I have a prisma project that works fine locally when I run $ docker-compose up. I converted the docker-compose.yml file to Dockerrun.aws.json. But now when i try to run the project locally via $ eb local run I get an error
mysql_1 | Version: '5.7.24' socket: '/var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock' port: 3306 MySQL Community Server (GPL)
prisma_1 | Exception in thread "main" java.sql.SQLTransientConnectionException: database - Connection is not available, request timed out after 5001ms.
Below is my Dockerrun.aws.json file:
{
"AWSEBDockerrunVersion": "2",
"containerDefinitions": [
{
"environment": [
{
"name": "MYSQL_ROOT_PASSWORD",
"value": "prisma"
}
],
"essential": true,
"memory": 128,
"image": "mysql:5.7",
"mountPoints": [
{
"containerPath": "/var/lib/mysql",
"sourceVolume": "Mysql"
}
],
"name": "mysql",
"portMappings": [
{
"containerPort": 3306,
"hostPort": 3306
}
]
},
{
"environment": [
{
"name": "PRISMA_CONFIG",
"value": "port: 4466\ndatabases:\n default:\n connector: mysql\n host: mysql\n port: 3306\n user: root\n password: prisma\n migrations: true\n"
}
],
"essential": true,
"memory": 128,
"image": "prismagraphql/prisma:1.21",
"name": "prisma",
"portMappings": [
{
"containerPort": 4466,
"hostPort": 4466
}
]
}
],
"family": "",
"volumes": [
{
"host": {
"sourcePath": "mysql"
},
"name": "Mysql"
}
]
}
The error message leads me to believe that there's an issue connecting the prisma container to the mysql instance. If i had to guess it's the PRISMA_CONFIG value but not I'm not 100% sure. Can someone tell me what I'm doing wrong here?
You can not have those /n in there. YAML cares about real carriage and spaces.
Related
I tried to deploy this app, which consists of a Flask API and a MongoDB database, which is mounted to a volume.
What am I doing wrong? I tried to upload the Dockerrun.aws.json file to Beanstalk, but I keep getting this error:
[Instance: i-0f9dd8d8d30059929] Command failed on instance. An unexpected error has occurred [ErrorCode: 0000000001].
This is my Dockerrun.aws.json file:
"AWSEBDockerrunVersion": 2,
"containerDefinitions": [
{
"essential": true,
"image": "nielshoogeveen1990/image-classifier:latest",
"links": [
"db"
],
"name": "api",
"memory": 128,
"portMappings": [
{
"containerPort": 5000,
"hostPort": 5000
}
]
},
{
"essential": true,
"image": "mongo:3.6.4",
"mountPoints": [
{
"containerPath": "/var/lib/mysql/data",
"sourceVolume": "Db-Data"
}
],
"name": "db",
"memory": 128
}
],
"family": "",
"volumes": [
{
"host": {
"sourcePath": "db-data"
},
"name": "Db-Data"
}
]
}
I've been looking around and haven't found much content with regards to a best practice when it comes to setting up HTTPS/SSL on Amazon Elastic Beanstalk with a Multi-container Docker environment.
There is a bunch of stuff when it comes to single container configuration, but nothing when it comes to multi-container.
My Dockerrun.aws.json looks like this:
{
"AWSEBDockerrunVersion": 2,
"volumes": [
{
"name": "app-frontend",
"host": {
"sourcePath": "/var/app/current/app-frontend"
}
},
{
"name": "app-backend",
"host": {
"sourcePath": "/var/app/current/app-backend"
}
}
],
"containerDefinitions": [
{
"name": "app-backend",
"image": "xxxxx/app-backend",
"memory": 512,
"mountPoints": [
{
"containerPath": "/app/app-backend",
"sourceVolume": "app-backend"
}
],
"portMappings": [
{
"containerPort": 4000,
"hostPort": 4000
}
],
"environment": [
{
"name": "PORT",
"value": "4000"
},
{
"name": "MIX_ENV",
"value": "dev"
},
{
"name": "PG_PASSWORD",
"value": "xxxx"
},
{
"name": "PG_USERNAME",
"value": "xx"
},
{
"name": "PG_HOST",
"value": "xxxxx"
}
]
},
{
"name": "app-frontend",
"image": "xxxxxxx/app-frontend",
"memory": 512,
"links": [
"app-backend"
],
"command": [
"npm",
"run",
"production"
],
"mountPoints": [
{
"containerPath": "/app/app-frontend",
"sourceVolume": "app-frontend"
}
],
"portMappings": [
{
"containerPort": 3000,
"hostPort": 80
}
],
"environment": [
{
"name": "REDIS_HOST",
"value": "xxxxxx"
}
]
}
],
"family": ""
}
My thinking thus far is I would need to bring an nginx container into the mix in order to proxy the two services and handle things like mapping different domain names to different services.
