I was wondering if this is possible. In a lot of my K8s deployments, I will have a Postgres database, sometimes the service is called Postgres, other times Postgresql (depending on which Docker image I use). Kubelet will automatically add {SVCNAME}_SERVICE_HOST and {SVCNAME}_SERVICE_PORT environment variables, and I was wondering if I could create another (consistent naming) EV from this variable? The reason I ask is because that is how I construct my connection string, so if this changes I need to rebuild the image. Thanks!
Yes, you can use that unless you are not changing anything for postgres service
A list of all services that were running when a Container was created is available to that Container as environment variables.
Example :
HOSTNAME=something-fddf-123123123-gbh45
SHLVL=1
HOME=/root
PATH=/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin
KUBERNETES_SERVICE_PORT_HTTPS=80
KUBERNETES_SERVICE_HOST=x.x.x.x
PWD=/
Ref : https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/containers/container-environment/
Related
How to run docker-compose across different lifecycle environments (say dev, qa, staging, production).
Sometimes a larger VM is being shared by multiple developers, so would like to start the containers with appropriate developer specific suffixes (say dev1, dev2, dev3 ..). Should port customization be handled manually via the environment file (i.e. .env file)
This is an unusual use case for docker-compose, but I'll leave some tips anyway! :)
There's two different ways to name stuff you start with docker-compose. One is to name the service that you specify under the main services: key of your docker-compose.yml file. By default, individual running containers will be assigned names indicating what project they are from (by default, the name of the directory from which your docker-compose file is in), what service they run (this is what's specified under your services: key), and which instance of that service they are (this number changes if eg. you're using replicas). Eg. default container names for a service named myservice specified in a compose file ~/my_project/docker/docker-compose.yml will have a name like docker_myservice_1 (or _2, _3, etc if more than one container is supposed to run).
You can use environment variables to specify a lot of key-value pairs in docker-compose files, but you can't conditionally specify the service name - service keys are only allowed to have alphanumeric characters in them and compose files can't look like eg:
version: "3"
services:
${ENVVAR}:
image: ubuntu:20.04
However, you can override the container naming scheme by using the container_name field in your docker-compose file (documentation for usage here). Maybe a solution you could use looks like this:
version: "3"
services:
myservice:
image: ubuntu:20.04
container_name: ${DEVELOPER_ENVVAR?err}
this will require a developer to specify DEVELOPER_ENVVAR at runtime, either by exporting it in their shell or by running docker-compose like DEVELOPER_ENVVAR=myservice_dev1 docker-compose up. Note that using container_name is incompatible with using replicas to run multiple containers for the same service - the names have to be unique for those running containers, so you'll either have to define separate services for each name, or give up on using container_name.
However, you're in a pickle if you expect multiple developers to be able to run containers with different names using the same compose file in the same directory. That's because when starting a service, docker-compose has a Recreating step where, if there's already containers implementing that service running, they'll wait for that container to finish. Ultimately, I think this is for the best - if multiple developers were trying to run the exact same compose project at once, should a developer have control over other developers' running containers? Probably not, right?
If you want multiple developers to be able to run services at once in the same VM, I think you probably want to do two things:
first, (and you may well have already done this! but it's still a good reminder) make sure that this is a good idea. Are there going to be resource contention issues (eg. for port-forwarding) that make different running instances of your project conflict? For many Docker services, there are going to be, but there probably won't be for eg. images that are meant to be run in a swarm.
second, have different compose files checked out in different directories, so that there are separate compose projects for each developer. To use .env files one way one obvious option is to just maintain separate copies, one per developer directory. If, for your use case, it's unsatisfactory to maintain one copy of .env per developer this way, you could use symlinks named .env (or whatever your env file is named) to the same file somewhere else on the VM.
After you've done this, you'll be able to tell from the container names who is running what.
If none of these are satisfactory, you might want to consider, eg. using one VM per developer, or maybe even considering using a different container management system than docker-compose.
I have done very similar automation and I've used Ansible to create "docker compose" config on the fly.
So based on input-Environment , the ansible playbook will create the relevant docker-compose file. So basically I have a docker-compose template in my git repository with values that are dynamic and ansible playbook populates them etc.
and also you can use ansible to trigger such creation or automation one after another
A similar sample has been posted at ansible_docker_splunk repository.
