All I see in the captured XML file is an ending session tag. I've set manual proxy to point to Tsung port(9000) and launched URL in private browser mode to avoid cache.
ram#saket:~$ tsung-recorder -L 9000 -P 8000 start
Starting Tsung recorder on port 9000
ram#saket:~$ "Record file: /home/ram/.tsung/tsung_recorder20130328-1645.xml"
ram#saket:~$ tsung-recorder stop
[OK]
ram#saket:~$ cat /home/ram/.tsung/tsung_recorder20130328-1645.xml
</session>
Have you a proxy between your host and where you want to go ? If you set -P for the parent proxy you have to set -u too or remove -P if you do not have a parent proxy.
Related
I'm trying to setup port forwarding from localhost to a local server using socat. The server is available via http://my-local-domain.
Here is what I tried:
socat -d -d tcp-listen:8081,reuseaddr,fork tcp:my-local-domain:80
When I open the browser and go to http://localhost:8081, I see my original localhost page, not the page when I navigate to my-local-domain.
How does one create port-forwarding to a local domain using socat?
I found that I'm not able to use Port 80 because the Host appears as localhost to NGINX, and so localhost serves the request [which would explain the original issue].
You can verify this by:
Opening nginx.conf
Adding ..."Host=$host"... to the log_format
Tailing the access logs [tail -f /usr/local/nginx/logs/access.log]
You'll notice that Host is always localhost, and so localhost serves the request.
The way to solve this is to change the Host info from localhost to my-local-server:
Localhost:8081 --> [change Host info] --> my-local-server:80
The way I found to do this was to create a proxy via Node.JS [as a go-between] as follows:
Create proxy.js
Copy the contents of the code from this gist and paste into proxy.js
Run the following command in the terminal to create proxy to web server:
PORT_LISTEN=8091 PORT_TARGET=80 HOST_TARGET="my-local-server" HOST_ORIGIN="my-local-server" node proxy.js
Run socat to proxy
socat -d -d tcp-listen:8081,reuseaddr,fork tcp:localhost:8091
So now we have the following:
Localhost:8081 --> Localhost:8091 --> my-local-server:80
This is what worked.
I have a wordpress official container with a dock port 80 mapped to 32795 external... when I go to administration area of wordpress I get this error:
Important: HTTP Loopback Connections are not enabled on this server. If you need to contact your web host, tell them that when PHP tries to connect back to the site at the URL http://localhost:32795/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php and it gets the error cURL error 7: Failed to connect to localhost port 32795: Connection refused. There may be a problem with the server configuration (eg local DNS problems, mod_security, etc) preventing connections from working properly.
I think the problem is that the site inside the container tries to communicate with the 32795 port instead of 80, but it can not because this door is only seen from the outside of the container...
I created a script inside the site with phpinfo, and I checked the loopback connections are on...
There is a solution for this? I have docker un windows with kitematic
thanks
I had a similar problem running WordPress with Nginx on Docker Desktop for Windows. I needed to add an entry to the container's hosts file that directed my local.example.com domain to hit my ingress-nginx controller so that WordPress' loopback requests would work. Although my setup might be slightly different this might help you.
Open /Windows/System32/drivers/etc/hosts and copy the IP address that's next to host.docker.internal. Add an entry to the container's hosts file on startup that ties the domain to the hosts IP by doing one of the following. IP is what you copied from your machine's hosts file by host.docker.internal
Docker argument:
--add-host="local.example.com:IP"
Docker compose:
extra_hosts:
- "local.example.com:IP"
Kubernetes:
hostAliases:
- ip: "IP"
hostnames:
- "local.example.com"
Problem is inside the container the opened port is 80 and docker is exposing 32795 for external connections
Wordpress configuration is pointing to port 32795, you might expose port 80 by doing docker run -p 80:80 and change wordpress configuration to use port 80
If you can't use port :80 a little bit more complicated solution is to use iptables port forwarding internally
Example
➜ ~ docker run -d --cap-add=NET_ADMIN --cap-add=NET_RAW -p 5000:80 nginx
835b039cc92bd9f32b960181bf370d39869c88f5a757423966b467fe01ac219e
➜ ~ docker exec -it 835b039cc92bd9 bash
root#835b039cc92b:/# apt update -qqq ; apt install iptables -yqqq
root#835b039cc92b:/# iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -o lo -p tcp --dport 5000 -j REDIRECT --to-
port 80
root#835b039cc92b:/# apt install telnet -yqqq
root#835b039cc92b:/# telnet localhost 5000
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to localhost.