Would I go the usual route of just setting up nginx and configuring the SSL as normal, or is there a better way, like I've seen for the single containers using the .ebextensions method (http://docs.aws.amazon.com/elasticbeanstalk/latest/dg/https-singleinstance-docker.html) ?
This is more of an idea (I haven't actually done this and not sure if it would work). But the components appear to be all available to create a ALB that could direct traffic to one process or another based on path rules.
Here is what I am thinking that could be done via .ebextensions config files based on the options available from http://docs.aws.amazon.com/elasticbeanstalk/latest/dg/command-options-general.html:
Use aws:elasticbeanstalk:environment:process:default to make sure the default application port and health check is set the way you intend (let's say port 80 is your default in this case.
Use aws:elasticbeanstalk:environment:process:process_name to create a backend process that goes to your second service (port 4000 in this case).
Create a rule for your backend with aws:elbv2:listenerrule:backend which would use something like /backend/* as the path.
Create the SSL listener with aws:elbv2:listener:443 (example at http://docs.aws.amazon.com/elasticbeanstalk/latest/dg/environments-cfg-applicationloadbalancer.html) that uses this new backend rule.
I am not sure if additional rules need to be created for the default listener of aws:elbv2:listener:default. It seems like the default might just match /* so in this case anything sent to /backend/* would go to port 4000 container and anything else goes to the port 3000 container.
You will definitely need an nginx container, for the simple fact that a multicontainer ELB setup does not provide one by default. The reason that you see a single container setup on ELB with these .ebextension configs, is that for this type of setup the ELB does provide nginx.
The benefit of having your own nginx container is that you won't need a frontend container (assuming you are serving static files). You can write our nginx config so that you serve static files straight.
Here is my Dockerrun file:
{
"AWSEBDockerrunVersion": 2,
"volumes": [
{
"name": "dist",
"host": {
"sourcePath": "/var/app/current/frontend/dist"
}
},
{
"name": "nginx-proxy-conf",
"host": {
"sourcePath": "/var/app/current/compose/production/nginx/nginx.conf"
}
}
],
"containerDefinitions": [
{
"name": "backend",
"image": "abc/xyz",
"essential": true,
"memory": 256,
},
{
"name": "nginx-proxy",
"image": "nginx:latest",
"essential": true,
"memory": 128,
"portMappings": [
{
"hostPort": 80,
"containerPort": 80
}
],
"depends_on": ["backend"],
"links": [
"backend"
],
"mountPoints": [
{
"sourceVolume": "dist",
"containerPath": "/var/www/app/frontend/dist",
"readOnly": true
},
{
"sourceVolume": "awseb-logs-nginx-proxy",
"containerPath": "/var/log/nginx"
},
{
"sourceVolume": "nginx-proxy-conf",
"containerPath": "/etc/nginx/nginx.conf",
"readOnly": true
}
]
}
]
}
I also highly recommend to use AWS services for setting up your SSL: Route 53 and Certificate manager. They play nice together and if I understand correctly, it allows you to apply SSL on load balancing level.
I think this is a very easy to fix problem, but I just can't seem to solve it! I've spent a good amount of time looking for any leads on Google/SO but couldn't find a solution.