Basically the whole project is to automate end-to-end docker cluster from CSV file
I have a web application hosted on a server, it uses virtualEnv to separate dev and prod instances. Both instances share the same postgres database. (all on the same server)
I am kind of new to docker and I would like to replace the dev and prod instances with docker containers, and each link to its dev or prod postgres containers (or a similar effect so that a code change in development will not affect production database.)
what is the best design for this scenario? should I have the dev and prod container mapped to different ports? Can I have 1 dockerfile for both dev and prod containers? How do I deal with 2 postgres container?
Seems your requirement is not very complicated, so I think you can run 2 pair containers (each pair have one application container and one postgres container) to achieve this, the basic structure described as below:
devContainer---> pgsDBContainer:<port_number1> ---> dataVolume1
prodContainer---> pgsDBContainer:<port_number2> ---> dataVolume2
Each container pair have one dedicated port number and one dedicated volume. The port numbers used for dev or prod application to connect to corresponding postgres database, which should be easy to understand. But volume is another story.
Please read this Manage data in containers doc for container volume. As you mentioned that "a code change in development will not affect production database", which means you should have two separate volumes for postgres containers, so the data of the databases will not mixed up.
Can I have 1 dockerfile for both dev and prod containers?
Yes you can, just as I mentioned, you should give each postgres container different port and volume config when you start them with docker run command. docker run has EXPOSE option and VOLUME option for you to config the port number and volume location.
Just a reminder, When you run a database in container, you may need to consider the Data Persistent in container environment to avoid data loss that caused by container removed. Some discussions of container Data Persistent can be found here and there.
I'm not sure I completely understand the role of Docker in the process of development and deployment.
Say, I create a Dockerfile with nginx, some database and something else which creates a container and runs fine.
I drop it somewhere in the cloud and execute it to install and configure all the dependencies and environment settings.
Next, I have a repository with a web application which I want to run inside the container I created and deployed in the first 2 steps. I regularly work on it and push the changes.
Now, how do I integrate the web application into the container?
Do I put it as a dependency inside the Dockerfile I create in the 1st step and recreate the container each time from scratch?
Or, do I deploy the container once but have procedures inside Dockerfile that install utils that pull the code from repo by command or via hooks?
What if a container is running but I want to change some settings of, say, nginx? Do I add these changes into Dockerfile and recreate the image?
In general, what's the role of Docker in the daily app development routine? Is it used often if the infrastructure is running fine and only code is changing?
I think there is no singl "use only this" answer - as you already outlined, there are different viable concepts available.
Deployment to staging/production/pre-production
a)
Do I put it as a dependency inside the Dockerfile I create in the 1st step and recreate the container each time from scratch?
This is for sure the most docker`ish way and aligns fully with he docker-philosophy. It is highly portable, reproducible and suites anything, from one container to "swarm" thousands of. E.g. this concept has no issue suddenly scaling horizontally when you need more containers, lets say due to heavy traffic / load.
It also aligns with the idea that only the configuration/data should be dynamic in a docker container, not code / binaries /artifacts
This strategy should be chosen for production use, so when not as frequent deployments happen. If you care about downtimes during container-rebuilds (on upgrade), there are good concepts to deal with that too.
We use this for production and pre-production intances.
b)
Or, do I deploy the container once but have procedures inside
Dockerfile that install utils that pull the code from repo by command
or via hooks?
This is a more common practice for very frequent deployment. You can go the pull ( what you said ) or the push (docker cp / ssh scp) concept, while i guess the latter is preferred in this kind of environment.
We use this for any kind strategy for staging instances, which basically should reflect the current "codebase" and its status. We also use this for smoke-tests and CI, but depending on the application. If the app actually changes its dependencies a lot and a clean build requires a rebuild with those to really ensure stuff is tested as it is supposed to, we actually rebuild the image during CI.
Configuration management
1.
What if a container is running but I want to change some settings of,
say, nginx? Do I add these changes into Dockerfile and recreate the
image?
I am not using this as c) since this is configuration management, not applications deployment and the answer to this can be very complicated, depending on your case. In general, if redeployment needs configuration changes, it depends on your configuration management, if you can go with b) or always have to go a).
E.g. if you use https://github.com/markround/tiller with consul as the backend, you can push the configuration changes into consul, regenerating the configuration with tiller, while using consul watch -prefix /configuration tiller as a watch-task to react on those value changes.
