In my research, I’ve noticed that pihole uses ports 53, 67, 547, 80, 443, and 123 and adguard uses 53 and 3000 initially, then 80/443 after configuration. Will I run into port conflicts if I try to deploy both pihole and adguard together within Container Manager on my Synology NAS? Currently, I have pihole and unbound running on a macvlan network with no issues. However, I start to run into issues when I try to deploy adguard.
After pihole and unbound are running with no issues, I attempt to deploy adguard. I use the same macvlan network I created above which the container obtains an ip address of 192.168.10.194. NOTE: I do create individual bridge networks for pihole and adguard - 192.168.11.2 and 192.168.12.2 respectively. After adguard has been deployed and running, I start running into performance issues where I’m unable to add block lists or update them. Is this because both containers are trying to use port 53, 80, and 443?
You can run Pi-hole and AdGuard together without port conflicts if you configure them properly. Since both services default to using port 53 for DNS, you’ll need to assign unique ports to avoid clashes. In Container Manager on your Synology NAS, set one service to a different port, such as 5053, while leaving the other on 53.
I attempted to change the ports for AdGuard, but per the logs, it’s still trying to use the default ports, which I believe is causing a conflict with PiHole. See attachment.
If you don’t want to chain them, why would you want to run both dns “filter” resolver at the same time?
How would any system be able to use the one that does not publish port 53/udp? Are you sure it even makes sense to solve the port conflicts?
What’s wrong with deploying one, testing it, tearing it down, deploying the other, then testing the other?
Update: never mind, I missed that you use macvlan. Ignore my post, there can’t be any conflict. Please search for macvlan-shim in this forum, I feel this is what you might be looking for.
No, it’s not. A container port will not affect another containers ports, unless both use the host network, or have a collision with the container ports and published host ports.
Update2: what I wrote above relates to the bridge network. What I wrote in update 1 relates to macvlan. Why would you publish ports on a container that already has an ip of your subnet through the macvlan?! The setup seems odd to me.
I appreciate the insight, and I will review the forum you recommended. I am a newbie to this and just exploring different docker containers I can run on my Synology NAS. In testing both, there are pros and cons to each. Is it possible to have one as a primary and one as a backup?
Also, I noticed that I was running into issues with Adguard when the bridge network I created for it was binded to the container. Once I removed the bridge network from the container, it has been running smoothly ever since. I have some devices pointed to pihole via 192.168.10.192 and some devices pointed to 192.168.10.194. Now, obviously, I’m manually setting the DNS on these devices and overriding what router is sending out.
