Create two containers with the same second volume names - linux

I am learning Docker. Wen i run two MYSQL containers with -v options whose two volumes names are the same , only one of those two volumes is created on the host file system. Would the second one override the first one or the system keeps the first one ? I don't see any command showing the volume names conflict. Here are my commands
docker container run -d --name mysql_1 -e MYSQL_ALLOW_EMPTY_PASSWORD=True -v mysql_db:/var/lib/mysql mysql
docker container run -d --name mysql_2 -e MYSQL_ALLOW_EMPTY_PASSWORD=True -v mysql_db:/var/lib/mysql mysql

I check the logs with command docker volume [name] inspect and it seems the second volume will override the first one
[
{
"CreatedAt": "2020-07-24T09:34:05Z",
"Driver": "local",
"Labels": null,
"Mountpoint": "/var/lib/docker/volumes/mysql_db78/_data",
"Name": "mysql_db78",
"Options": null,
"Scope": "local"
}
]
The createdAt is the time that i typed the last docker container run -v .. command. But it is strange that docker didn't notify about volume name conflict

You're allowed to mount the same volume into different containers. Files read and written by one can be read and written by the other. There's no "conflict" here.
In both docker run commands you're telling Docker to mount a volume named mysql_db on to the path /var/lib/mysql. In the first command, Docker automatically creates the named volume, as though you had run docker volume create mysql_db, since it doesn't exist yet. Then the second docker run command reuses that some volume.
(Operationally, you can't have multiple MySQL servers running off the same data store, so you should see a startup-time error referring to a lock file in the mysql_2 container. At a design level, try to avoid file sharing and prefer cross-container API calls instead, since coordinating file sharing can be tricky and it doesn't scale well to more advanced environments like Kubernetes.)

Related

Docker - unable to run script

What I'm doing
I am using AWS batch to run a docker container for a large compute job. I have configured the ECR/ECS successfully to the best of my knowledge but am having issues running the required commands for reasons that are beyond my level of understanding with docker ( newbie )
What I need to do is pass the below commands into my application and start my application to perform some heavy computing tasks; all commands listed below must be present.
The Issue(s)
The issue arises when I send the submit job to AWS batch; this service pulls the image from the ACR ( amazon container repository ) and spins up a compute environment. The issue comes from when I try to run the command I pass in, below I will go throgh it.
"command": [
"mkdir -p logging",
"chmod 777 logging/",
"docker run -t -i -e my-application", # container name
"-e APIKEY",
"-e BASEURI",
"-e APIUSER",
"-v WORKSPACE /logging:/src/log",
"DOCKERIMAGE",
"python my_app.py",
"-t APP_USER",
"-e APP_ENVIRONMENT",
"-u APP_USERNAME",
"-p APP_PASSWORD",
"-i IN_PATH",
"-o OUT_PATH",
"-b tmp/"
]
The command above generates the following error(s)
container_linux.go:370: starting container process caused: exec: "mkdir -p log": executable file not found in $PATH
I tried to pass in the command to echo the env var $PATH but was unsuccesfull getting a response and resulted in a similar error.
I have ran successfully "ls" and was able to see the directory contents of my application inside.
I am not however able to run any of these commands that I have included in the command [] section. I have tried just running python and such in hopes of getting a more detailed error but was unsuccessful.
Logic in plain English
Create a path called logging if it doesnt exist
set the permissions for logging
run the docker container and pass in the environment variables while doing so
Tell docker to run the python file my_app.py and pass in the expected runtime args
Execute and perform the required logic deligated in the python3 application
Questions
Why can I not create a directory here called "logging" where am I ?
Am I running these properly as defined by AWS batch? or docker
What am I missing or where am I going wrong?
AWS Batch high level doc
AWS Batch link specific to what i'm doing
Assuming that you're following the syntax described in the Container
Properties
section of the AWS docs, you have several problems with the syntax of
your command directive.
First
The command directive can only run a single command. You can't mash together a bunch of commands as you're trying to do in your example. If you need to run multiple commands you would need to embed them as an argument to a shell. For example, something like:
command: ["/bin/sh", "-c", "mkdir -p logging; chmod 777 logging; ..."]
Second
You must properly tokenize your
command lines -- that is, when you type mkdir -p logging at the
command prompt, the shell splits this into three parts (or "tokens"): ['mkdir', '-p', 'logging']. You need to do the same thing when building up the
list of arguments to command.
This is invalid:
command: ["mkdir -p logging"]
That would looking for a command named mkdir -p logging, and of course no such command exists. That would properly be written as:
command: ["mkdir", "-p", "logging"]
Third
I'm not very familiar with the AWS batch environment, but it's unlikely you can run a docker command inside a docker` container as you're trying to do. It's unclear why you're doing this, though: why not just configure your AWS batch job with the appropriate image, environment variables, etc?
Take a look at some of these example job definitions.

