ironicbadger Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Hi all, I'm putting some hours into understand Docker today and have set my sights on getting a BitTorrent Sync docker container actually working. I have built a container successfully which is now running but there is one piece of my understanding which does not yet compute. Networking. root@unRAID:/mnt/cache# docker run -p 8888:8888 -p 55555:55555 -v /mnt/cache/btsync-docker/:/btsync/ btsync By using this application, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms. http://www.bittorrent.com/legal/privacy http://www.bittorrent.com/legal/terms-of-use total physical memory 536870912 max disk cache 2097152 Using IP address 172.17.0.3 UPnP: Could not map UPnP Port on this pass, retrying. UPnP: Could not map UPnP Port on this pass, retrying. UPnP: Could not map UPnP Port on this pass, retrying. UPnP: Unable to map port 172.17.0.3:55555 with UPnP. In virtualisation I just have a br0 that I connect via, but how does it work in Docker? 172.x.x.x isn't right surely? Ideas, help, explanation welcomed please. I'll post a working Dockerfile at the end of this when it's all working. Quote Link to comment
gfjardim Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Hi all, I'm putting some hours into understand Docker today and have set my sights on getting a BitTorrent Sync docker container actually working. I have built a container successfully which is now running but there is one piece of my understanding which does not yet compute. Networking. root@unRAID:/mnt/cache# docker run -p 8888:8888 -p 55555:55555 -v /mnt/cache/btsync-docker/:/btsync/ btsync By using this application, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms. http://www.bittorrent.com/legal/privacy http://www.bittorrent.com/legal/terms-of-use total physical memory 536870912 max disk cache 2097152 Using IP address 172.17.0.3 UPnP: Could not map UPnP Port on this pass, retrying. UPnP: Could not map UPnP Port on this pass, retrying. UPnP: Could not map UPnP Port on this pass, retrying. UPnP: Unable to map port 172.17.0.3:55555 with UPnP. In virtualisation I just have a br0 that I connect via, but how does it work in Docker? 172.x.x.x isn't right surely? Ideas, help, explanation welcomed please. I'll post a working Dockerfile at the end of this when it's all working. It will not pass NAT-PMP packages unless you bridge the container to the host adapter. Use --net="host" instead of -h HOSTNAME. Quote Link to comment
ironicbadger Posted June 23, 2014 Author Share Posted June 23, 2014 Ok thanks, that seems to be working just fine with the --net="host" stuff. Any idea why when I restart the container it looses any and all changes made during the last 'run' of the container? EDIT: Answered my own question, I need to commit the changes to the docker image otherwise it just creates a new container based off the old image when I issue the 'run' command. Next Q, how do I set (on a per container basis) that changes are committed when stopping a container? EDIT2: Answered my own question again. Rather than storing any information in the container at all (be it a database, conf file or whatever) you should actually store this in unRAID and then 'passthrough' that directory to the container using -v flag in the run command. docker run -p 8888:8888 -p 55555:55555 -v /mnt/cache/btsync-docker/:/btsync/ -v /mnt/user/Media/:/mnt/unraid/ --net="host" -d btsync In the above docker run command note the two -v flags. The first is where I store the docker .conf files and sync data and then pass that through to the container and it appears in the containers filesystem under /btsync. The second is passing my array through which appears under /mnt/unraid. This docker stuff is pretty neat I have to say. Headless Linux VMs are done. Quote Link to comment
hurricanehrndz Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Everytime you issue the run command it's a brand new container. I just create a named container and issue a start and stop command thereafter instead of issuing a run command everytime. Quote Link to comment
ironicbadger Posted June 23, 2014 Author Share Posted June 23, 2014 Everytime you issue the run command it's a brand new container. I just create a named container and issue a start and stop command thereafter instead of issuing a run command everytime. How'd you do that then? You can see from my edit above the lengthy docker run command I'm issuing everytime. Quote Link to comment
hurricanehrndz Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Most of the info your looking for can be found here: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=33599.0 Quote Link to comment
dalben Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 It might be worth setting up a wiki for these containers. Or setup forums similar to xbmc skins where each major container has a sub forum, or at least a dedicated named thread. It's already a tad difficult trying yo keep track of all the differing containers unraiders have made Quote Link to comment
ironicbadger Posted June 23, 2014 Author Share Posted June 23, 2014 Yes absolutely. This definitely needs some organisation from LT. Quote Link to comment
needo Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Everytime you issue the run command it's a brand new container. I just create a named container and issue a start and stop command thereafter instead of issuing a run command everytime. How'd you do that then? You can see from my edit above the lengthy docker run command I'm issuing everytime. I don't think they correctly estimated the adoption rate of Docker and probably thought KVM was where the heat was. Quote Link to comment
aptalca Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Well, docker is interesting and is great for people who want plugins and who don't want to deal with VMs. The people who do want VMs like me pretty much already set up one in Xen and switching over is kind of a pain. I guess the population that really wanted kvm are the people who had pass through issues in xen. I don't pass anything through and I'm perfectly happy with my Ubuntu running in xen Although I'm tempted to try docker, I think I'll wait for a while because for one xen meets all my needs and more, and docker even as a concept is a little over a year old. I'd rather not be the one trying to work out the kinks of a new system when i don't really need it. Quote Link to comment
NAS Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 ...and docker even as a concept is a little over a year old. I'd rather not be the one trying to work out the kinks of a new system when i don't really need it. To be fair this is a little misleading. Docker leverages LXC which has been out there for at least 5 years. Containers are nothing new, just easy to use containers with a community around it is. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.