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

Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers

j6b72.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 266 posts

Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers

#161

Post by PennRobotics »

siva7 wrote: post #41

It’s nice if you’re running a bare metal server on hetzner or DO but in the age of cloud platforms like aws or azure there is hardly a need for traefik.

Even on Hetzner, it's not amazing and not a one-click workflow.

Load their Photoprism image on a standard server with only IPv6 (as a v4 address costs extra) and certificates will not get generated; logs point to Traefik although the solution is modifying Dockerfiles; thanks Dockerphiles, for insisting your software is the answer to everything server...

Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers

#162

Post by ap-andersson »

engine_y wrote: post #72

We've been using Traefik in prod for 2 years. While I used NGINX in the past, I decided to migrate to Traefik mainly because of the automatic let's encrypt integration. I am sorry for that decision. Traefik's documentation does not make sense to me or my team. It is finicky and misbehaves without proper logging. As an example - when I want to recreate the certificates - it fails sporadically leaving prod down for an…

I have moved to Traefik from NGINX aswell because of the built-in support for DNS challenge and wildcard cert. I myself spent many hours trying to get it working for my domain I use at work. I used the same config I use at home (which works perfectly) but could never get it to actually do anything, even though the setup was identical. Same domain registrar with same API based on the same docker configs etc. Had all logs enabled and still I get no information what so ever about why my certificate could not be created. It simply defaulted back to its generated cert without trying it seemed. After two troubleshooting sessions and several hours of searching and troubleshooting I had to admit defeat and just use my own self-signed cert files. Very frustrating when you get no information about why it doesn't work. Just a silent failure and fallback.

Overall that has been my biggest problem with traefik. Its awesome when it works, but when it does not I always seem to have problems troubleshooting and/or finding the information I need in the docs.

At work we will start using Traefik in prod towards the end of the year. I hope Traefik and I will become better friends before that :)

Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers

#164

Post by dirkt »

engine_y wrote: post #72

We've been using Traefik in prod for 2 years. While I used NGINX in the past, I decided to migrate to Traefik mainly because of the automatic let's encrypt integration. I am sorry for that decision. Traefik's documentation does not make sense to me or my team. It is finicky and misbehaves without proper logging. As an example - when I want to recreate the certificates - it fails sporadically leaving prod down for an…

> I decided to migrate to Traefik mainly because of the automatic let's encrypt integration.

You probably already know and maybe it didn't work for you, but there's quite a few Docker companion containers that automate let's encrypt certs for an nginx Docker container.

Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers

#165

Post by zaphirplane »

silisili wrote: post #124
plantain wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

Yes! Otel, is exactly what I was thinking. It’s for people working on it with access to tribal knowledge. For mortals working to add it to their service it’s not fit for purpose

Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers

#167

Post by lmeyerov »

francislavoie wrote: post #136
lmeyerov wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dyna…

`query [key] ` A+++, I missed when this got added, amazing!

(this basically solves the sticky shared chatroom websocket problem for us when routing to resources with gravity, in our case, multiuser data science notebooks!)

Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers

#168

Post by yread »

johanbcn wrote: post #75
sph wrote: post #52

Traefik 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…

MSDN also follows these principles

Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers

#169

Post by arendtio »

sph wrote: post #52

Traefik 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 agree that the documentation could be better, but it isn't that bad. I enjoyed all the gophers, and these images really helped me understand the structure.

However, I find it amusing that you wish there was a better reference. I think getting to the initial setup is quite hard. Once you have that, extending it is straightforward.

Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers

#170

Post by woopwoop24 »

i had such a hard time learning traefik and transitioning to V2. I do not fall into the standard case, wanting to use traefik for containers, not running on the same host (you cannot have labels annoted as the docs suggest, if the container is on another host) Docs were sparse and also not wanted to use the env vars for the traefik config as well, so took a bit of fumbling and reading and eventually i figured it out, but was almost on the verge of going back to haproxy
Post reply on HN