Is it possible to copy data of bind mount destination to a local source folder?

I have Jenkins server running inside a docker container. It has mount section like this
"Mounts": [
{
"Type": "bind",
"Source": "/mnt/data",
"Destination": "/var/jenkins_home",
"Mode": "",
"RW": true,
"Propagation": "rprivate"
}
]
I see all the jenkins job configuration is present in /var/jenkins_home but even though it has source /mnt/data, I don't see the data there. It seems that the local source folder
has been formatted. Now I want to get the data from /var/jenkins_home to the source directory /mnt/data.
Could you please explain to me the commands to do it if it's possible?
I don't know why that bind mount does not work - just like you I would expect /mnt/data to be bound to/from the container's /var/jenkins_home. If the host directory was emtpy though it would be expectable that the container's mount is also empty initially.
You can use docker cp to copy files/folders between host and a docker container.
So for example docker cp jenkinscontainername:/var/jenkins_home ./local_dir.

rsync files from inside a docker container?

We are using Docker for the build/deploy of a NodeJS app. We have a test container that is built by Jenkins, and executes our unit tests. The Dockerfile looks like this:
FROM node:boron
# <snip> some misc unimportant config here
# Run the tests
ENTRYPOINT npm test
I would like to modify this step so that we run npm run test:cov, which runs the unit tests + generates a coverage report HTML file. I've modified the Dockerfile to say:
# Run the tests + generate coverage
ENTRYPOINT npm run test:cov
... which works. Yay!
...But now I'm unsure how to rsync the coverage report ( generated by the above command inside the Dockerfile ) to a remote server.
In Jenkins, the above config is invoked this way:
docker run -t test --rm
which, again, runs the above test and exists the container.
how can I add some additional steps after the entrypoint command executes, to (for example) rsync some results out to a remote server?
I am not a "node" expert, so bear with me on the details.
First of all, you may consider if you need a separate Dockerfile for running the tests. Ideally, you'd want your image to be built, then tested, without modifying the actual image.
Building a test-image that uses your NodeJS app as a base image (FROM my-nodejs-image) could do the trick, but may not be needed if all you have to do is run a different command / entrypoint on the image.
Secondly; stateful data (the coverage report falls into that category) should not be stored inside the container (i.e., not stored on the container's filesystem). You want your containers to be ephemeral, and anything that should live beyond the container's lifecycle (anything that should be preserved after the container itself is gone), should be stored outside of the container; either in a "volume", or in a bind-mounted directory.
Let me start with the "separate Dockerfile" point. Let's say, your NodeJS application Dockerfile looks like this;
FROM node:boron
COPY package.json /usr/src/app/
RUN npm install && npm cache clean
COPY . /usr/src/app
CMD [ "npm", "start" ]
You build your image, and tag it, for example, with the commit it was built from;
docker build -t myapp:$GIT_COMMIT .
Once the image was built succesfully, you want to test it. Probably a quick test to verify it actually "runs". Many ways to do that, perhaps something like;
docker run \
-d \
--rm \
--network=test-network \
--name test-{$GIT_COMMIT} \
myapp:$GIT_COMMIT
And a container to test it actually does something;
docker run --rm --network=test-network my-test-image curl test-{$GIT_COMMIT}
Once tested (and the temporary container removed), you can run your coverage tests, however, instead of writing the coverage report inside the container, write it to a volume or bind-mount. You can override the command to run in the container with docker run;
mkdir -p /coverage-reports/{$GIT_COMMIT}
docker run \
--rm \
--name test-{$GIT_COMMIT}\
-v /coverage-reports/{$GIT_COMMIT}:/usr/src/app/coverage \
myapp:$GIT_COMMIT npm run test:cov
The commands above;
Create a unique local directory to store the test-artifacts (coverage report)
Runs the image you built (and tagged myapp:$GIT_COMMIT)
Bind-mount the /coverage-reports/{$GIT_COMMIT} into the container at usr/src/app/coverage
Runs the coverage tests (which will write to /usr/src/app/coverage if I'm not mistaken - again, not a Node expert)
Removes the container once it exits
After the container exits, the coverage report is stored in /coverage-reports/{$GIT_COMMIT} on the host. You can use your regular tools to rsync those where you want.
As an alternative, you can use a volume plugin to write the results to (e.g.) an s3 bucket, which saves you from having to rsync the results.
Once tests are successful, you can docker tag the image to bump your application's version (e.g. docker tag myapp:1.0.12345), docker push to your registry, and deploy the new version.
Make a script to execute as the entrypoint and put the commands in the script. You pass in args when calling docker run and they get passed to the script.
The docs have an example of the postgres image's script. You can build off that.
Docker Entrypoint Docs

