It would be nice if proxies are opinionated about typical URL usecases and offer an easy way to redirect www to non-www or handle path with missing slash.
Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers
131–140 of 266 posts
Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers
#132Why traefik over nginx for my modest needs, a couple docker hosts and a few dozen containers. I use https://github.com/NginxProxyManager/nginx-proxy-manager , would traefik provide a benefit on such a small scale?
metrics with non enterprise nginx are very limited.
Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers
#133Side question - what people use to hide (and make accessible) the internal services such as grafana, prometheus, rabbit mq (the web interface) and such? Should they be public behind such a proxy? (seems odd) Or should they be totally internal and then setup a Wireguard VPN to reach them?
zero trust, host firewalls, mtls, ssh tunnels, bastion hosts.
Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers
#134Traefik 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…
One of the problems that the yaml interpreter class of languages, or whatever you'd call them, suffer from is the fact that yaml itself is a language and tends to be more or less undocumented in the interpreter docs. It's sort of assumed that you are going to do extremely simple tasks on very flat data structures. That doesn't tend to be the reality that most of us live in. And to really get the most out of these lan…
Isn’t it why toml is seemingly increasingly used to replace yaml in projects?
Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers
#135Earlier 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.
Sounds like you're looking for Caddy's On-Demand TLS, then. No other server or ACME client does this. https://caddyserver.com/docs/automatic-https#on-demand-tls
Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
Caddy can absolutely do both of those things. - https://caddyserver.com/docs/modules/http.reverse_proxy.upst... - https://github.com/mholt/caddy-l4
We are long-time fans of Caddy, preferring it over traefik + nginx especially for our docker-compose flows.. though it's fair to distinguish 'can' vs 'easy to do' E.g., we can imagine writing or using a plugin to figure out some upcoming fancy sticky session routing logic based on routes/content vs just the user IP, but there are easier and more 'with the grain' solutions than with what Caddy exposes today, afaict (A…
Sticky sessions are supported: https://caddyserver.com/docs/caddyfile/directives/reverse_pr..., and yes it's pluggable so you could write your own LB policy. Very easy, just copy the code from Caddy's source to write your own plugin. Let us know if you need help.
Also yes, Caddy does service discovery if you use https://github.com/lucaslorentz/caddy-docker-proxy, configuration via Docker labels. Or you can use dynamic upstreams (built-in) https://caddyserver.com/docs/caddyfile/directives/reverse_pr... to use A/AAAA or SRV DNS records to load your list of upstreams.
Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve always just used go’s built in reverse proxy if I need an API gateway. You can adapt it to meet any specific need, easily find libraries to do common tasks (CORS, rate limiting, retries, etc), and the best part: no configuration language. You just write go.
curious what are the performance characteristics here? I would assume something like Nginx that has been optimized over a longer period of time / a more specific use case would have non-negligible performance benefits at scale?
Not everything needs to be at “scale”. I’ve deployed this pattern over 10k req/sec but it’s all about your SLOs. I’ve (thankfully) never needed to lose sleep over a millisecond or 2 in my line of work.
Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers
#138Traefik 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…
I want both, in the same page if possible, for every possible permutation of input arguments.
In theory ansible does this, but then it doesn't link to "you might use it in combination with...", essentially, it lacks integration of multiple things in the reference docs.
but I didn't find ansible docs that bad? Most of the time I search module name and find the reference doc
Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers
#139Traefik 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…
Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
Investing a lot of time and trying really hard is not the same as adding a lot of value. If your users don't find value in your documentation, saying "But we spent a lot of time on it!" doesn't really change anything. And, to be clear, I have no idea if the person you're responding to's criticism is valid. But I also know that your response does not negate their criticism at all.
How about submitting a PR to improve the documentation instead of complaining about it?
A PR needs maintainer approval. And the maintainer I've seen thinks the documents are good enough already. In cases like that, a PR might not be able to solve the problem.
Complaining about it reroutes people to better projects, and pushes the project to fix the problem.