do all this automatically - docker already knows (or can know) all the IP addresses. Containers provisioned using docker stack e.g., do not have to go through this manual process to "discover" each other. The reason why we cannot use docker stack is because:
it does not allow us to specify container name
we run various commands (mostly docker cp) before starting the container and not possible to do this using stack
You might have seen this already: DNS on User defines networks
Have you created your services like in the section „Attach a service to an overlay“ in this doc?
It seems that the only thing that is needed is to refer the containers by their {name}.{network} instead of just the {name}. No need to edit /etc/hosts or use the --add-host flag or run some additional dns server. Refer https://forums.docker.com/t/need-help-connecting-containers-in-swarm-mode/77944/6
Further details: the official documentation for docker does not mention anywhere the necessity to add .{network} suffix to the {containername}. Indeed on this link, Step #7 under the Walk-through, there is no .{network} suffix used. So not sure why we need to do that. The version of docker we are using is 18.06.1-ce for linux.
I had a similar issue : I'm following this official tutorial to create a docker swarm overlay network on two Raspberry pi 3 and the ping was impossible unless I found on Github the answer : as I understood, it seems that latest version of alpine (for a reason that I ignore) is not suitable for Raspberry pi 3 so the solution would be the use of the version 3.12.3 like this : sudo docker run -dit --name alpine1 --network test1 alpine:3.12.3
Hope that this might help someone :)
I'm running a project in a container on my machine. this project needs to list other containers on machine. previously this project was on machine (not on a container in machine) and it was possible to do that. but now it's in one of those containers. I want to know is it possible to create an access for this type of jobs (listing containers, stop/start/... them or any other works on other containers or the host machine)?
if it's true, how can it be possible?
You can use so-called docker-in-docker technique. But before starting with it, you are obligated to read the post:
http://jpetazzo.github.io/2015/09/03/do-not-use-docker-in-docker-for-ci/
which is the best explanation of pros and cons.
All you have is to export /var/run/docker.sock to your container and setup docker-cli inside the container. It will give you docker access inside container, at the same time you will be adressing your host's docker engine.
I created a customize Docker image based on ubuntu 14.04 with the Sensu-Client package inside.
Everything's went fine but now I'm wondering how can I trigger the checks to run from the hosts machine.
For example, I want to be able to check the processes that are running on the host machine and not only the ones running inside the container.
Thanks
It depends on what checks you want to run. A lot of system-level checks work fine if you run sensu container with --net=host and --privileged flags.
--net=host not just allows you to see the same hostname and IP as host system, but also all the tcp connections and interface metric will match for container and host.
--privileged gives container full access to system metrics like hdd, memory, cpu.
Tricky thing is checking external process metrics, as docker isolates it even from privileged container, but you can share host's root filesystem as docker volume ( -v /:/host) and patch check to use chroot or use /host/proc instead of /proc.
Long story short, some checks will just work, for others you need to patch or develop your own way, but sensu in docker is one possible way.
an unprivileged docker container cannot check processes outside of it's container because docker uses kernel namespaces to isolate it from all other processes running on the host. This is by design: docker security documentation
If you would like to run a super privileged docker container that has this namespace disabled you can run:
docker run -it --rm --privileged --pid=host alpine /bin/sh
Doing so removes an important security layer that docker provides and should be avoided if possible. Once in the container, try running ps auxf and you will see all processes on the host.
I don't think this is possible right now.
If the processes in the host instance are running inside docker, you can mount the socket and get the status from the sensu container
Add a sensu-client to the host machine? You might want to split it out so you have granulation between problems in the containers VS problems with your hosts
Else - You would have to set up some way to report from the inside - Either using something low level (system calls etc) or set up something from outside to catch the the calls and report back status.
HTHs
Most if not all sensu plugins hardcode the path to the proc files. One option is to mount the host proc files to a different path inside of the docker container and modify the sensu plugins to support this other location.
This is my base docker container that supports modifying the sensu plugins proc file location.
https://github.com/sstarcher/docker-sensu
I'm running Jenkins inside a Docker container. I wonder if it's ok for the Jenkins container to also be a Docker host? What I'm thinking about is to start a new docker container for each integration test build from inside Jenkins (to start databases, message brokers etc). The containers should thus be shutdown after the integration tests are completed. Is there a reason to avoid running docker containers from inside another docker container in this way?