Escape character is '^]'.
^]
telnet> quit
Connection closed.
root#835b039cc92b:/# exit
# from outside the container
➜ ~ telnet localhost 5000
Trying ::1...
Connected to localhost.
Escape character is '^]'.
^]
telnet> quit
Connection closed.
Is there a way to disable the default EXPOSE 80 443 instruction in the nginx docker file without creating my own image?
I'm using Docker Nginx image and trying to expose only port 443 in the following way:
docker run -itd --name=nginx-test --publish=443:443 nginx
But I can see using docker ps -a that the container exposes port 80 as well:
CONTAINER ID IMAGE COMMAND CREATED STATUS PORTS NAMES
ddc0bca08acc nginx "nginx -g 'daemon off" 17 seconds ago Up 16 seconds 80/tcp, 0.0.0.0:443->443/tcp nginx-test
How can I disable it?
The expose instruction is in the docker file which the image is built from.
You need to create your own customized Image for that.
To get the job done:
First locate the dockerfile for the official nginx (library)
Then Edit the dockerfile's expose instruction to 443 only.
Now build your own image modified image using official(customized) dockerfile.
To answer your edited question:
Docker uses iptables, While you could manually update the firewall rules to make the service unavailable at a certain port, you would not be able to unbind the Docker proxy. So port 80 will still be consumed on the docker host and docker proxy.
according to nginx docker image configuration , you can set this before container starts passing an environment var like :
docker run -itd -e NGINX_PORT=443 --name=nginx-test nginx
see :
using environment variables in nginx configuration
then in your nginx you can set :
listen ${NGINX_PORT};
There is a workaround to free the port (but not to unexpose it). I tried avoiding to publish the port but it didn't work and I got errors about the por being already in use anyway. Until I found that the trick is to publish the exposed port but mapped to a different one.
Let me explain with an example.
This will still try to use port 80:
docker up -p 443:443
But this will use 443 and some other random port you pick
docker up -p 443:443 -p<some free port>:80
You can do this in your commands, docker-compose or ansible playbooks to be able to start more than one instance on the same machine. (ie: nginx, which exposes port 80 by default)
I do this from docker-compose and ansible too.
I have a running nginx container: # docker run --name mynginx1 -P -d nginx;
And got its PORT info by docker ps: 0.0.0.0:32769->80/tcp, 0.0.0.0:32768->443/tcp
Then I could get response from within the container(id: c30991a04b2f):
docker exec -i -t c3099 bash
curl http://localhost => which return the default index.html page content, it works
However, when I make the curl http://localhost:32769 outside of the container, I got this:
curl: (7) failed to connect to localhost port 32769: Connection refused
I am running on a mac with docker version 1.9.0; nginx latest
Does anyone know what cause this? Any help? thank you
If you are On OSX, you are probably using a VirtualBox VM for your docker environment.
Make sure you have forwarded your port 32769 to your actual host (the mac), in order for that port to be visible from localhost.
This is valid for the old boot2docker, or the new docker machine.
VBoxManage controlvm "boot2docker-vm" --natpf1 "tcp-port32769 ,tcp,,32769,,32769"
VBoxManage controlvm "boot2docker-vm" --natpf1 "udp-port32769 ,udp,,32769,,$32769
(controlvm if the VM is running, modifyvm is the VM is stopped)
(replace "boot2docker-vm" b ythe name of your vm: see docker-machine ls)
I would recommend to not use -P, but a static port mapping -p xxx:80 -p yyy:443.
That way, you can do that port forwarding once, using fixed values.
Of course, you can access the VM directly through docker-machine ip vmname
curl http://$(docker-machine ip vmname):32769
Solved.. I misunderstood how docker port mapping works.
