Host Docker Containers

MediaLabz

I have had some requests from customers about hosting Docker containers.

As Enhance is based on Docker would this be relatively easy to integrate into the panel as a hosting feature?

Aliysa_Enhance

Hi MediaLabz, this isn't easy but is certainly achievable. It would be great to gauge the popularity of this feature - if this is something you are interested in please like the OG post.

MediaLabz

It would be amazing if a container could be created from the panel (which could be seen as a 'Website' and charged as such), and then through the panel interface docker images could be imported and run.

Rich

Massive +1 for this, I really, really want to use OLS or even NginX as a reverse proxy, docker is already there, integrating it a bit further where we could use the domain space and user to run the docker container to be backed up per normal backup.

Something as simple as a OnlyOffice document server, it does not need another server, it just needs docker and a reverse proxy, right now I can't use enhance as it's to volatile to custom config changes.

This is the only feature not on the roadmap that I would definitely like to see, but just nailing OLS config from the user container so it's non-volatile would be enough for a reverse proxy to be setup, docker can be managed manually.

If anyone has done a this with a cron script to re-inject a reverse proxy setup, please let me know.

JohnB

Rich In my post about this @Adam said apache/litespeed website can be configured as a reverse proxy to non enhance containers. I'm guessing via htaccess rules.

So in theory it seems you could setup onlyoffice docker and create a "website" that is a reverse proxy to it.

manu

Huge + 1 for this!

8Dweb

jeff

Yes it would be useful

jouwnet

Massive +1

Andreas

This would be cool to have a Docker role. Could host Docker images for users (and myself) on a separate server.

SMO

Rich

Hi JohnB I actually caught that and pondered on it. I know how to setup reverse proxies with Litespeed, but the current vhost conf is volatile under enhance, so I've been hesitant on doing it until there is a clear integration. Like this new incoming enhance update with nginx vhost conf for end websites. Makes it a breeze then.

It was encouraging and I'll certainly play with OLS when I get a chance. Thanks for letting me know.

MediaLabz

It's quite disappointing to see that this isn't included on the Roadmap.

By allowing docker containers, a large number of instances could effortlessly be integrated, including node.js, python, etc etc.

JohnB

MediaLabz If they allow basically any container to be installed and it appears in the panel with a nice start/stop button and basic CPU usage etc...

What immediately follows is a huge influx of dumb support questions & complaints that will keep coming. People will complain that x container doesnt work or why can't they limit x feature in container based on package level. Backups won't be reliable which will lead to bad press.

By creating their own containers and being in complete control they can avoid a lot of issues and keep the image of a polished reliable panel.

MediaLabz

JohnB I understand this point of view. I guess its a hard balancing act they have to play...

klikonline

+1 for me, like to have this.

george

Simsho

slimx

@JohnB is 100% correct.

DOWNVOTE from me

Rich

slimx Then make it a feature that can be disabled by package or estate wide for hosts who don't want that headache and available for the ones who do. This is a very important feature going forward. Plesk was very smart to add it, but fell utterly short of handling compose based multi-containers. Enhance could deliver a better way of allowing it in time.

Right now I'd just be happy with a safe route of manually proxying containers via the website developer tools, like adding needed rewrite rules. If they can't make the actual app route on the the webserver, it's useless to end users.

I'd use this for clients and myself, I miss this capability.

JohnB

Rich Then make it a feature that can be disabled by package or estate wide for hosts who don't want that headache and available for the ones who do. T

The enhance customers will still be the ones incorrectly using it and creating support tickets to enhance. The customers of these owners will be frustrated which leads to a bad impression of the panel which isn't good for Enhance.

For example lets say a hosting provider tries to setup NextCloud. What follows is "how do I restrict space based on package" "how do I back it up" Now multiply that by 100 different packages each with their own backup/restore needs and different versions/configs.

Bugs in containers will be reported to Enhance when its not actually the panel. This already happens ex: "db / TTFB / disk is slow" because someone doesn't know about config optimization. ModSecurity breaks site but Enhance gets blamed...