-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 854
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Long downtime during restart of multiple containers that are based on the same image #272
Comments
I've noticed the same thing and if the above could be implemented, that would be awesome :-) |
Thanks for your issue! This is definitely something we should take a look at. If you feel up for it, feel free to submit a pull request and I'll have a look. 👍 |
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions. |
Why would a real issue be closed due to inactivity? |
Still trimming in stale-bot. Some false positives remain to be ironed out. |
And just to elaborate a bit on why we do this; I think the stale issues repo explains it all in a very good way:
With that said, your issue is added to a milestone as this might become an actual problem, and as such - wont be marked as stale. Thanks for understanding. 🙏 |
I stopped using watchtower because of this issue. |
I am looking for a way that instruct watchtower don't stop all my containers at the same time. This is really a problem! Lets say you have 3 instances behind a load balancer, watchtower will stop them all. |
As a work-around, you might run multiple watchtower instances, one instance for each container you want to monitor. |
Is this still an issue? Thinking about implementing watchtower, but with this kind of behavior it won't be good for my scenario. I have more than one hundred containers using the same image in the same server. I really need something more close from what OP said. |
Yes, this is still how it works. However, I'd be more than open to changing this behavior, although it would require some help from the community as I, to be fair, lack time at this point. |
Greetings @simskij ! Is this issue open to be worked on? I'd love to have a go at it if available. Thank you! |
For sure, go for it! 🙏🏼 |
Thank you! @simskij I ran into some trouble while trying out the application. Should I mention them here or on Gitter? |
Here is better if someone else wants to assist, but Gitter works just as well! 👌 |
Awesome! Here is the issue I ran into:
Steps to reproduce:
Expected:The container is stopped and restarted with the new version of the base image. What actually happened:The container is stopped, but the program panics while trying to restart the container which fails. Environment:Ubuntu 20.04.1 LTS running on an AWS EC2 instance. Any advice? Thank you! |
Yeah, this is because of this: You can base it on that branch to get started, or I will get it merged to master tomorrow! |
@piksel Thank you for the information! I'll get started with that branch to test my changes. I can make a PR for the changes once that branch is merged into master. |
I know it's been a while. :) Likely there has been no progress but it doesn't hurt to ask. |
This can really be a tough issue. We have cloud hosts were a service container may have 50+ instances so downtime can be verrrry long waiting for all of them to shut down first. We're not a Go shop or we'd jump in, but hopefully someone has the skills. We would absolutely help test. |
We started to use "ouroboros", another container update solution to avoid this same matter. It is working as intended for us. I've not tried watchtower in a couple years - so I don't know if they fixed or changed that. |
Let's say we have 10 containers based on the same image. Upon update watchtower will:
This causes downtime of N * (time to stop and start a container) - where N is the number of containers.
It would be nice if watchtower had an algorithm to:
Is it possible? Is it a planned feature? Is it a known issue?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: