I've got a Docker image which accepts a DATABASE_URL env and start the container with
docker run -p 3000:3000 -e DATABASE_URL=mysql://root:foobar#localhost:3309/app app_image
On startup the container should run migrations on a database bootstraped from a docker-compose.yml file:
version: '3'
services:
database:
image: mysql:8.0
environment:
- MYSQL_DATABASE=app
- MYSQL_ROOT_PASSWORD=foobar
ports:
- "3309:3306"
volumes:
- db:/var/lib/mysql
volumes:
db:
Unfortunately, I always get Can't reach database at localhost:3309. I assume it has something to do with the network settings - but how to configure these settings in order to make it work?
I've tried many different configurations (e.g. database, 127.0.0.1, etc. instead of localhost) but couldn't make it work and I'm honestly running out of ideas.
Thanks!
Some clarifications:
Unless you specifically bind containers to the same host e.g. --network host or link them together in docker compose using links Links documentation, container A will not be able to reach anything on container B via localhost.
Docker compose, unless specified differently in the docker-compose.yaml file, automatically creates a separate network for all of the containers that are managed by that compose file, its name is usually based on the folder the file is in.
You can view it using docker network ls
that means, any container not managed by that compose file, is not part of the same network by default.
One option easy enough option that you have (among many probably):
Decide on a network name which the compose file and you container will agree on
create this network beforehand (before starting the standalone container and the compose file), the network will probably be in bridge mode
docker network docs docker network create -d bridge my-bridge-network
add it to the compose file so that docker compose uses it instead of the auto-created one
networks:
- my-bridge-network
when starting the stand-alone container, specify which network to attach it to
docker run -p 3000:3000 -e DATABASE_URL=mysql://root:foobar#database:3309/app --network my-bridge-network app_image
notice that the IP/HOSTNAME for the database container is according to the service name in the compose file, you can change that using hostname: some-other-hostname in the yaml.
all containers should now be on the same network, each one has a different IP/Hostname using this method (so cant use localhost for inter-container communication)
Alternative option:
use network: host for both the compose file and the stand-alone container, they can talk to each other using localhost.
i dont recommend this option, and cant find a good enough reason to use it over other options.
I'm using a dedicated container for running generic project-related shell scripts in order to avoid having to test scripts on multiple environments(mac, win, ubuntu, debian...) and to minimize software requirements on the host OS. Even docker-compose commands are run from the console container. /var/run/docker.sock is bind mounted from host.
Everything else seems to be working fine, but for example if I run docker-compose up traefik inside the console container, traefik starts normally but it's unreachable both on the host and even on another container in the same network. If docker-compose up traefik is run from the host OS(Windows 10), traefik becomes reachable as expected. I suspect this has something to do with how Docker or docker-compose handle networking but I'm not completely sure. I did check that regardless of how I start the traefik container, the same ports appear instantly in NirSoft CurrPorts(sort of gui for netstat).
Is there any way (and how) to fix this?
EDIT
I realised that this must be somehow an error on my part, since dockerized docker guis exist and they assumably don't have any problems bringing up containers that are accessible from the host and outside world.
Now I'm wondering if this might be a simple configuration error either in my docker(-compose) settings or somewhere else on my host machine, or do guis like Portainer go through some extra steps in order to expose the started containers to the host?
For development purpose we all map the port of Traefik to 80, so I will assume the same in your case as well. Let's assume that you are running Traefik container in a port 80 which is mapped to the port 80 in the host. But according to your Traefik container the host machine is nothing but the container which is used for running the scripts. But the port 80 of the shell script container is not mapped to the Host machine of that particular container. I hope now you have been lost somewhere around the port mapping and containers.
Let me describe your situation in the image below.
To make your setup working you should deploy your containers as shown above along with the port mapping.
To simplify the answer,
docker run -t -d -p 80:80 shellScriptImage
docker run -t -d -p 80:80 traefik (- inside the shell script container)
By doing this you can access the traefik container from the outside.
I create a swarm and join a node, very nice all works fine
docker swarm init --advertise-addr 192.168.99.1
docker swarm join --token verylonggeneratedtoken 192.168.99.1:2377
I create 3 services on the swarm manager
docker service create --replicas 1 --name nginx nginx --publish published=80,target=80
docker service create --replicas 1 --name php php:7.1-fpm published=9000,target=9000
docker service create --replicas 1 --name postgres postgres:9.5 published=5432,target=5432
All services boots up just fine, but if I customize the php image with my app, and configure nginx to listen to the php fpm socket I can’t find a way to communicate these three services. Even if I access the services using “docker exec -it service-id bash” and try to ping the container names or host names (I even tried to curl them).
What I am trying to say is I don’t know how to configure nginx to connect to fpm since I don’t know how one container communicates to another using swarm. Using docker-compose or docker run is simple as using a links option. I’ve read all documentation around, spent hours on trial and error, and I just couldn’t wrap my head around this. I have read about the routing mesh, wish will get the ports published and it really does to the outside world, but I couldn’t figure in wish ip its published for the internal containers, also that can't be an random ip as that will cause problems to manage my apps configuration, even the nginx configurations.
To have multiple containers communicate with each other, they next to be running on a user created network. With swarm mode, you want to use an overlay network so containers can run on multiple hosts.
docker network create -d overlay mynet
Then run the services with that network:
docker service create --network mynet ...
The easier solution is to use a compose.yml file to define each of the services. By default, the services in a stack are deployed on their own network:
docker stack deploy -c compose.yml stack-name
Or you can just make 1 Docker-compose, and make a docker stack with them.
It's easier and more reliable to combine php_fpm and nginx in the same image. I know this goes against the official way of single-app images, but for cases like php_fpm+nginx where you must have both to return a request, it's the best case. I have a WIP sample here: https://github.com/BretFisher/php-docker-good-defaults
how can I ssh into a service created by docker swarm? I have created a service using docker stack and the yaml file looks like this:
version: '3'
services:
app:
image: "myimage1"
expose:
- "8080"
and I validated that the service is running but I'm not sure how to ssh into the service(container) that was created.
To ssh into container, you would need ssh service running inside container. This is generally not a good practice.
To get access to container shell without having ssh running, you can use:
docker exec -ti bash/sh
Ansible has docker modules for managing containers and images(http://docs.ansible.com/ansible/docker_container_module.html#docker-container, http://docs.ansible.com/ansible/docker_image_module.html#docker-image)
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.