Docker Compose was production ready in 2015 and it still is today. I've lost track of how many projects I've deployed with it and never really ran into a single issue where Docker Compose was at fault. It's super solid.
How do you guys, who run Docker in production deal with managing nftables firewall on hosts running containers? By design docker daemon creates and manages a set of firewall rules to forward traffic between containers and ingress traffic into containers as well as masquarades the outgoing container traffic. That is all well until admin needs to alter hosts firewall to allow and deny other traffic unrelated to docker - and restarting nftables or even applying new nftables rules usually ( flush ruleset in /etc/nftables.conf ) purges all the docker created rules and effectively breaks everything until docker daemon is restarted and rules re-created. I have partially solved this by using nftables filter chains with different names - admin_input/admin_output and using input hook with negative priority - so that traffic I choose to block is evaluated before docker rules are applied - that feels a bit like hack, but so far is the only way I have found. It is good practice in this day and age to run local firewalls on all hosts with policy deny, so that only traffic explicitly allowed can pass, that can severely limit blast radius during compromise.
I really want something that is Docker Compose but for Kubernetes. I mean that I can have a simple way to declaring resources in just like Docker Compose, but I run the environment in Kubernetes so that I can get to test the behaviors when there are multiple copies of the softwares running together. I do rely on Kubernetes heavily for distributed and networked software deployment, so it is even better if we can emulate things like latency or burstable packet loss so that we can do a controlled chaos test for reliability test. I tried Skaffold, Tilt, Devspaces and Devpod/Coder v2, none of them are really simple like Compose.
This is a problem we, as a company, have thought about a lot, but we always concluded that Kubernetes is already the simplest abstraction of a distributed system that is feasible for the diverse needs that the biggest companies out there have.
We previously built a package manager for Kubernetes to abstract it in the simplest way possible `glasskube install app` but we failed because every abstraction needs to follow a "convention over configuration" pattern at some point. Also, we weren't able to monetize a package manager.
With Distr (https://github.com/distr-sh/distr), we have actually been able to help companies not only package but distribute and either manage or give their customers a way to self-manage applications. Our customers are able to land on-premises contracts at enterprises way faster than before, which is also a clear ROI for paying for Distr.
So, I don't think that you can get the flexibility of a distributed application orchestrator with a simple declarative YAML file if your target environments are diverse.
Helm mostly does that. Not a huge fan of a text templating engine generating yaml but once you get your chart setup with a few variable inputs, you can continue using it for a bunch of other stuff with minimal existing config.
The inputs (values) are yaml so you can make it look exactly like a Docker Compose file if you want (wouldn't be surprised if there's some charts floating around that do that)
Should you have a turkey sandwich for lunch in 2026? I don't know buddy just do whatever. There are ten thousand other sandwiches you could eat surely, but does turkey sound good for you?
What if you can't by yourself objectively evaluate if turkey sandwich sounds good?
It's not a matter of giving a universal answer to whether docker compose in production is fine, but how to evaluate it. Which features or safeguards necessary for a healthy production environment you forfeit when choosing plain docker compose? What's the tradeoff?
But then if you're not going to answer a question on technology, and you won't motivate any of the choices, including the one to not give an answer, what's the value in participating to the conversation?
Your entire original comment looks like just an opportunity to be snarky. It's a longer version of "whatever", which you can literally throw around as an answer to anything.
In case you were curious, the subheading of the article already answers the question posed by the title:
> Yes, plain Docker Compose can still run production workloads in 2026—if you close the operational gaps it leaves: cleanup, healing, image pinning, socket security, and updates.
They are not using Docker at runtime for their services. Every company uses Docker for builds unless they have a particular cost or ethos they're avoiding and purely using Linux/podman/buildah/et al.
Thinking about it a little further, though, I believe Rancher Desktop has come a long way and may be eating market share.
There are more secure alternatives. Are you sure those you listed actually use it on the servers? I would guess that at least Spotify and Netflix uses some other container runtime than Docker on their production servers.
For a long time Docker was helpful and opened exposed ports on the firewall. So you wanted to access your redis ports locally and exposed it on the container? Now everything in there is accessible on the open internet.
I believe they've fixed it but I haven't used Docker in years so I wouldn't know.
Somewhat adjacent in how I look at using Docker at all in prod, here's what I always wonder:
Is using Docker/Compose "just" as the layer for installing & managing runtime environment and services correct? Especially for languages like PHP?
I.e. am I holding it wrong if I run my "build" processes (npm, composer, etc) on the server at deploy time same as I would without containers? In that sense Docker Composer becomes more like Ansible for me - the tool I use to build the environment, not the entire app.
For the purpose of my question, let's assume I'm building normal CRUD services that can go a little tall or a little wide on servers without caring about hyper scale.
I think many of these issues are also solved by Podman and systemd depending on what kind of "production" you're building for. If you're building a linux-y appliance and you need to run a few containers I think Podman is a much better and more ergonomic way of doing so. I think perhaps that's less true for running a web service (where the linux environment is just a means to that end).
GP is talking about podman with generated systemd unit files (a.k.a. podman quadlet[0]), not the docker-compose-compatible podman-compose ...and I'd agree, systemd can manage services on a system just fine, and even better than any compose workload ever could.
journald will help with logs, and the pull policy[1] helps with mutable tags. What help do you need with "orphan containers"?
I'm not OP, but the whole podman compose topic gets quite confusing, as initially Podman didn't seem to know what they were trying to do. I've given some more context around it in previous comments.
