Selfhosted

39435 readers

5 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

I'm using compose wrong and I know it. (lemmy.one)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

For the last two years, I've been treating compose files as individual runners for individual programs.

Then I brainstormed the concept of having one singular docker-compose file that writes out every single running container on my system... (that can use compose), each install starts at the same root directory and volumes branch out from there.

Then I find out, this is how most people use compose. One compose file, with volumes and directories branching out from wherever ./ is called.

THEN I FIND OUT... that most people that discover this move their installations to podman because compose works on different versions per app and calling those versions breaks the concept of having one singular docker-compose.yml file and podman doesn't need a version for compose files.

Is there some meta for the best way to handle these apps collectively?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Multiple compose file, each in their own directory for a stack of services. Running Lemmy? It goes to ~/compose_home/lemmy, with binds for image resized and database as folders inside that directory. Running website? It goes to ~/compose_home/example.com, with its static files, api, and database binds all as folders inside that. Etc etc. Use gateway reverse proxy (I prefer Traefik but each to their own) and have each stack join the network to expose only what you’d need.

Back up is easy, snapshot the volume bind (stop any service individually as needed); moving server for specific stack is easy, just move the directory over to a new system (update gateway info if required); upgrading is easy, just upgrade individual stack and off to the races.

Pulling all stacks into a single compose for the system as a whole is nuts. You lose all the flexibility and gain… nothing?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This. And I recently found out you can also use includes in compose v2.20+, so if your stack complexity demands it, you can have a small top-level docker-compose.yml with includes to smaller compose files, per service or any other criteria you want.

https://docs.docker.com/compose/multiple-compose-files/include/

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I prefer compose merge because my "downstream" services can propagate their depends/networks to things that depend on them up the stream

There's an env variables you set in .env so it's similar to include

The one thing I prefer about include is that each include directory can have its own .env file, which merges with the first level .env. With merge it seems you're stuck with one .env file for all in-file substitutes

load more comments (1 replies)