For the last two years, I’ve been treating compose files as individual runners for individual programs.
Then I brainstormed the concept of having one singular docker-compose file that writes out every single running container on my system… (that can use compose), each install starts at the same root directory and volumes branch out from there.
Then I find out, this is how most people use compose. One compose file, with volumes and directories branching out from wherever ./ is called.
THEN I FIND OUT… that most people that discover this move their installations to podman because compose works on different versions per app and calling those versions breaks the concept of having one singular docker-compose.yml file and podman doesn’t need a version for compose files.
Is there some meta for the best way to handle these apps collectively?
You must log in or register to comment.
I’ve always heard the opposite advice - don’t put all your containers in one compose file. If you have to update an image for one app, wouldn’t you have to restart the entirety of your apps?
You can reference a single or multiple containers in a compose stack.
docker compose -f /path/to/compose.yml restart NameOfServiceInCompose
whoa, I never knew that. Great tip!
Multiple compose file, each in their own directory for a stack of services. Running Lemmy? It goes to
~/compose_home/lemmy, with binds for image resized and database as folders inside that directory. Running website? It goes to~/compose_home/example.com, with its static files, api, and database binds all as folders inside that. Etc etc. Use gateway reverse proxy (I prefer Traefik but each to their own) and have each stack join the network to expose only what you’d need.Back up is easy, snapshot the volume bind (stop any service individually as needed); moving server for specific stack is easy, just move the directory over to a new system (update gateway info if required); upgrading is easy, just upgrade individual stack and off to the races.
Pulling all stacks into a single compose for the system as a whole is nuts. You lose all the flexibility and gain… nothing?
This. And I recently found out you can also use
includesin compose v2.20+, so if your stack complexity demands it, you can have a small top-level docker-compose.yml with includes to smaller compose files, per service or any other criteria you want.https://docs.docker.com/compose/multiple-compose-files/include/
I prefer compose merge because my “downstream” services can propagate their depends/networks to things that depend on them up the stream
There’s an env variables you set in .env so it’s similar to include
The one thing I prefer about include is that each include directory can have its own .env file, which merges with the first level .env. With merge it seems you’re stuck with one .env file for all in-file substitutes
That’s what I do. I always thought I was doing it “wrong” but it just made sense to me. I can also just up/down/etc… compose files to individually pull new images, test things, disable a service, and apply config updates without affecting another container at all.
I even keep my docker config files in a seperate directory so I can backup the docker composes in a second over the network.
I started by using a single mariaDB instance with multiple databases, but now I see the same benefits from moving to one database container per compose file that needs it to make it even more flexible so I don’t need to start up mariadb and redis before all of my containers.
File permission problems? Down the compose that needs it, fix it, re-up it without losing any uptime for other services and never having to use docker commands kludged together.
I think compose is best used somewhere in between.
I like to have separate compose files for all my service “stacks”. Sometimes that’s a frontend, backend, and database. Other times it’s just a single container.
It’s all about how you want to organize things.
I do this, 1 compose file per application. That has all the things that application need, volumes, networks, secrets.
In single docker host land, each application even has its own folder with the compose file and any other artifacts in it.
Yeah this post had me a little worried I’m doing something wrong haha. But I do it just like that. Compose file per stack.
I moved from compose to using Ansible to deploy containers. The Ansible container config looks almost identical to a compose file but I can also create folders, config files, set permissions, etc.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:
Fewer Letters More Letters LXC Linux Containers NAT Network Address Translation Plex Brand of media server package VPS Virtual Private Server (opposed to shared hosting)
[Thread #217 for this sub, first seen 15th Oct 2023, 20:15] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]
I use multiple compose files for simplicity
As other have said, I have a root docker directory then have directories inside for all my stacks, like Plex. Then I run this script which loops through them all to update everything in one command.
for n in plex-system bitwarden freshrss changedetection.io heimdall invidious paperless pihole transmission dashdot do cd /docker/$n docker-compose pull docker-compose up -d done echo Removing old docker images... docker image prune -fThe best way is to use Podman’s Systemd integration.
doesn’t systemd come with it’s own container thingy?
You’re probably thinking about
systemd-nspawn. Technically yes they’re containers, but not the same flavour of them. It’s more like LXC than Docker: it runs init and starts a full distro, like a VM but as a container.Nope, but it integrates very well with Podman.
This is what I use whenever I make my own services or am using a simple service with only one container. But I have yet to figure out how to convert a more complicated service like lemmy that already uses docker-compose, so I just use podman-docker and emulate docker-compose with podman. But that doesn’t get me any of the benefits of systemd and now my podman has a daemon, which defeats one of the main purposes of podman.
Just forget about podman-compose and use simple Quadlet container files with Systemd. That way it is not all in the same file, but Systemd handles all the inter-relations between the containers just fine.
Alternatively Podman also supports kubernetes configuration files, which is probably closer to what you have in mind, but I never tried that myself as the above is much simpler and better integrated with existing Systemd service files.
Quadlet
Requires podman 4.4 though
No, from that version on, it is integrated in Podman, but it was available for earlier versions as a 3rd party extension as well.
But if you are not yet on Podman 4.4 or later you should really upgrade soon, that version is quite old already.
you should really upgrade soon
Debian stable has podman 4.3 and 4.4 is not in stable-backports
You can use podman pods and generate the systemd file for the whole pod.
Have you tried portainer?
I’m currently using YunoHost behind CG-NAT with a Wireguard VPS bypass, but plan on moving to a Dockerized setup soon because of YNH still using an outdated version of Debian. What do you recommend me to keep my setup as similar to YNH?
