I did that first but that always required much more resources than doing it yourself because every docker starts it’s own database and it’s own nginx/apache server in addition to the software itself.
Now I have just one Postgresql database instance running with many users and databases on it. Also just one Nginx which does all the virtual host stuff in one central place. And both the things which I install with apt and manually are set up similarly.
I use one docker setup for firefox-sync but only because doing it manually is not documented and even the docker way I had to research for quite some time.
What? No it doesn’t… You could still have just one postgresql database if you wanted just one. It is a big antithetical to microservices, but there is no reason you can do it.
But then you can’t just use the containers provided by the service developers and have to figure out how to redo their container which in the end is more work than just run it manually.
I have very rarely ran into such issues. can you give an example of something that works like that? it sounds to be very half-assed by the developer. only pihole comes to mind right now (except for the db part, because I think it uses sqlite)
all of these run the database in a separate container, not inside the app container. the latter would be hard to fix, but the first is just that way to make documentation easier, to be able to give you a single compose file that is also functional in itself. none of them use their own builds of the database server (though lemmy with its postgres variant may be a bit of an outlier), so they are relatively easy to configure for an existing db server.
all I do in cases like this is look up the database initialization command (in the docker compose file), run that in my primary postgres container, create a new docker network and attach it to the postgres stack and the new app’s stack (stack: the container composition defindd by the docker compose file). and then I tell the app container, usually through envvars or command line parameters embedded in the compose file, that the database server is at xy hostname, and docker’s internal DNS server will know that for xy hostname it should return the IP address of the container that is named xy, through the appropriate docker network. and also the user and pass for connection. from then, from the app’s point of view, my database server in that other container is just like a dedicated physical postgres machine you put on the network with its own cable going to a switch.
unless very special circumstances, where the app needs a custom build of postgres, they can share a single instance just fine. but in that case you would have to run 2 postgres instances even without docker, or migrate to the modified postgres, which is an option with docker too.
I did that first but that always required much more resources than doing it yourself because every docker starts it’s own database and it’s own nginx/apache server in addition to the software itself.
Now I have just one Postgresql database instance running with many users and databases on it. Also just one Nginx which does all the virtual host stuff in one central place. And both the things which I install with apt and manually are set up similarly.
I use one docker setup for firefox-sync but only because doing it manually is not documented and even the docker way I had to research for quite some time.
What? No it doesn’t… You could still have just one postgresql database if you wanted just one. It is a big antithetical to microservices, but there is no reason you can do it.
But then you can’t just use the containers provided by the service developers and have to figure out how to redo their container which in the end is more work than just run it manually.
I have very rarely ran into such issues. can you give an example of something that works like that? it sounds to be very half-assed by the developer. only pihole comes to mind right now (except for the db part, because I think it uses sqlite)
edit: I now see your examples
Some examples:
and many more.
all of these run the database in a separate container, not inside the app container. the latter would be hard to fix, but the first is just that way to make documentation easier, to be able to give you a single compose file that is also functional in itself. none of them use their own builds of the database server (though lemmy with its postgres variant may be a bit of an outlier), so they are relatively easy to configure for an existing db server.
all I do in cases like this is look up the database initialization command (in the docker compose file), run that in my primary postgres container, create a new docker network and attach it to the postgres stack and the new app’s stack (stack: the container composition defindd by the docker compose file). and then I tell the app container, usually through envvars or command line parameters embedded in the compose file, that the database server is at xy hostname, and docker’s internal DNS server will know that for xy hostname it should return the IP address of the container that is named xy, through the appropriate docker network. and also the user and pass for connection. from then, from the app’s point of view, my database server in that other container is just like a dedicated physical postgres machine you put on the network with its own cable going to a switch.
unless very special circumstances, where the app needs a custom build of postgres, they can share a single instance just fine. but in that case you would have to run 2 postgres instances even without docker, or migrate to the modified postgres, which is an option with docker too.
Well, yes that’s best practice. That doesn’t mean you have to do it that way.