Running Docker inside Docker (a.k.a. dind), while possible, should be avoided, if at all possible. (Source provided below.) Instead, you want to set up a way for your main container to produce and communicate with sibling containers.
Jérôme Petazzoni — the author of the feature that made it possible for Docker to run inside a Docker container — actually wrote a blog post saying not to do it. The use case he describes matches the OP's exact use case of a CI Docker container that needs to run jobs inside other Docker containers.
Petazzoni lists two reasons why dind is troublesome:
It does not cooperate well with Linux Security Modules (LSM).
It creates a mismatch in file systems that creates problems for the containers created inside parent containers.
From that blog post, he describes the following alternative,
[The] simplest way is to just expose the Docker socket to your CI container, by bind-mounting it with the -v flag.
Simply put, when you start your CI container (Jenkins or other), instead of hacking something together with Docker-in-Docker, start it with:
docker run -v /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock ...
Now this container will have access to the Docker socket, and will therefore be able to start containers. Except that instead of starting "child" containers, it will start "sibling" containers.
I answered a similar question before on how to run a Docker container inside Docker.
To run docker inside docker is definitely possible. The main thing is that you run the outer container with extra privileges (starting with --privileged=true) and then install docker in that container.
Check this blog post for more info: Docker-in-Docker.
One potential use case for this is described in this entry. The blog describes how to build docker containers within a Jenkins docker container.
However, Docker inside Docker it is not the recommended approach to solve this type of problems. Instead, the recommended approach is to create "sibling" containers as described in this post
So, running Docker inside Docker was by many considered as a good type of solution for this type of problems. Now, the trend is to use "sibling" containers instead. See the answer by #predmijat on this page for more info.
It's OK to run Docker-in-Docker (DinD) and in fact Docker (the company) has an official DinD image for this.
The caveat however is that it requires a privileged container, which depending on your security needs may not be a viable alternative.
The alternative solution of running Docker using sibling containers (aka Docker-out-of-Docker or DooD) does not require a privileged container, but has a few drawbacks that stem from the fact that you are launching the container from within a context that is different from that one in which it's running (i.e., you launch the container from within a container, yet it's running at the host's level, not inside the container).
I wrote a blog describing the pros/cons of DinD vs DooD here.
Having said this, Nestybox (a startup I just founded) is working on a solution that runs true Docker-in-Docker securely (without using privileged containers). You can check it out at www.nestybox.com.
Yes, we can run docker in docker, we'll need to attach the unix socket /var/run/docker.sock on which the docker daemon listens by default as volume to the parent docker using -v /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock.
Sometimes, permissions issues may arise for docker daemon socket for which you can write sudo chmod 757 /var/run/docker.sock.
And also it would require to run the docker in privileged mode, so the commands would be:
sudo chmod 757 /var/run/docker.sock
docker run --privileged=true -v /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock -it ...
I was trying my best to run containers within containers just like you for the past few days. Wasted many hours. So far most of the people advise me to do stuff like using the docker's DIND image which is not applicable for my case, as I need the main container to be Ubuntu OS, or to run some privilege command and map the daemon socket into container. (Which never ever works for me)
The solution I found was to use Nestybox on my Ubuntu 20.04 system and it works best. Its also extremely simple to execute, provided your local system is ubuntu (which they support best), as the container runtime are specifically deigned for such application. It also has the most flexible options. The free edition of Nestybox is perhaps the best method as of Nov 2022. Highly recommends you to try it without bothering all the tedious setup other people suggest. They have many pre-constructed solutions to address such specific needs with a simple command line.
The Nestybox provide special runtime environment for newly created docker container, they also provides some ubuntu/common OS images with docker and systemd in built.
Their goal is to make the main container function exactly the same as a virtual machine securely. You can literally ssh into your ubuntu main container as well without the ability to access anything in the main machine. From your main container you may create all kinds of containers like a normal local system does. That systemd is very important for you to setup docker conveniently inside the container.
One simple common command to execute sysbox:
dock run --runtime=sysbox-runc -it any_image
If you think thats what you are looking for, you can find out more at their github:
https://github.com/nestybox/sysbox
Quicklink to instruction on how to deploy a simple sysbox runtime environment container: https://github.com/nestybox/sysbox/blob/master/docs/quickstart/README.md