You shouldn't be using podman compose. It's flimsy and doesn't work very well (at least it was last time I used it prior to Podman v3), and I'm pretty sure it doesn't have Red Hat's direct support.
Instead, activate Podman's Docker API compatibility socket, and simply set your `DOCKER_HOST` env var to that socket, and from there you can use your general docker client commands such as `docker`, `docker compose` and anything else that uses the Docker API. There are very few things that don't work with this, and the few things that don't are advanced setups.
For what it's worth, podman has also a thin wrapper (podman compose) which executes `docker-compose` or the old `podman-compose`. The docs should explain which it picks.
Note:
- `podman-compose` is an early attempt at remaking `docker-compose` v1 but for Podman. This used parsed the compose config and converts them to podman commands, and executes it.
- Later Podman wrote a Docker compatible socket instead, which can work with most docker clis that accept a `DOCKER_HOST` argument, including `docker` and `docker-compose` (both v1 and v2)
- `podman compose` is a thin wrapper that automatically selects `docker-compose` or `podman-compose` depending on which is installed.
Generally all you need is podman, docker-compose (the v2 binary), and that's it. From there you can use `podman` and/or `podman compose`.
One of the nastiest aspects of migrating from docker to podman really is "what to do about docker compose?" coz there are three wildly divergent ways to answer that all of which really suck under certain specific circumstances.
Im no fan of docker and podman by itself is a step up but orchestration headaches are enough to ruin that.
Docker (Compose) has some quirks compared to Podman (Compose), e.g. when using gvisor or a lot of internal networks. Depending on what you do your milage will vary, though.
Then you learn podman can't even list containers for all users properly and it kind of starts smelling like the whole ip4 vs ip6 debacle: bunch of vocal proponents wanting you to subject yourself to endless torture for no discernible reason.
Is there a nice guide for podman that includes quadlets (or saying not to use them?) I find lots of guides stray into things that work on redhat, and on my Linuxes of choice, Raspbian and Ubuntu, things aren't straightforward.
Can't comment on Raspbian, but Ubuntu LTS (has/had) a seriously outdated podman version. This is the kind of nuisance the Debian derivatives have been running into for more than 20 years: they are extremely conservative, and if that is all you need, then that is great, but if not, you'll have to either run the latest Ubuntu (not LTS), or you upgrade to something like fedora.
> they are extremely conservative, and if that is all you need, then that is great
You don’t need to live at the edge of new features. Do you upgrade your fridge and your oven every two months? It’s nice when you can have something running and not worry that the next update will break your software and/or your workflow.
I like running docker compose for my simple needs because it consolidates pretty much all the config in one declarative file, and docker manages 'everything'.
By now I know how to handle the handful of caveats listed in this article. Beyond what's listed there, I'd also give a mention to the way port publishing works (the fact that it ignores firewalls), as that's something that still trips people up if they don't know about it.
> docker compose pull && docker compose up -d is a fine command if you are SSH’d into the host. At customer scale—dozens of self-managed environments behind firewalls, each with its own change-control process—that manual process doesn’t scale.
No idea what this 'customer scale' operation is, but it seems like a pretty clear cut candidate for not using docker compose. I also don't think watchtower should be listed there, it's been archived and was never recommended for production usage anyways.
> I'd also give a mention to the way port publishing works (the fact that it ignores firewalls), as that's something that still trips people up if they don't know about it.
Isn't that a Docker thing rather than Docker Compose though? There is a ton more caveats to add if we don't already assume the reader is familiar with the hard edges of Docker, seems the article only focuses on Docker Compose specifically, probably because it'd be very long otherwise :)
I prefer Portainer to manage my docker composes. It is simple and can do it all instead of using cli.
Added benefit if you have multiple hosts and want to manage them from one place. And you can extend the whole setup with git for version control.
Compose is great, but a couple things always created friction for me when using it for non-local setups:
* Lack of a user-friendly way of managing a Docker Compose installation on a remote host. SSH-forwarding the docker socket is an option, but needs wrappers and discipline.
* Growing beyond one host (and not switching to something like Kubernetes) would normally mean migrating to Swarm, which is its own can of worms.
* Boilerplate needed to expose your services with TLS
Uncloud [1] fixed all those issues for me and is (mostly) Compose-compatible.
Kubernetes sounds like overkill, but I've been running microk8s for few standalone servers. This feels a pretty good match when working with agents. Codex can manage the cluster also over ssh, schedule new pods, check statuses, logs etc.
I think k8s is a great choice today specially when you can plug it into Gitlab and have a control plane for your clusters in the same place where your code lives.
My experience with docker-compose is a bit outdated, but my impression some years ago was that it was too sensitive and fragile. I encountered bugs or incompatibilities that broke the docker-compose setup often enough to be forced to pin the specific docker and docker-compose versions.
And the error handling was terrible. Most of these problems resulted in a Python stack trace in some docker-compose internals instead of a readable error message. Googling the stack trace usually lead to a description of the actual problem, but that's really not something that inspires confidence.
That's just different customer personas for marketing reasons, just like Vercel has "Build and deploy on the AI Cloud" as their main tag line on the landing page. It doesn't mean they are an "AI company".
To be honest I never really understood the benefit of Docker (Compose) Secrets - which a different from Swarm Secrets. Imho there just plain host mounted volumes, which are hidden from inspect commands?