11–20 of 42 posts
Otherwise I love HAProxy!
As an HAProxy user, support for logging to stdout (and hence journald) would be great. Currently HAProxy users on the major Linux distros either have to use it in debug mode or have a second log server just for the purposes of running HAProxy. Otherwise I love HAProxy!
global
log /dev/stdout local0 infoI was comparing HAproxy to Squid a while ago and could not figure out what's haproxy's advantage over squid? I ended up using Squid but still am very interested in HAproxy, would like to learn more about it. Squid remains to be the only one that can deal with SSL proxying(yes it's kind of MITM, but it's needed sometimes), and it's also the real "pure" open source. HAproxy might be better fit for enterprises that need…
on the other side, you have varnish plus and nginx plus which are closed source, which means their clients can't have access to the source code, they don't know what they run.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HAProxy is a TCP/HTTP load balancer, so the entire perspective of the software (from configuration to feature emphasis) stems from that. Squid is a caching HTTP proxy, which began with forward proxying but also supports reverse proxying. I wouldn't regard it as relevant to modern, dynamic architectures as HAProxy or Varnish (another caching-focused project). There's no real difference in open source purity between an…
Varnish is a good HTTP caching server, but with the rise of HTTPS and soon HTTP/2 I'm not sure it'll change since last time I heard its developers don't intend to support TLS at all.
As an HAProxy user, support for logging to stdout (and hence journald) would be great. Currently HAProxy users on the major Linux distros either have to use it in debug mode or have a second log server just for the purposes of running HAProxy. Otherwise I love HAProxy!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HAProxy is a TCP/HTTP load balancer, so the entire perspective of the software (from configuration to feature emphasis) stems from that. Squid is a caching HTTP proxy, which began with forward proxying but also supports reverse proxying. I wouldn't regard it as relevant to modern, dynamic architectures as HAProxy or Varnish (another caching-focused project). There's no real difference in open source purity between an…
Varnish is a good HTTP caching server, but with the rise of HTTPS and soon HTTP/2 I'm not sure it'll change since last time I heard its developers don't intend to support TLS at all.
I was comparing HAproxy to Squid a while ago and could not figure out what's haproxy's advantage over squid? I ended up using Squid but still am very interested in HAproxy, would like to learn more about it. Squid remains to be the only one that can deal with SSL proxying(yes it's kind of MITM, but it's needed sometimes), and it's also the real "pure" open source. HAproxy might be better fit for enterprises that need…
"pure" opensource doesn't exist: There is open source and there is closed source. HAProxy is open source, products developed by HAProxy Technologies are also open source for our customers!!! on the other side, you have varnish plus and nginx plus which are closed source, which means their clients can't have access to the source code, they don't know what they run.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Please don't sign comments; they're already signed with your username. If other users want to learn more about you, they can click on it to see your profile."
Whenever I see a long list of features like these, especially something major like Lua integration, I always wonder, what was given up in the process of adding them? Normally when there's a performance bump, they show the numbers. In this case there's no numbers. Was there a performance hit? Negligible?
EDIT: I guess part of my concern with Lua was the example on the linked article. It seems to be able to interface with most of the system and not just as a content source, which makes more sense.