Since I'm using mac, the host for nginx container is a VM, 0.0.0.0:32769->80/tcp maps the port 80 of the container to the port 32769 of the VM.
solution:
docker-machine ip vm-name => 192.168.99.xx
curl http://192.168.99.xx:32769
Not exactly answers for your question but spend some time trying to figure out similar thing in context of "why is my docker container not connecting to elastic search localhost:9200" and this was the first S.O. question that pops up, so I hope it helps some other googling person
if you are linking containers together (e.g. docker run --rm --name web2 --link db:db training/webapp env)
... then Dockers adds enviroment variables:
DB_NAME=/web2/db
DB_PORT=tcp://172.17.0.5:5432
DB_PORT_5432_TCP=tcp://172.17.0.5:5432
DB_PORT_5432_TCP_PROTO=tcp
DB_PORT_5432_TCP_PORT=5432
DB_PORT_5432_TCP_ADDR=172.17.0.5
... and also updates your /etc/hosts
# /etc/hosts
#...
172.17.0.9 db
so you can technically connect to ping db
https://docs.docker.com/v1.8/userguide/dockerlinks/
so for elastic search is
# /etc/hosts
# ...
172.17.0.28 elasticsearch f9db83d0dfb5 ecs-awseb-qa-3Pobblecom-env-f7yq6jhmpm-10-elasticsearch-fcbfe5e2b685d0984a00
so wget elasticseach:9200 will work
I plan to split my monolthic server up into many small docker containers but haven't found a good solution for "inter-container communication" yet. This is my target scenario:
I know how to link containers together and how to expose ports, but none of these solutions are satisfying to me.
Is there any solution to communicate via hostnames (container names) between the containers like in a traditional server network?
The new networking feature allows you to connect to containers by
their name, so if you create a new network, any container connected to
that network can reach other containers by their name. Example:
1) Create new network
$ docker network create <network-name>
2) Connect containers to network
$ docker run --net=<network-name> ...
or
$ docker network connect <network-name> <container-name>
3) Ping container by name
docker exec -ti <container-name-A> ping <container-name-B>
64 bytes from c1 (172.18.0.4): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.137 ms
64 bytes from c1 (172.18.0.4): icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.073 ms
64 bytes from c1 (172.18.0.4): icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.074 ms
64 bytes from c1 (172.18.0.4): icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.074 ms
See this section of the documentation;
Note: Unlike legacy links the new networking will not create environment variables, nor share environment variables with other containers.
This feature currently doesn't support aliases
Edit: After Docker 1.9, the docker network command (see below https://stackoverflow.com/a/35184695/977939) is the recommended way to achieve this.
My solution is to set up a dnsmasq on the host to have DNS record automatically updated: "A" records have the names of containers and point to the IP addresses of the containers automatically (every 10 sec). The automatic updating script is pasted here:
#!/bin/bash
# 10 seconds interval time by default
INTERVAL=${INTERVAL:-10}
# dnsmasq config directory
DNSMASQ_CONFIG=${DNSMASQ_CONFIG:-.}
# commands used in this script
DOCKER=${DOCKER:-docker}
SLEEP=${SLEEP:-sleep}
TAIL=${TAIL:-tail}
declare -A service_map
while true
do
changed=false
while read line
do
name=${line##* }
ip=$(${DOCKER} inspect --format '{{.NetworkSettings.IPAddress}}' $name)
if [ -z ${service_map[$name]} ] || [ ${service_map[$name]} != $ip ] # IP addr changed
then
service_map[$name]=$ip
# write to file
echo $name has a new IP Address $ip >&2
echo "host-record=$name,$ip" > "${DNSMASQ_CONFIG}/docker-$name"
changed=true
fi
done < <(${DOCKER} ps | ${TAIL} -n +2)
# a change of IP address occured, restart dnsmasq
if [ $changed = true ]
then
systemctl restart dnsmasq
fi
${SLEEP} $INTERVAL
done
Make sure your dnsmasq service is available on docker0. Then, start your container with --dns HOST_ADDRESS to use this mini dns service.
Reference: http://docs.blowb.org/setup-host/dnsmasq.html
That should be what --link is for, at least for the hostname part.
