You are absolutely free to fuck yourself over by using a niche option plagued weird problems.
Or you could, like, not do that.
Comment on Basic docker networking?
iturnedintoanewt@lemm.ee 7 months agoSure…But proxmox is already there. It’s installed and it runs 5VMs and about 10 containers. …I’m not going to dump all that just because I need docker…and I’m not getting another machine if I can get use that. So…sure, there might be overhead, but I saw some other people doing it, and the other alternative I saw was running docker on a VM…which is even more overhead. And I fear running it on the proxmox server bare metal, it might conflict with how it manages the LXC containers.
vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 months ago
earmuff@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 months ago
Add a new VM, install docker-ce on it and slowly migrate all the other containers/vm‘s to docker. End result is way less overhead, way less complexity and way better sleep.
iturnedintoanewt@lemm.ee 7 months ago
Thanks…So you think a full VM will result in less overhead than a container? How so? I mean, the VM will take a bunch of extra RAM and extra overhead by running a full kernel by itself…
earmuff@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 months ago
I was assuming you were able to get rid of the other 5 VM‘s by doing so. If not, obviously you would have not less overhead.
grehund@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Jim’s Garage on YT, he recently did a video about running Docker in an LXC. I think you’ll find the info you need there. It can be done, but if you’re new to Docker and/or LXCs, it adds an additional layer of complexity you will have to deal with for every container/stack you deploy.
chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net 7 months ago
Docker inside LXC adds not only the overhead they’d individually add — probably not significant enough for it to matter in a homelab setting — but with it also the added layer of complexity that you’re going to hit when it comes to debugging anything. You’re much better off dropping docker in a full fledged VM instead of running it inside LXC. With a full VM, if nothing else, you can allow the virtual networking to be treated as it’s own separate device on your network, which should reduce a layer of complexity in the problem you’re trying to solve.
As for your original problem… it sounds like you’re not exposing the docker container layer’s network to your host. Without knowing exactly how you’re launching them (beyond the quirky docker inside LXC setup), it is hard to say where the issue may be. If you’re using compose, try setting the network to external, or bridge, and see if you can expose the service’s port that way. Once you’ve got the port exposure thing figured out, you’re probably better off unexposing the service, setup a proper reverse proxy, and wiring the service to go through your reverse proxy instead.
iturnedintoanewt@lemm.ee 7 months ago
Thanks! When I type my LXC’s IP:2283, I get unable to connect. I checked the docker-compose.yml and the port seems to be 2283:3001, but no luck at either. Is there anything that needs to be done on docker’s network in order to…“publish” a container to the local network so it can be seen? Or any docker running with a port can be reached via the host’s IP with no further config? Checking the portainer’s networks section, I can see an ‘immich-default’ network using bridge on 172.18.0.0/16, while the system’s bridge seems to be running at 172.17.0.0/16. Is this the correct defaults? Should I change anything?
Thanks!