Anyone know of a Traefik alternative but in Rust? I'm looking to oxidize a lot of my stack so just curious.
No, use Traefik. I like Rust a lot and many new tools written on it, but nothing beats Traefik currently, and there’s no need, tbh.
Traefik's 10-year anniversary
101–110 of 154 posts
Re: Traefik's 10-year anniversary
#102Anyone know of a Traefik alternative but in Rust? I'm looking to oxidize a lot of my stack so just curious.
Looking for a Rust-based alternative to a battle-tested industry-standard tool written in a memory-safe language that can get about 75-90% of the speed of Rust is kind of pointless outside embedded context.
Not really, sometimes it's just a curiosity. And 15% is nothing to scoff at in terms of speed, if it's available why not take the extra speed, is my opinion.
Re: Traefik's 10-year anniversary
#103With Envoy ( https://www.envoyproxy.io/ ) and Contour ( https://projectcontour.io/ ) being official CNCF sanctioned projects in the Service Proxy space, Istio ( https://istio.io/ ) and Linkerd ( https://linkerd.io/ ) being official CNCF sanctioned projects in the Service Mesh space and Emissary Ingress ( https://emissary-ingress.dev/ ) the same in the API Gateway space, just to name a few, naming yourself a standard…
Yea, envoy is the premier open source (not open core+ paid features) proxy right now in my opinion. Modern, well supported, big community, reliable. If I was making a bet long term I would be looking at envoy and not some open core crap where they can rug pull you at any moment.
A whole bunch of the other ingress/k8s gateway offering also just…wrap envoy, so you may as well just use envoy directly these days. Especially given that configuring it, wasn’t any worse than configuring a wrapper with the additional benefit of not having anything between you and envoy to get in the way.
Re: Traefik's 10-year anniversary
#104I use Traefik for local development on daily basis, where I have to run double digit https services. It works, but it was a pain to set up. The documentation sucks ** and the config is confusing AF. I would never recommend this to anyone. If i will have to reinstall my computer one day, Traefik will not be welcomed back.
I really like how it can be easily configured from Docker labels (from Portainer for example), or from your big production Consul cluster alike. But yeah, the docs need a lot of work, it’s difficult to figure out the format many times, it lacks examples, and things that need to be enabled together have their docs at different places.
Your point about having to enable two different things at the same time in two different places is a concise way of expressing my extreme frustration with that project.
I burned the better part of a Saturday trying to figure out why a relatively straightforward configuration wasn't applying and it's because one half of the configuration that I was trying to apply has to be done in the static manner and not the dynamic manner.
Documentation doesn't really spell this out and after quite a bit of frustrated googling I found a few other people complaining about effectively the same problem. It's only a few lines of code to spit out something along the lines of "hey, you're trying to configure ¢thing in an inappropriate way. Did you mean to configure ¢thing over in €thisLocation?" message... But nope, that would make things so much simpler and easier to use and probably cut into their support contract sales...
Now I basically just stick with nginx because it's documentation isn't crap, useful and applicable examples are all over the Internet.
Re: Traefik's 10-year anniversary
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea, envoy is the premier open source (not open core+ paid features) proxy right now in my opinion. Modern, well supported, big community, reliable. If I was making a bet long term I would be looking at envoy and not some open core crap where they can rug pull you at any moment.
Traefik is proper OSS tho, not Open Core
Is it? Features are blocked behind a subscription: https://traefik.io/solutions/kubernetes-ingress
Re: Traefik's 10-year anniversary
#106I use and appreciate both Traefik and Caddy. I like that Traefik includes TLS termination, whereas the equivalent functionality with Caddy requires compiling a separate module with xcaddy.
I'm pretty sure that's how I'm already using Caddy, and I didn't compile anything separate. Maybe it's packaged automatically as part of the Caddy Docker image?
My original comment probably wasn't clear enough, I meant to say that caddy doesn't support layer 4 TLS termination without third-party modules. For example, if I wanted a reverse proxy in front of a Gitea instance that would terminate and route TCP packets to/from port 22... this is something Traefik can do out of the box.
Re: Traefik's 10-year anniversary
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure that's how I'm already using Caddy, and I didn't compile anything separate. Maybe it's packaged automatically as part of the Caddy Docker image?
My original comment probably wasn't clear enough, I meant to say that caddy doesn't support layer 4 TLS termination without third-party modules. For example, if I wanted a reverse proxy in front of a Gitea instance that would terminate and route TCP packets to/from port 22... this is something Traefik can do out of the box.
We plan to move layer4 into the standard Caddy distribution eventually. We're still stabilizing it, and once we're happy with it (and have the time and energy to) we'll bring it in.
Re: Traefik's 10-year anniversary
#108There's a lot of mentions to Caddy here. Haven't used it as, back in the day, there was something funny about its license and binary distribution. AFAIK that's not a problem anymore, isn't it? From people that migrated from Traefik to Caddy... What are the main differences? Anything you really miss? I use Traefik in a bunch of small deployments, sometimes pointing to Docker stuff, sometimes outside of Docker, Kuberne…
Maybe you're thinking of the drama involving Caddy putting sponsorships into its Server header. They walked that back relatively quickly and hasn't been a problem since then. Back when they both were on the rise, they felt equivalent. I haven't deployed Traefik in a long time but as far as I remember, Traefik's configuration is more service-discovery oriented. While they both are capable of working with a static set…
Ah, I didn't remember that. I've been googling a bit and I think this was it [0]: binaries on their download page or GitHub releases were only usable on a personal basis. If you were to use them in a company, even internally, you needed to get a commercial license or build the binary yourself.
That's not the case anymore.
--
0: https://github.com/caddyserver/caddy/issues/2185#issuecomment-392470508Re: Traefik's 10-year anniversary
#109Usual tribal bollocks in the comments.
Personally, I generally rock Apache but Traefik, Caddy, ngnix and co are all superb projects.
If you are going to get tribal about web servers, I suggest you think really hard about your career choice.
Use the tool that works for the job in hand.
Re: Traefik's 10-year anniversary
#110Quite a bold claim there about being "standard" :D At one point I was using nginx for my local RPi deployment handling of various services with docker-compose but ultimatelly switched to Caddy and it made everything so simple :)
It’s modern day age of aura farming/seo hacking/clout chasing. Just claim you are standard and then LLM crawlers pick up on it. The next generation is trained to just ask ChatGPT/Claude/Gemini/{w/e dogshit LLM} and they will unfortunately believe it. Throw in some more keywords and signals like GH stars, docker container downloads to sell it. Might not work now but it’s a small gamble that may pay off in the future.
LLM rizzmaxxing is crazy