loading...

re: Docker Demystified VIEW POST

TOP OF THREAD FULL DISCUSSION
re: Yeah some of the cluster managers have their own networking, like Kubernetes, e.g. Anyway if you only have one machine, no need to use a cluster ma...

That is a better solution generally... indeed I considered it after I had set it up this way. It could be in a docker external "mail" network for the other containers, and also publish its port for services in the host proper. But I decided the mail server was so important (for stability, availability, etc) that I'd rather have it running as a plain service on the host.

Just being the devil's advocate here: Why is the availability and stability increased when it's running on the host, exactly?

I guess it boils down to how stable the version of Docker is that you are running, or how adjusted it is with your host environment. If Docker falls over (and I have had this happen before), it will take all containers with it.

The reason for the Docker service going down may not be Docker's fault - whatever the case, you increase the number of factors that might make a critical service unavailable by deploying it inside a container, and I didn't want that with the mail server.

I agree. On the other hand if Docker goes down, nobody will be using postfix because all containers are down anyways... :P

Btw there is also the live-restore feature that enables you to keep containers running during a downtime of the daemon: docs.docker.com/config/containers/...

I also had the intention of allowing the mail server to accept incoming mail at some point ... and the thought process was I'd rather never have mails bounce, as it's a real downer, especially with potential clients at stake, etc. Mind you, setting up a mail server properly to handle incoming mail is a pain, so I'll probably just delegate that to another mail service provider in the end.

Anyway, thanks for the live-restore feature - I hadn't heard of that until now!

code of conduct - report abuse