When executing eb local run, I'm getting this error:
Invalid configuration for registry
$ eb local run
ERROR: InvalidConfigFile :: Invalid configuration for registry 12345678.dkr.ecr.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com
The image lines in my Dockerrun.aws.json are as follows:
{
"AWSEBDockerrunVersion": 2,
"volumes": [
{
"name": "frontend",
"host": {
"sourcePath": "/var/app/current/frontend"
}
},
{
"name": "backend",
"host": {
"sourcePath": "/var/app/current/backend"
}
},
{
"name": "nginx-proxy-conf",
"host": {
"sourcePath": "/var/app/current/config/nginx"
}
},
{
"name": "nginx-proxy-content",
"host": {
"sourcePath": "/var/app/current/content/"
}
},
{
"name": "nginx-proxy-ssl",
"host": {
"sourcePath": "/var/app/current/config/ssl"
}
}
],
"containerDefinitions": [
{
"name": "backend",
"image": "123456.dkr.ecr.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/backend:latest",
"Update": "true",
"essential": true,
"memory": 512,
"mountPoints": [
{
"containerPath": "/app/backend",
"sourceVolume": "backend"
}
],
"portMappings": [
{
"containerPort": 4000,
"hostPort": 4000
}
],
"environment": [
{
"name": "PORT",
"value": "4000"
},
{
"name": "MIX_ENV",
"value": "dev"
},
{
"name": "PG_PASSWORD",
"value": "xxsaxaax"
},
{
"name": "PG_USERNAME",
"value": "
},
{
"name": "PG_HOST",
"value": "123456.dsadsau89das.eu-west-1.rds.amazonaws.com"
},
{
"name": "FE_URL",
"value": "http://develop1.com"
}
]
},
{
"name": "frontend",
"image": "123456.dkr.ecr.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/frontend:latest",
"Update": "true",
"essential": true,
"memory": 512,
"links": [
"backend"
],
"command": [
"npm",
"run",
"production"
],
"mountPoints": [
{
"containerPath": "/app/frontend",
"sourceVolume": "frontend"
}
],
"portMappings": [
{
"containerPort": 3000,
"hostPort": 3000
}
],
"environment": [
{
"name": "REDIS_HOST",
"value": "www.eample.com"
}
]
},
{
"name": "nginx-proxy",
"image": "nginx",
"essential": true,
"memory": 128,
"portMappings": [
{
"hostPort": 80,
"containerPort": 3000
}
],
"links": [
"backend",
"frontend"
],
"mountPoints": [
{
"sourceVolume": "nginx-proxy-content",
"containerPath": "/var/www/html"
},
{
"sourceVolume": "awseb-logs-nginx-proxy",
"containerPath": "/var/log/nginx"
},
{
"sourceVolume": "nginx-proxy-conf",
"containerPath": "/etc/nginx/conf.d",
"readOnly": true
},
{
"sourceVolume": "nginx-proxy-ssl",
"containerPath": "/etc/nginx/ssl",
"readOnly": true
}
]
}
],
"family": ""
}
It seems that you have a broken docker-registry auth config file. In your home, this file ~/.docker/config.json, should look something like:
{
"auths": {
"https://1234567890.dkr.ecr.us-east-1.amazonaws.com": {
"auth": "xxxxxx"
}
}
}
That is generated with the command docker login (related to aws ecr get-login)
Check that. I say this because you are entering in an exception here:
for registry, entry in six.iteritems(entries):
if not isinstance(entry, dict):
# (...)
if raise_on_error:
raise errors.InvalidConfigFile(
'Invalid configuration for registry {0}'.format(registry)
)
return {}
This is due to outdated dependencies in the current version of the awsebcli tool. They pinned version "docker-py (>=1.1.0,<=1.7.2)" which does not support the newer credential helper formats. The latest version of docker-py is the first one to properly support the latest credential helper format and until the AWS EB CLI developers update docker-py to use 2.4.0 (https://github.com/docker/docker-py/releases/tag/2.4.0) this will remain broken.
First is that it's not valid json, The PG_USERNAME field does not have the enclosing quote.
{
"name": "PG_USERNAME",
"value": "
},
Should be
{
"name": "PG_USERNAME",
"value": ""
},
Next thing to check is to see if your Beanstalk instance profile has access to the ecr registry.
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/elasticbeanstalk/latest/dg/iam-instanceprofile.html
Specifies the Docker base image on an existing Docker repository from which you're building a Docker container. Specify the value of the Name key in the format / for images on Docker Hub, or // for other sites.
When you specify an image in the Dockerrun.aws.json file, each instance in your Elastic Beanstalk environment will run docker pull on that image and run it. Optionally include the Update key. The default value is "true" and instructs Elastic Beanstalk to check the repository, pull any updates to the image, and overwrite any cached images.
Do not specify the Image key in the Dockerrun.aws.json file when using a Dockerfile. .Elastic Beanstalk will always build and use the image described in the Dockerfile when one is present.
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/elasticbeanstalk/latest/dg/create_deploy_docker_image.html
Test to make sure you can access your ecr outside of Elasticbeanstalk as well.