How do I use EBS volume with ECS container

I created an EBS volume, attached and mounted it to my Container Instance. In the task definition volumes I set the volume Source Path with the mounted directory.
The container data is not beeing created in the mounted directory, all other directories out of the mounted EBS works properly.
The purpose is to save the data out of the container and with this another volume backup it.
Is there a way to use this attached volume with my container? or is a better way to work with volumes and backups.
EDIT: It was tested with a random docker image running it specifying the volume and I faced the same problem. I manage to make it work restarting the Docker service but I'm still looking for a solution without restart Docker.
Inspecting a container with a volume directory that is the mounted EBS
"HostConfig": {
"Binds": [
"/mnt/data:/data"
],
...
"Mounts": [
{
"Source": "/mnt/data",
"Destination": "/data",
"Mode": "",
"RW": true,
"Propagation": "rprivate"
}
],
the directory displays:
$ ls /mnt/data/
lost+found
Inspecting a container with a volume directory that is not the mounted EBS
"HostConfig": {
"Binds": [
"/home/ec2-user/data:/data"
],
...
"Mounts": [
{
"Source": "/home/ec2-user/data",
"Destination": "/data",
"Mode": "",
"RW": true,
"Propagation": "rprivate"
}
]
the directory displays:
$ ls /home/ec2-user/data
databases dbms
It sounds like what you potentially want to do is make use of the AWS EC2 Launch Configurations. Using Launch Configurations, you can specify EBS volumes be created and attached to your instance at launch. This happens prior to the docker agent and subsequent tasks being started.
As part of your launch configuration, you'll want to also update the User data under Configure details with something along the lines of:
mkdir /data;
mkfs -t ext4 /dev/xvdb;
mount /dev/xvdb /data;
echo '/dev/xvdb /data ext4 defaults,nofail 0 2' >> /etc/fstab;
Then, so long as your container is setup to access /data on the host, everything will just work the first go.
Bonus: If you're using ECS clusters, I presume you're already making use of Launch Configurations to get your instances joined to the cluster. If not, you can add new instances automatically as well, using something like:
#!/bin/bash
docker pull amazon/amazon-ecs-agent
docker run --name ecs-agent --detach=true --restart=on-failure:10 --volume=/var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock --volume=/var/log/ecs/:/log --volume=/var/lib/ecs/data:/data --volume=/sys/fs/cgroup:/sys/fs/cgroup:ro --volume=/var/run/docker/execdriver/native:/var/lib/docker/execdriver/native:ro --publish=127.0.0.1:51678:51678 --env=ECS_LOGFILE=/log/ecs-agent.log --env=ECS_AVAILABLE_LOGGING_DRIVERS=[\"json-file\",\"syslog\",\"gelf\"] --env=ECS_LOGLEVEL=info --env=ECS_DATADIR=/data --env=ECS_CLUSTER=your-cluster-here amazon/amazon-ecs-agent:latest
Specifically in that bit, you'll want to edit this part: --env=ECS_CLUSTER=your-cluster-here
Hope this helps.
The current documentation on Using Data Volumes in Tasks seems to address this problem:
Prior to the release of the Amazon ECS-optimized AMI version 2017.03.a, only file systems that were available when the Docker daemon was started are available to Docker containers. You can use the latest Amazon ECS-optimized AMI to avoid this limitation, or you can upgrade the docker package to the latest version and restart Docker.

How can I run a Docker container in AWS Elastic Beanstalk with non-default run parameters?

