No Driver Utility

[ghost]

I have several servers running Docker that was created without any driver. Docker-machine allows hosts to be added just by the URL but that does not have any function. Running docker-machine env and config prints an error about missing cert instead of DOCKER_HOST=IP:port and even running docker-machine ip prints out nothing. Beyond that, improvements to the functionality that will significantly increase Machine's utility include being able to specify custom ca.pem, cert.pem, key.pem and SSH certs for a host. Something like

$ docker-machine create -d none --url 50.134.234.20:2376 \
    --tlscacert /User/owner/.docker/ca.pem \
    --tlscert /User/owner/.docker/cert.pem \
    --tlskey /User/owner/.docker/key.pem \
    --sshkey /User/owner/.docker/id_rsa \
    --sshuser docker custombox

The official docs show

$ docker-machine create --url=tcp://50.134.234.20:2376 custombox
$ docker-machine ls
NAME        ACTIVE   DRIVER    STATE     URL
custombox   *        none      Running   tcp://50.134.234.20:2376

But I don't see anything under STATE so perhaps a ping could be used to determine if a host is running or not since doing a port scan is probably wishing too much.

[nathanleclaire]

I think the recently merged generic driver might be more akin to what you're after.

[ghost]

The generic driver will certainly help with future machines but this is about managing existing machines.

[hairyhenderson]

@usertaken - I've used the none driver in the past to do this (without the errors you're talking about), but frankly it was a massive pain to set up. If I were to do this again today, I'd use generic.

Can you try out generic on a machine with Docker already-installed and let us know specifically what aspects of the driver don't work for you?

[ghost]

@hairyhenderson According to #406, the generic driver only supports Ubuntu ATM while my servers consist of CentOS, Fedora and Arch Linux.

[hairyhenderson]

@usertaken - the driver is OS-agnostic, though the only provisioner currently available is for Ubuntu. That'll change soon, though - there is a RHEL provisioner coming in #1090, and RancherOS support will come in #1096.

I'd imagine Fedora and Arch support would be pretty straightforward to bring in afterward :)

If your main issue is lack of OS support - can you open issues specifically to support Fedora and Arch?

[nathanleclaire]

+1 to what @hairyhenderson said -- if the issues are specific to OSes, please open issues for that.