$ docker pull aws_account_id.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/amazonlinux:latest
latest: Pulling from amazonlinux
8e3fa21c4cc4: Pull complete
Digest: sha256:59895a93ba4345e238926c0f4f4a3969b1ec5aa0a291a182816a4630c62df769
Status: Downloaded newer image for aws_account_id.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/amazonlinux:latest
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonECR/latest/userguide/docker-pull-ecr-image.html
I have an environment with a few containers. Some of them are linked. When I run the environment with "docker-compose up -d", it creates entries in etc/hosts for linked containers. When I run it with "eb local run", no entries are created. Why is that?
My Dockerrun.aws.json
{
"AWSEBDockerrunVersion": 2,
"containerDefinitions": [
{
"name": "api",
"image": "php7",
"essential": true,
"memory": 128,
"portMappings": [
{
"hostPort": 8080,
"containerPort": 80
}
],
"mountPoints": [
{
"sourceVolume": "api",
"containerPath": "/var/www/html/"
}
]
},
{
"name": "nodeapi",
"image": "nodejs",
"essential": true,
"memory": 256,
"portMappings": [
{
"hostPort": 5000,
"containerPort": 5000
}
],
"mountPoints": [
{
"sourceVolume": "nodeapi",
"containerPath": "/var/www/app/"
}
],
"Logging": "/var/eb_log"
},
{
"name": "proxy",
"image": "nginx",
"essential": true,
"memory": 128,
"links": [
"api",
"nodeapi"
],
"portMappings": [
{
"hostPort": 8443,
"containerPort": 80
}
]
}
]
}
This generates docker-compose.yml:
api:
image: php7
ports:
- 8080:80
nodeapi:
image: nodejs
ports:
- 5000:5000
proxy:
image: nginx
links:
- api:api
- nodeapi:nodeapi
ports:
- 8443:80
Docker switched to DNS based lookups a while back instead of adding entries to /etc/hosts. Linking is also discouraged in favor of using a common network for the containers.
Ok, this is was a local issue. I upgraded Docker and EB cli to the latest versions and this solved the issue. I'm not sure why EB cli failed to add aliases to etc/hosts previously, but after upgrade it does. Now I get same results either by using "docker-compose up" or "eb local run". All linked container are linked now and work as expected.
Is there any way to have bidirectional communication between docker containers on AWS Beanstalk?
The stack im trying to get working is pretty standard: Varnish -> Nginx -> PHP-FPM.
I am using the links specification to specify that nginx should find the hostname "php-app". Nginx finds the php-app hostname, so that works. However I also need the "php-app" to be able to resolve hostname "varnish" so the "php-app" can send PURGE requests for cache invalidation.
Basically now there is only this communication that works:
[varnish:80] -> [nginx:8080] -> [php-app]
However this should be working:
[varnish:80] -> [nginx:8080] -> [php-app] ---PURGE---> [varnish:80]
The php-app basically only needs to know about the IP of the varnish host, however that seems to be impossible.
I know that I can also get the varnish container ip from the HOST, but i want to do the same just from the php-app container:
VARNISH_HASH=`docker ps | grep varnish | sed 's/\|/ /' | awk '{print $1}'`
VARNISH_IP=`docker inspect --format '{{ .NetworkSettings.IPAddress }}' $VARNISH_HASH`
I also tried adding links to the php-app container, but that resulted in errors when deploying, I guess it's because there are then circular dependencies:
"links": [
"varnish"
]
My relevant Dockerrun.aws.json (container deifinition file) looks like this:
{
"AWSEBDockerrunVersion": 2,
"volumes": [
.....
],
"containerDefinitions": [
{
"name": "nginx-proxy",
"image": "nginx",
"essential": true,
"memory": 128,
"links": [
"php-app"
],
"portMappings": [
{
"hostPort": 8080,
"containerPort": 8080
}
],
"environment": [
{
"name": "NGINX_PORT",
"value": "8080"
}
],
"mountPoints": [ .... ]
},
{
"name": "varnish",
"hostname": "varnish",
"image": "newsdev/varnish:4.1.0",
"essential": true,
"memory": 128,
"portMappings": [
{
"hostPort": 80,
"containerPort": 80
}
],
"links": [
"nginx-proxy",
"php-app"
],
"mountPoints": [ .... ]
},
{
"name": "php-app",
"image": "peec/magento2-php-fpm-aws",
"essential": true,
"memory": 1024,
"environment": [
],
"mountPoints": [ .... ]
}
]
}