I have a Docker container that runs great on my local development machine. I would like to move this to AWS Elastic Beanstalk, but I am running into a small bit of trouble.
I am trying to mount an S3 bucket to my container by using s3fs. I have the Dockerfile:
FROM tomcat:7.0
MAINTAINER me#example.com
RUN apt-get update
RUN DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive apt-get install -y build-essential libfuse-dev libcurl4-openssl-dev libxml++2.6-dev libssl-dev mime-support automake libtool wget tar
# Add the java source
ADD . /path/to/tomcat/webapps/
ADD run_docker.sh /root/run_docker.sh
WORKDIR $CATALINA_HOME
EXPOSE 8080
CMD ["/root/run_docker.sh"]
And I install s3fs, mount an S3 bucket, and run the Tomcat server after the image has been created, by running run_docker.sh:
#!/bin/bash
#run_docker.sh
wget https://github.com/s3fs-fuse/s3fs-fuse/archive/master.zip -O /usr/src/master.zip;
cd /usr/src/;
unzip /usr/src/master.zip;
cd /usr/src/s3fs-fuse-master;
autoreconf --install;
CPPFLAGS=-I/usr/include/libxml2/ /usr/src/s3fs-fuse-master/configure;
make;
make install;
cd $CATALINA_HOME;
mkdir /opt/s3-files;
s3fs my-bucket /opt/s3-files;
catalina.sh run
When I build and run this Docker container using the command:
docker run --cap-add mknod --cap-add sys_admin --device=/dev/fuse -p 80:8080 -d username/mycontainer:latest
it works well. Yet, when I remove the --cap-add mknod --cap-add sys_admin --device=/dev/fuse, then s3fs fails to mount my S3 bucket.
Now, I would like to run this on AWS Elastic Beanstalk, and when I deploy the container (and run run_docker.sh), all the steps execute fine, except the step s3fs my-bucket /opt/s3-files in run_docker.sh fails to mount the bucket.
Presumably, this is because whatever Elastic Beanstalk does to run a Docker container, it doesn't add any additional flags like, --cap-add mknod --cap-add sys_admin --device=/dev/fuse.
My Dockerrun.aws.json file looks like:
{
"AWSEBDockerrunVersion": "1",
"Image": {
"Name": "tomcat:7.0"
},
"Ports": [
{
"ContainerPort": "8080"
}
]
}
Is it possible to add additional docker run flags to an AWS EB Docker deployment?
An alternative option is to find another way to mount an S3 bucket, but I suspect I'd run into similar permission errors regardless. Has anyone seen any way to accomplish this???
UPDATE:
For people trying to use #Egor's answer below, it works when the EB configuration is set to use v1.4.0 running Docker 1.6.0. Anything past the v1.4.0 version fails. So to make it work, build your environment as normal (which should give you a failed build), then rebuild it with a v1.4.0 running Docker 1.6.0 configuration. That should do it!
If you are using the latest version of aws docker stack (docker 1.7.1 for example), you'll need to slightly modify the above answer. Try this:
commands:
00001_add_privileged:
cwd: /tmp
command: 'sed -i "s/docker run -d/docker run --privileged -d/" /opt/elasticbeanstalk/hooks/appdeploy/enact/00run.sh'
Notice the change of location && name of the run script
Add file .ebextensions/01-commands.config
container_commands:
00001-docker-privileged: command: 'sed -i "s/docker run -d/docker run --privileged -d/" /opt/elasticbeanstalk/hooks/appdeploy/pre/04run.sh'
I am also using s3fs
Thanks elijahchancey for answer it was much helpful. I would just like to add small comment:
Elasticbeanstalk is now using ECS tasks to deploy and manage application cluster. There is very important paragraph in Multicontainer Docker Configuration
docs (which I originally missed).
The following examples show a subset of parameters that are commonly used. More optional parameters are available. For more information on the task definition format and a full list of task definition parameters, see Amazon ECS Task Definitions in the Amazon ECS Developer Guide.
So the document is not complete reference but it just shows typical entries and you are supposed to find more elsewhere. This has quite major impact because now (2018) you are able to specify more options and you don't need to hack ebextensions any more. Only thing you need to do is to use task parameter in containerDefinitions of your multi docker Dockerrun.aws.json.
This is not mentioned in single docker containers but one can try and verify...
Example of multi docker Dockerrun.aws.json with extra cap:
{
"AWSEBDockerrunVersion": 2,
"containerDefinitions": [
{
"name": "service1",
"image": "myapp/service1:latest",
"essential": true,
"memoryReservation": 128,
"portMappings": [
{
"hostPort": 8080,
"containerPort": 8080
}
],
"linuxParameters": {
"capabilities": {
"add": [
"SYS_PTRACE"
]
}
}
}
]
}
You can now add capabilities using the task definition. Here are the docs:
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonECS/latest/developerguide/task_definition_parameters.html
This is specifically what you would add to your task definition:
"linuxParameters": {
"capabilities": {
"add": [
"SYS_PTRACE"
]
}
},

Resources