With docker 1.10, and PR 19242, that would be:
docker network create --net-alias=[]: Add network-scoped alias for the container
(see last section below)
That is what Updating the /etc/hosts file details
In addition to the environment variables, Docker adds a host entry for the source container to the /etc/hosts file.
For instance, launch an LDAP server:
docker run -t --name openldap -d -p 389:389 larrycai/openldap
And define an image to test that LDAP server:
FROM ubuntu
RUN apt-get -y install ldap-utils
RUN touch /root/.bash_aliases
RUN echo "alias lds='ldapsearch -H ldap://internalopenldap -LL -b
ou=Users,dc=openstack,dc=org -D cn=admin,dc=openstack,dc=org -w
password'" > /root/.bash_aliases
ENTRYPOINT bash
You can expose the 'openldap' container as 'internalopenldap' within the test image with --link:
docker run -it --rm --name ldp --link openldap:internalopenldap ldaptest
Then, if you type 'lds', that alias will work:
ldapsearch -H ldap://internalopenldap ...
That would return people. Meaning internalopenldap is correctly reached from the ldaptest image.
Of course, docker 1.7 will add libnetwork, which provides a native Go implementation for connecting containers. See the blog post.
It introduced a more complete architecture, with the Container Network Model (CNM)
That will Update the Docker CLI with new “network” commands, and document how the “-net” flag is used to assign containers to networks.
docker 1.10 has a new section Network-scoped alias, now officially documented in network connect:
While links provide private name resolution that is localized within a container, the network-scoped alias provides a way for a container to be discovered by an alternate name by any other container within the scope of a particular network.
Unlike the link alias, which is defined by the consumer of a service, the network-scoped alias is defined by the container that is offering the service to the network.
Continuing with the above example, create another container in isolated_nw with a network alias.
$ docker run --net=isolated_nw -itd --name=container6 -alias app busybox
8ebe6767c1e0361f27433090060b33200aac054a68476c3be87ef4005eb1df17
--alias=[]
Add network-scoped alias for the container
You can use --link option to link another container with a preferred alias
You can pause, restart, and stop containers that are connected to a network. Paused containers remain connected and can be revealed by a network inspect. When the container is stopped, it does not appear on the network until you restart it.
If specified, the container's IP address(es) is reapplied when a stopped container is restarted. If the IP address is no longer available, the container fails to start.
One way to guarantee that the IP address is available is to specify an --ip-range when creating the network, and choose the static IP address(es) from outside that range. This ensures that the IP address is not given to another container while this container is not on the network.
$ docker network create --subnet 172.20.0.0/16 --ip-range 172.20.240.0/20 multi-host-network
$ docker network connect --ip 172.20.128.2 multi-host-network container2
$ docker network connect --link container1:c1 multi-host-network container2
EDIT : It is not bleeding edge anymore : http://blog.docker.com/2016/02/docker-1-10/
Original Answer
I battled with it the whole night.
If you're not afraid of bleeding edge, the latest version of Docker engine and Docker compose both implement libnetwork.
With the right config file (that need to be put in version 2), you will create services that will all see each other. And, bonus, you can scale them with docker-compose as well (you can scale any service you want that doesn't bind port on the host)
Here is an example file
version: "2"
services:
router:
build: services/router/
ports:
- "8080:8080"
auth:
build: services/auth/
todo:
build: services/todo/
data:
build: services/data/
And the reference for this new version of compose file:
https://github.com/docker/compose/blob/1.6.0-rc1/docs/networking.md
As far as I know, by using only Docker this is not possible. You need some DNS to map container ip:s to hostnames.
If you want out of the box solution. One solution is to use for example Kontena. It comes with network overlay technology from Weave and this technology is used to create virtual private LAN networks for each service and every service can be reached by service_name.kontena.local-address.
Here is simple example of Wordpress application's YAML file where Wordpress service connects to MySQL server with wordpress-mysql.kontena.local address:
wordpress:
image: wordpress:4.1
stateful: true
ports:
- 80:80
links:
- mysql:wordpress-mysql
environment:
- WORDPRESS_DB_HOST=wordpress-mysql.kontena.local
- WORDPRESS_DB_PASSWORD=secret
mysql:
image: mariadb:5.5
stateful: true
environment:
- MYSQL_ROOT_PASSWORD=secret