Add Docker support

[pataquets]

Add Dockerfile to enable image building.
By now, I use the official Node image, 'onbuild' tag. More info at https://hub.docker.com/_/node/

Later, I just simply copy the exampleConfig.js into config.js and replace the 'graphite.example.com' hostname by 'graphite' to enable Docker native networking, be it via linking or via aliasing external hosts/containers as 'graphite' and always connect to the 'graphite' host.

Build:

$ docker build -t statsd .

Run (assuming a previously running Graphite Docker conatiner named graphite):

$ docker run -d -it --name statsd --link graphite -p 8125:8125/udp -p 8126:8126 statsd

More optional improvements to come:

• Creating a dockerConfig.js file which reads all config parametes from environment vars (as I've done previously for movableink/doorman)
• Create an 'official' automated build at Docker Hub for the image: https://docs.docker.com/docker-hub/builds/

[referup-tarantegui]

That config is worked for me. +1 for a approve the pull request.

[pataquets]

Bump.
Would love to have this reviewed, in case there is more to do to have an initial version.

[gillesdemey]

Seems trivial to also include a docker-compose.yml file that links graphite.

[pataquets]

Added docker-compose manifest. Uses dockerana/* Docker Hub's official images for graphite-web and carbon and builds the statsd image from current dir.
Perhaps our statsd image should be configured to send metrics to 'carbon' host instead of 'graphite' host to avoid confusion with 'graphite-web' service. Although the stack is called graphite, would be better IMO to make it more clear. Notice that the 'statsd' service has a link to the 'carbon' service but aliased to 'graphite'. Confusing.
EDIT: And/or perhaps removing graphite-web service completely?

[coykitten]

lgtm!

What's the benefit of having these files in the root of the project? Does DockerHub search for these files this way? (Total docker n00b questions im sure)

[pataquets]

Checked it, and the Node image tag we are using here (:onbuild) assumes the source code to be present in the same dir than the Dockerfile.

Also, IIRC Docker can't add files outside the Dockerfile parent dir for security reasons.

I've used the :onbuild, latest Node version as parent image (check https://hub.docker.com/_/node/). Any specific version to stick to?

[coykitten]

@pataquets I would probably pin to node 5.x

While the tests are passing against node-stable, which travis says is 6.0.0, they are also outputting some deprecation errors to stderr which should get a closer look at before using the latest Node image

[pataquets]

Sounds safer. I've modified the Dockerfile to pin the Node version to the latest 5.x available.

[pataquets]

Bump.

[coykitten]

Thanks for the patch! Just FYI I've released the latest on npm as 0.8.0 so you could base your docker build on that if you'd like

[pataquets]

How about creating an 'official' automated build at Docker Hub for the image?
https://docs.docker.com/docker-hub/builds/
Just register 'etsy' (optionally making it an organization) and follow the easy steps from the link (requires repo ownership rights). I can help, if needed.

[pataquets]

Bump.
An organization-user automated build would be enough and it's quick to set up, with adequate permissions on Github's repo following the above link (also the original post's 2nd followup bullet point).
A more involved option would be a Docker Hub official image: https://docs.docker.com/docker-hub/official_repos/

[pataquets]

How about the above proposed 'official' Docker Hub image? Looks like 'etsy' user/org is already registered (hopefully by you): https://hub.docker.com/u/etsy/

[pataquets]

Bump.

[pataquets]

@pathzzrd : ping

[pataquets]

Any feedback on creating an 'official' automated build from source on Docker Hub?

[Tyrael]

@pathzzrd : any update on this?