this post was submitted on 31 May 2024
9 points (76.5% liked)

Selfhosted

40415 readers
296 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:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. 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.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

edit: a working solution is proposed by @[email protected] below:

So you’re trying to get 2 instances of qbt behind the same Gluetun vpn container?

I don’t use Qbt but I certainly have done in the past. Am I correct in remembering that in the gui you can change the port?

If so, maybe what you could do is set up your stack with 1 instance in, go into the GUI and change the port on the service to 8000 or 8081 or whatever.

Map that port in your Gluetun config and leave the default port open for QBT, and add a second instance to the stack with a different name and addresses for the config files.

Restart the stack and have 2 instances.


Has anyone run into issues with docker port collisions when trying to run images behind a bridge network (i think I got those terms right?)?

I'm trying to run the arr stack behind a VPN container (gluetun for those familiar), and I would really like to duplicate a container image within the stack (e.g. a separate download client for different types of downloads). As soon as I set the network_mode to 'service' or 'container', i lose the ability to set the public/internal port of the service, which means any image that doesn't allow setting ports from an environment variable is stuck with whatever the default port is within the application.

Here's an example .yml:

services:
  gluetun:
    image: qmcgaw/gluetun:latest
    container_name: gluetun
    cap_add:
      - NET_ADMIN
    environment:
      - VPN_SERVICE_PROVIDER=mullvad
      - VPN_TYPE=[redacted]
      - WIREGUARD_PRIVATE_KEY=[redacted]
      - WIREGUARD_ADDRESSES=[redacted]
      - SERVER_COUNTRIES=[redacted]
    ports:
      - "8080:8080" #qbittorrent
      - "6881:6881"
      - "6881:6881/udp"
      - "9696:9696" # Prowlarr
      - "7878:7878" # Radar
      - "8686:8686" # Lidarr
      - "8989:8989" # Sonarr
    restart: always

  qbittorrent:
    image: lscr.io/linuxserver/qbittorrent:latest
    container_name: "qbittorrent"
    network_mode: "service:gluetun"
    environment:
      - PUID=1000
      - PGID=1000
      - TZ=CST/CDT
      - WEBUI_PORT=8080
    volumes:
      - /docker/appdata/qbittorrent:/config
      - /media/nas_share/data:/data)

Declaring ports in the qbittorrent service raises an error saying you cannot set ports when using the service network mode. Linuxserver.io has a WEBUI_PORT environment variable, but using it without also setting the service ports breaks it (their documentation says this is due to CSRF issues and port mapping, but then why even include it as a variable?)

The only workaround i can think of is doing a local build of the image that needs duplication to allow ports to be configured from the e variables, OR run duplicate gluetun containers for each client which seems dumb and not at all worthwhile.

Has anyone dealt with this before?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So you're trying to get 2 instances of qbt behind the same Gluetun vpn container?

I don't use Qbt but I certainly have done in the past. Am I correct in remembering that in the gui you can change the port?

If so, maybe what you could do is set up your stack with 1 instance in, go into the GUI and change the port on the service to 8000 or 8081 or whatever.

Map that port in your Gluetun config and leave the default port open for QBT, and add a second instance to the stack with a different name and addresses for the config files.

Restart the stack and have 2 instances.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

This worked!!

Shame that it's a little bit of a runaround, but not only did this work, it also persists after restarts and updates.

I'll be editing my post and offering it as a solution to the other places I have seen this question asked, thank you a ton!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

It's not a workaround.
In the old days, if you had 2 services that were hard coded to use the same network port, you would need virtualization or a different server and make sure the networking for those is correct.

Network ports allow multiple services to use the same network adapter as a port is like a "sub" address.
Docker being able to remap host network ports to containers ports is a huge feature.
If a container doesn't need to be accessed outside of the docker network, you don't need to expose the port.

The only way to have multiple services on the same port is to use either a load balancer (for multiple instances of the same service) or an application-aware reverse proxy (like nginx, haproxy, caddy etc for web things, I'm sure there are other application-aware reverse proxies).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Holy shit I totally thought I was talking out of my arse lol

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

lmao. I'm starting to really wonder what the WEBGUI_PORT variable does if not exactly what you're changing in the GUI... someone else mentioned they got multiple instances to deploy from the same compose file by placing the gluetun service at the end of the file. I wonder if the order in which the containers are deployed is the thing that makes this work. i'll test more when I have the time

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Actually I'm also not using the default port for any of my qbit instances

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

AFAIK the thing that complicates this is trying to run it behind gluetun

docker makes it really easy to specify a unique port on deployment, but when you're using a network bridge (as in the case of gluetun) the networking settings are controlled there instead, so you can't use the normal port declarations. It's apparently not impossible to do it with gluetun but it seems it's not as straightforward.