I needed a reverse proxy the other week. OPNSense is my firewall. I tried traefik, but it was too complicated. So I installed caddy, and it was easy as pie. My .02
Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers
121–130 of 266 posts
Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers
#122I use caddy wherever I can. That it can already handle automatic certificates is a big plus. Plus it's very easy to congiure.
If you like Caddy for it's ACME capabilities, then you might enjoy Traefik as well. It supports HTTP, TLS ALPN and DNS challenges and can be configured in one line as well.
Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I am not misunderstanding (sorry if I am) it sounds like you use the http challenge where your cert provider tries to GET your challenge file — if so, could the DNS challenge be better suited? There, you put the challenge in a TXT record value
You got it, but your solution won't work because of one detail: I can not use the DNS challenge because I am running a managed service provider, and my customers are the ones who own the domain. All I can do is ask them "please add a CNAME to my gateway", and I need to figure out everything else on my side.
It might not be suitable for your use case but, have you tried ACME DNS challenge delegation to a different one hosted by yourself?
Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers
#124Traefik is pretty cool, but suffers from the same, terrible problem of Ansible: there is a lot of documentation, and a lot of words written, yet you can never find anything you need. I have used it since v1 and I routinely get lost in their docs, and get immensely frustrated. I have been using Caddy for smaller projects simply because its documentation is not as terrible (though not great by any stretch) Technical wr…
My latest gripe in this category - opentelemetry. Thousands of pages. Very little about actually achieving basic common workflows.
Same experience. Otel is one of the wordiest docs I've ever come across that says very little.
Further, I found a lot of little bugs that are hard to Google, or when Googling finding open issues that are either known and working on, or no response at all.
I ended up just throwing it in the garbage and using direct connectors. I like what Otel is trying to achieve, but it feels extremely opaque and half baked at the moment.
Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers
#125Traefik is pretty cool, but suffers from the same, terrible problem of Ansible: there is a lot of documentation, and a lot of words written, yet you can never find anything you need. I have used it since v1 and I routinely get lost in their docs, and get immensely frustrated. I have been using Caddy for smaller projects simply because its documentation is not as terrible (though not great by any stretch) Technical wr…
If only there were a program that had crawled bazillions of documents, including all of the traefik documentation, examples, and thousands of code files using it, and if only said program were especially designed to answer natural-language queries about said documents.
Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
Caddy is actually used as a reverse proxy more than a static file server. It's equally excellent and proficient as both! Caddy's functionality is comparable to nginx, apache httpd, and haproxy.
And while we’re at it, it can even forward proxy recentlyish I believe?
Yeah, Caddy v1 had a forwardproxy plugin that finally got updated for v2: https://github.com/caddyserver/forwardproxy/
Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers
#127Traefik is pretty cool, but suffers from the same, terrible problem of Ansible: there is a lot of documentation, and a lot of words written, yet you can never find anything you need. I have used it since v1 and I routinely get lost in their docs, and get immensely frustrated. I have been using Caddy for smaller projects simply because its documentation is not as terrible (though not great by any stretch) Technical wr…
> Technical writers: documentation by example is good only for newbies skimming through. People familiar with your product need a reference and exhaustive lists, not explanation for different fields spread over 10 tutorial pages. Focus on those that use the product day in and day out, not solely on the "onboarding" procedure. I agree. We all would benefit by giving more exposure to documentation frameworks such as ht…
Discussed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33721314
Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
I moved from Traefik to Caddy with caddy-docker-proxy for my self-hosting setup. All the features I need but *much* simpler. https://github.com/lucaslorentz/caddy-docker-proxy
Looks interesting but I don't see the benefits really. Still looks like a lot of labels exactly like with traefik. Why should one switch?
Having had used traefik, caddy and now caddy proxy, I like the latter because labels are simple pointers to actual caddy features (reasonably documented).
I used to have all my docker compose files in elaborate structures but moved to portainer for simplicity. Together with caddy proxy it rocks (well, there are several things missing but I have hope)
Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers
#129We just started running Traefik in production since looking at self managed K8s was just too hard and complicated for what we were trying to do. We have an Ansible Docker compose service (that’s what we call it), that starts up the containers and auto registers the containers with Traefik. It works really well.
We are airgapped so can’t use Let’s Encrypt. We inject the certs into our containers via Ansible or Docker Compose.
Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers
#130I use caddy rather traefik. It's much easier to manage the Caddyfile compared to the traefik YAML config IMO, and we just keep three separate Caddyfiles for local, production and on-prem deployments. There are a plethora of great plugins, we use the coraza WAF plugin for caddy and it works well.
I moved from Traefik to Caddy with caddy-docker-proxy for my self-hosting setup. All the features I need but *much* simpler. https://github.com/lucaslorentz/caddy-docker-proxy
Same here. I enjoyed Traefik for being able to use docker tags for my reverse proxy configuration. The mechanism is great, however I did not like Traefiks internal config structure. Caddy is much easier for me to understand and matches my (small scale) use cases much better. Using Caddy via Docker labels through caddy-docker-proxy is about as perfect as it gets (for me).