Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

HAProxy 2.0

haproxy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 120 posts

Re: HAProxy 2.0

#101

Post by jsmeaton »

wtarreau wrote: post #82
henvic wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my previous company we used to use HAProxy, and it was a hassle. Yes, it is powerful. However, nginx is way easier to configure and set up, and performance wise is a contender for most usual applications people needed. Maybe for a few edge cases, HAProxy works better, but overall, I'd pass on it. nginx just fulfills most people's requirements for reverse proxy and has solid HTTP/2 support (and other features) for…

It would be great if you can explain the type of difficulties you've met. There are probably certain points that could easily be improved to satisfy users with your needs. In 2.0 we've set a number of things by default to work better and use all the capacity with no need for tweaking. Just doing this will start a proxy on all CPU cores, support both H1 and H2 and will automatically enable round robin load-balancing,…

It’s been awhile since I’ve used HAProxy (changed roles, loved the product). But are there drawbacks running on all cores? I seem to remember sticky routing and acls not working properly as each core had its own set. Has that changed?

Re: HAProxy 2.0

#102

Post by xorcist »

johnramsden wrote: post #2

I've always used Nginx as a proxy, but I've seen HAProxy mentioned, what are some of the benefits of using HAProxy over nginx as a proxy or load balancer?

That's not usually a choice. nginx is first and foremost a web service and a proxy. It is not built primarily for rewriting traffic and simple run time state changes, which is what you generally need an http router for

Normally you choose between something like Apache and nginx, where nginx is a bit easier to configure and write modules for, but the former has more functionality and third party support.

You choose between haproxy and something like Varnish, where the former is a bit more featureful on the routing part and the latter has more focus on the caching part.

It is not uncommon to use both.

Re: HAProxy 2.0

#103

Post by sandGorgon »

wtarreau wrote: post #82
henvic wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my previous company we used to use HAProxy, and it was a hassle. Yes, it is powerful. However, nginx is way easier to configure and set up, and performance wise is a contender for most usual applications people needed. Maybe for a few edge cases, HAProxy works better, but overall, I'd pass on it. nginx just fulfills most people's requirements for reverse proxy and has solid HTTP/2 support (and other features) for…

It would be great if you can explain the type of difficulties you've met. There are probably certain points that could easily be improved to satisfy users with your needs. In 2.0 we've set a number of things by default to work better and use all the capacity with no need for tweaking. Just doing this will start a proxy on all CPU cores, support both H1 and H2 and will automatically enable round robin load-balancing,…

Same here. We wanted to use haproxy from day zero because it could inject proxy protocol headers.

However, haproxy actively fights being compared to nginx.

There's no 101 guide to setup haproxy as a reverse proxy for nodejs application with separate domain names, ssl certificate configuration (I don't even know how to create the correct chain for haproxy after buying it from a commercial vendor), good security defaults (CORS/CORB) and docker defaults.

As of RIGHT NOW, haproxy has not updated it's official docker image and has 6 day old docker images which docker hub flags as having vulnerabilities (screenshot at https://imgur.com/a/SiYoZzc). So I'm a little hesitant at calling this release "Cloud Native"

Latest nginx docker image is not flagged for any vulnerabilities.

Re: HAProxy 2.0

#104

Post by TimWolla »

sandGorgon wrote: post #103
wtarreau wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be great if you can explain the type of difficulties you've met. There are probably certain points that could easily be improved to satisfy users with your needs. In 2.0 we've set a number of things by default to work better and use all the capacity with no need for tweaking. Just doing this will start a proxy on all CPU cores, support both H1 and H2 and will automatically enable round robin load-balancing,…

Same here. We wanted to use haproxy from day zero because it could inject proxy protocol headers. However, haproxy actively fights being compared to nginx. There's no 101 guide to setup haproxy as a reverse proxy for nodejs application with separate domain names, ssl certificate configuration (I don't even know how to create the correct chain for haproxy after buying it from a commercial vendor), good security defaul…

> As of RIGHT NOW, haproxy has not updated it's official docker image and has 6 day old docker images which docker hub flags as having vulnerabilities (screenshot at https://imgur.com/a/SiYoZzc). So I'm a little hesitant at calling this release "Cloud Native"

1. The “official” Docker image is not maintained by HAProxy itself. “Official” refers to being blessed by Docker. See: https://github.com/docker-library/official-images#what-do-yo...

2. The vulnerability scan of Docker Hub is bogus: https://github.com/docker-library/faq#why-does-my-security-s...

3. There's a pull request created by me to switch from 2.0-rc to 2.0: https://github.com/docker-library/haproxy/pull/89. I created it immediately after learning about the release. Any further delay is caused by the Docker Official Images team.

Disclosure: I'm a community contributor to HAProxy and I help maintain the issue tracker on GitHub. I also maintain a few “official” Docker images and by that I know the process.

