this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2025
50 points (98.1% liked)

Selfhosted

41627 readers
503 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
ruud
Loki
CannaVet
devve
HybridSarcasm
[email protected]
50
Why use Named volume vs Anonymous volume in Docker? (reddthat.com)
submitted 22 hours ago by [email protected] to c/selfhosted
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

What are the pros and cons of using Named vs Anonymous volumes in Docker for self-hosting?

I've always used "regular" Anonymous volumes, and that's what is usually in official docker-compose.yml examples for various apps:

volumes:
  - ./myAppDataFolder:/data

where myAppDataFolder/ is in the same folder as the docker-compose.yml file.

As a self-hoster I find this neat and tidy; my docker folder has a subfolder for each app. Each app folder has a docker-compose.yml, .env and one or more data-folders. I version-control the compose files, and back up the data folders.

However some apps have docker-compose.yml examples using named volumes:

services:
  mealie:
    volumes:
      - mealie-data:/app/data/
volumes:
  mealie-data:

I had to google documentation https://docs.docker.com/engine/storage/volumes/ to find that the volume is actually called mealie_mealie-data

$ docker volume ls
DRIVER    VOLUME NAME
...
local     mealie_mealie-data

and it is stored in /var/lib/docker/volumes/mealie_mealie-data/_data

$ docker volume inspect mealie_mealie-data
...
  "Mountpoint": "/var/lib/docker/volumes/mealie_mealie-data/_data",
...

I tried googling the why of named volumes, but most answers were talking about things that sounded very enterprise'y, docker swarms, and how all state information should be stored in "the database" so you shouldnt need to ever touch the actual files backing the volume for any container.

So to summarize: Named volumes, why? Or why not? What are your preferences? Given the context that we are self-hosting, and not running huge enterprise clusters.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ikidd 6 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I like having everything to do with a container in one folder, so I use ./ the bind mounts. Then I don't have to go hunting all over hells half acre for the various mounts that docker makes. If I backup/restore a folder, I know I have everything to do with that stack right there.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago

This has been my thinking too.

Though after reading mbirth's comment I realised it's possible to use named volumes and explicitly tell it where on disk to store the volume:

    volumes:
      - my-named-volume:/data/
volumes:
  my-named-volume:
    driver: local
    driver_opts:
      type: none
      device: "./folder-next-to-compose-yml"
      # device: "/path/to/well/known/folder"
      o: bind

It's a bit verbose, but at least I know which folder and partition holds the data, while keeping the benefits of named volumes.