Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks • Hacker News Board

Re: Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

#381

Post by jimjag » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 4:07 PM UTC

tomohawk wrote: post #356

ddragosd wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've played with both over time, and I was never comfortable with HAProxy's performance.

As a load balancer, haproxy is usually what you want. It has more tools in the bag for those use cases. As for performormance, my experience is that haproxy outperforms nginx in the load balance cases. You have to go out of your way to configure nginx to get close. Here's an interesting comparison: https://www.loggly.com/blog/benchmarking-5-popular-load-bala...

I especially love how the benchmark totally addresses the "events are always good and threads are always bad" FUD... Performance is a balance, not a simple, knee-jerk pronouncement.

Re: Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

#382

Post by dikei » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 4:15 PM UTC

wbl wrote: post #378

dikei wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, nobody should be using MapReduce now, and HDFS now is a lot better than 8 years ago. Without Google using, validating and releasing those design, we might be stuck with MPI and NFS for a lot longer.

How many GMM can MapReduce do? What about lattice quantum chronodynamics performance? MPI and Lustre exist for a reason: map reduce isn't great for all problems.

MR never claimed to be great for all problems. It main selling points was big-data and easy-of-use.

Sure, MPI might blow MR out of the water in term of number-crunching, but it is also way harder to use.

Re: Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

#383

Post by kayfox » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 4:32 PM UTC

mlrhazi wrote: post #244

elagost wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use F5's at work. The F5's do their job very very well, but are very very touchy. I've always considered nginx to be solid, stable, and low-maintenance. I think the opposite about F5 and am worried about this transition. 1) You can't export and re-import a config. Just doesn't work. 2) For the Virtual Appliance (not a recommended scenario by F5, to be fair) it's temperamental about its host and doesn't like to be m…

1: How did you export? and did you try to import into a different unit? 4: In over 10 years of using F5 never seen a reboot break a config. The part about needing reboot to make a config change apply might be https://support.f5.com/csp/article/K13253 . In short F5 keeps the old config in RAM and applies it to existing connections. when the latter expire, the old config is gone. Can be very annoying indeed when you ar…

Existing connections using the config when they were initiated is intended to prevent inconsistencies when changes are being made, these inconsistencies could lead to connections being dropped en mass after a config change.

Re: Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

#384

Post by tyingq » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 5:42 PM UTC

jimjag wrote: post #380

tyingq wrote: post #167

I wonder if load balancer and API gateway products might eventually converge. Things like Kong, Tyk and Apigee have caching, embedded scripting, basic load balancing, etc. They aren't as good as Nginx or Haproxy at it, but a single product outside the app would be attractive.

"Things like Kong, Tyk and Apigee have caching, embedded scripting, basic load balancing, etc. " Hmmm... like Apache httpd?

Well, in addition to API gateway specifics, like API keys, counters, etc.

Re: Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

#385

Post by Rexxar » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 6:46 PM UTC

beatgammit wrote: post #165

EvangelicalPig wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hopefully if it declines we can have a MariaDB type fork take it's place.

nginy? But yeah, hopefully the community around it is solid enough to make that a possibility. I'd really prefer to not go back to Apache...

Incrementing all letters : "nginx" => "ohjoy"

Re: Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

#386

Post by user5994461 » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 7:31 PM UTC

jimjag wrote: post #373

user5994461 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HaProxy does load balancing better, it never was a primary feature of nginx. Varnish can do the caching. Apache/Lighttpd can serve files and CGI, but maybe not as efficiently. Apache is really struggling on resource consumption. It's still living in the world of one process or one thread per connection. Operationally it always ends up in a clusterfuck of rewrite rules and there are many gotchas with undocumented and…

"It's still living in the world of one process or one thread per connection." It hasn't lived in that world for a decade or so. It's great to give advice, but at least make it valid and factual. With the Apache 2.4 event MPM, httpd is async and event-driven and is just as fast as nginx.

Apache is full of gotchas as stated. For one, the event MPM is not async :p

It's still creating multiple processes that get recycled periodically, each with a fixed number of threads. Every active request holds a thread.

Apache quickly runs into troubles when having long lived requests (slow API calls or large file downloads) or when using websockets (hold a thread permanently).

The tuning to balance processes, threads, connections, requests and resource consumption is extremely complicated and it doesn't get very far.

HAProxy and nginx can both handle 10k concurrent connections out of the box. Apache requires extensive tuning before 1k.

Re: Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

#387

Post by EvangelicalPig » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 8:56 PM UTC

Rexxar wrote: post #385

beatgammit wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nginy? But yeah, hopefully the community around it is solid enough to make that a possibility. I'd really prefer to not go back to Apache...

Incrementing all letters : "nginx" => "ohjoy"

You win

Re: Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

#388

Post by k_vinogradov » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 9:15 PM UTC

We were one of the first three investors in Nginx in 2011 and just decided to share memories about development of the company thought the eyes of its VC shareholder:

https://medium.com/runa-capital-collection/nginx-and-runa-st... (from idea in 2002 to exit in 2019)

Re: Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

#389

Post by mlindner » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 9:22 PM UTC

fulafel wrote: post #321

dymk wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it start with an "R" and rhyme with "repeated-so-often-its-been-ground-into-the-dust"?

Go has the advantage in having a native mature TLS stack.

It's not a memory safe language though.

Re: Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

#390

Post by cortesoft » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 10:19 PM UTC

tingol wrote: post #379

nvarsj wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No need to be rude. I know what scummy means. It's just not clear to me why this is considered scummy. Anyone is welcome to take the open source and benefit from it as long as they comply with the license. This is a very fundamental aspect of open source. A company invests money and engineers in building commercial tooling, which you then pay for because there is added value. You are not paying for the open source -…

I apologize for the brash response. The "comply with the license" part is the problem you're not seeing, using open source as SaaS is a loophole not a license feature. An example being, I license something as open source which means if you don't pay for it (assuming there's an option for that), you are bound to follow the license I provided which means all further work has to be open source (the same license I used)…

> technically I'm not selling software but a service so I don't have to do shit.

This is entirely untrue. If it were the case that 'I don't have to do shit', then why doesn't someone else do it too? Running a service takes a WHOLE LOT of work, and writing the software is, in many cases, the easy part.

We know this is true because whenever there is a conflict with a software license, the big cloud vendors just re-write it themselves.