Re: HAProxy 2.0

#105

Post by TimWolla »

jsmeaton wrote: post #101
wtarreau wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be great if you can explain the type of difficulties you've met. There are probably certain points that could easily be improved to satisfy users with your needs. In 2.0 we've set a number of things by default to work better and use all the capacity with no need for tweaking. Just doing this will start a proxy on all CPU cores, support both H1 and H2 and will automatically enable round robin load-balancing,…

It’s been awhile since I’ve used HAProxy (changed roles, loved the product). But are there drawbacks running on all cores? I seem to remember sticky routing and acls not working properly as each core had its own set. Has that changed?

You probably remember the nbproc [1] setting which indeed is multiple, unrelated processes. There's proper threading now (since 1.8).

[1] http://cbonte.github.io/haproxy-dconv/2.0/configuration.html...

Re: HAProxy 2.0

#106

Post by sandGorgon »

TimWolla wrote: post #104
sandGorgon wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. We wanted to use haproxy from day zero because it could inject proxy protocol headers. However, haproxy actively fights being compared to nginx. There's no 101 guide to setup haproxy as a reverse proxy for nodejs application with separate domain names, ssl certificate configuration (I don't even know how to create the correct chain for haproxy after buying it from a commercial vendor), good security defaul…

> As of RIGHT NOW, haproxy has not updated it's official docker image and has 6 day old docker images which docker hub flags as having vulnerabilities (screenshot at https://imgur.com/a/SiYoZzc ). So I'm a little hesitant at calling this release "Cloud Native" 1. The “official” Docker image is not maintained by HAProxy itself. “Official” refers to being blessed by Docker. See: https://github.com/docker-library/offici…

in which case is there your own registry where you maintain docker images ?

I'm not trying to be an ass. I've been looking forward to haproxy to be more docker/k8s/cloud friendly. This release claims so, but how do I deploy to k8s now ?

should everyone be compiling their own images ? If haproxy is not able to support official docker images, then we are back in "let's just use nginx. they atleast have official images"

and in replying to the comment that this thread belongs to ...this is one of the "difficulties"

Re: HAProxy 2.0

#107

Post by smartbit »

nickramirez wrote: post #49
user5994461 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't spend money on haproxy license. It's free. They make money by selling appliances (servers with haproxy pre installed). Nginx however is $1900 per year per server. There are plenty of critical features missing from the free edition, for example the status page to see available servers or metrics exporting for monitoring.

In fact there is a software-based Enterprise version of HAProxy that is subscription based.

https://www.haproxy.com/products/haproxy-enterprise-edition/

NGinx (see above) seems to cost $1900 per server per year. What are the costs for HAProxy Enterprise?

Re: HAProxy 2.0

#108

Post by TimWolla »

sandGorgon wrote: post #106
TimWolla wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As of RIGHT NOW, haproxy has not updated it's official docker image and has 6 day old docker images which docker hub flags as having vulnerabilities (screenshot at https://imgur.com/a/SiYoZzc ). So I'm a little hesitant at calling this release "Cloud Native" 1. The “official” Docker image is not maintained by HAProxy itself. “Official” refers to being blessed by Docker. See: https://github.com/docker-library/offici…

in which case is there your own registry where you maintain docker images ? I'm not trying to be an ass. I've been looking forward to haproxy to be more docker/k8s/cloud friendly. This release claims so, but how do I deploy to k8s now ? should everyone be compiling their own images ? If haproxy is not able to support official docker images, then we are back in "let's just use nginx. they atleast have official images"…

> in which case is there your own registry where you maintain docker images ?

Please note that I'm a community contributor. I am not employed by HAProxy Technologies and I cannot speak for the open source project in any official capacity either.

Re: HAProxy 2.0

#109

Post by exabrial »

Now that HaProxy uses HTX internally to quickly represent header flags, I wish they'd add that to their "Proxy Protocol". Back in the day, Apache/Tomcat used AJP to transmit parsed HTTP state to backend servers to avoid the re-parsing overhead.

Re: HAProxy 2.0

#110

Post by LinuxBender »

Scarbutt wrote: post #50
johnramsden wrote: post #2

I've always used Nginx as a proxy, but I've seen HAProxy mentioned, what are some of the benefits of using HAProxy over nginx as a proxy or load balancer?

Nginx it's more general purpose, ex: can serve and cache static files.

As of 1.9, haproxy can cache files as well. Well, 1.8 technically had caching, but more controls have been added around the cache in 1.9. The controls are not as fine grained as in NGinx, but it's fine for when you just need a small object caching layer.

Up until HAProxy 1.8, I used to have Haproxy -> NGinx caching layer -> Apache. I have since been able to remove all the NGinx servers. (For my use case, won't work for everyone)

Post reply on HN