This enables you to go b) and fix the configuration
You can also use https://github.com/markround/tiller and on deployment, e.g. change ENV vars or some kind of yml file ( tiller supports different backends ), and call tiller during deployment yourself. This most probably needs you to have ssh or you ssh on the host and use docker cp and docker exec
Development
In development, you generally reuse your docker-compose.yml file you use for production, but overload it with docker-compose-dev.yml to e.g. mount your code-folder, set RAILS_ENV=development, reconfigurat / mount some other configurations like xdebug or more verbose nginx loggin, whatever you need. You can also add some fake MTA-services like fermata and so on
docker-compose -f docker-compose.yml -f docker-compose-dev.yml up
docker-compose-dev.yml only overloads some values, it does not redefine it or duplicate it.
Depending on how powerful your configuration management is, you can also do a pre-installation during development stack up.
We actually use scaffolding for that, we use https://github.com/xeger/docker-compose and after running it, we use docker exec and docker cp to preinstall a instance or stage something. Some examples are here https://github.com/EugenMayer/docker-sync/wiki/7.-Scripting-with-docker-sync
If you are developing under OSX and you face performance issues due to OSXFS / code shares, you probably want to have a look at http://docker-sync.io ( i am biased though )
I am using Postgres Amazon RDS and Amazon ECS for running my docker containers.
The question is. What is the best practice for getting the username and password for the RDS database into the docker container running on ECS?
I see a few options:
Build the credentials into docker image. I don't like this since then everyone with access to the image can get the password.
Put the credentials in the userdata of the launch configuration used by the autoscaling group for ECS. With this approach all docker images running on my ECS cluster has access to the credentials. I don't really like that either. That way if a blackhat finds a security hole in any of my services (even services that does not use the database) he will be able to get the credentials for the database.
Put the credentials in a S3 and control the limit the access to that bucket with a IAM role that the ECS server has. Same drawbacks as putting them in the userdata.
Put the credentials in the Task Definition of ECS. I don't see any drawbacks here.
What is your thoughts on the best way to do this? Did I miss any options?
regards,
Tobias
Building it into the container is never recomended. Makes it hard to distribute and change.
Putting it into the ECS instances does not help your containers to use it. They are isolated and you'd end up with them on all instances instead of just where the containers are that need them.
Putting them into S3 means you'll have to write that functionality into your container. And it's another place to have configuration.
Putting them into your task definition is the recommended way. You can use the environment portion for this. It's flexible. It's also how PaaS offerings like Heroku and Elastic Beanstalk use DB connection strings for Ruby on rails and other services. Last benefit is it makes it easy to use your containers against different databases (like dev, test, prod) without rebuilding containers or building weird functionality
The accepted answer recommends configuring environment variables in the task definition. This configuration is buried deep in the ECS web console. You have to:
Navigate to Task Definitions
Select the correct task and revision
Choose to create a new revision (not allowed to edit existing)
Scroll down to the container section and select the correct container
Scroll down to the Env Variables section
Add your configuration
Save the configuration and task revision
Choose to update your service with the new task revision
This tutorial has screenshots that illustrate where to go.
Full disclosure: This tutorial features containers from Bitnami and I work for Bitnami. However the thoughts expressed here are my own and not the opinion of Bitnami.
For what it's worth, while putting credentials into environment variables in your task definition is certainly convenient, it's generally regarded as not particularly secure -- other processes can access your environment variables.
I'm not saying you can't do it this way -- I'm sure there are lots of people doing exactly this, but I wouldn't call it "best practice" either. Using Amazon Secrets Manager or SSM Parameter Store is definitely more secure, although getting your credentials out of there for use has its own challenges and on some platforms those challenges may make configuring your database connection much harder.
Still -- it seems like a good idea that anyone running across this question be at least aware that using the task definition for secrets is ... shall way say ... frowned upon?
I would like to deploy an application using docker and would like to use a postgresql container to hold my data.
However I am worried about losing data, so I need back-ups.
I know I could run a cron job on the host to dump the data out from the container, however this approach is not containerized and when I deploy to a new location, I have to remember to add the cronjob.
What is a good , preferably containerized, approach to implement rotating data backups from a postgresql docker container?
Why not deploy a second container that is linked to the PostgreSQL one that does the backups?
It can contain a crontab within, together with instructions on how to upload the backup to Amazon S3, or some other secure storage in the cloud that will not fail even in case of an atomic war :)
Here's some basic information on linking containers: https://docs.docker.com/userguide/dockerlinks/
You can also use Docker Compose in order to deploy a fleet of containers (at least 2, in your case). If your "backup container" uploads stuff to the cloud, make sure you don't put your secrets (such as AWS keys) into the image at build time. Put them into the container at run-time. Here's more information on managing secrets using Docker.