I never understood why folks use Traefik. HAProxy feels more configurable and resilient.
[dead]
Traefik's 10-year anniversary
21–30 of 154 posts
Re: Traefik's 10-year anniversary
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think this is representative of the majority of traefik’s users. Most of us use it as an HTTP entrypoint for a container stack (docker compose, in my case) or for local development, and the FOSS version works great for that, with better dev tooling than anything else i’ve seen.
I disagree. If you're a heavy Traefik user you're eventually going to need a feature that has been carefully omitted from the F/OSS projects.
> If you're a heavy Traefik user...
...shouldn't you be paying then? Expecting developers to work for free to provide you with a product you use heavily is acting pretty entitled.
Just to give a contrasting account, I have been using Traefik to manage my public server (a $4 Digital Ocean VPS running a web server and a Bluesky PDS) and my local home server (running dozens of services with all kinds of weird configurations) flawlessly for more than 5 years now.
Re: Traefik's 10-year anniversary
#23[dead]
Re: Traefik's 10-year anniversary
#24I just wanted to sincerely say: congratulations for this project.
When a person is determined it can go very far. These things do not happen just by pure chance.
Re: Traefik's 10-year anniversary
#25I never understood why folks use Traefik. HAProxy feels more configurable and resilient.
I use it because it's built in to k3s.
Re: Traefik's 10-year anniversary
#26Traefik's F/OSS projects are useless to me. Every single feature that I need to use is locked away in a closed source product. Close to the same issue with Varnish Enterprise. Why would I pay for Varnish Enterprise if I can't even review or extend the source? Know what I have to do with Varnish's source once a quarter? I have to look at it. Because the documentation is non-existent. The closed source version is going…
Caddy my guy, caddy.
Traefik is really only useful in k8s. Soon we’ll be replacing ours.
Re: Traefik's 10-year anniversary
#27Quite 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 :)
Re: Traefik's 10-year anniversary
#28Standard where?
We use Kong on our projects, when not using the preferred gateway from the respective cloud vendor.
Re: Traefik's 10-year anniversary
#29Traefik's F/OSS projects are useless to me. Every single feature that I need to use is locked away in a closed source product. Close to the same issue with Varnish Enterprise. Why would I pay for Varnish Enterprise if I can't even review or extend the source? Know what I have to do with Varnish's source once a quarter? I have to look at it. Because the documentation is non-existent. The closed source version is going…
> It's current year, why are JWTs only supported in the closed source/enterprise versions of Varnish, NGINX, and Traefik?
I've found auth at the proxy to be a major antipattern. It adds a semblance of your backend being secure without adding the real user authentication and authorization it should have directly.
VPN is the better tool if you want to keep certain projects hidden from the general public and your application should be handling the JWT (hopefully in current year we're talking OIDC or some additional open standard on top of JWT) itself in order to properly enforce access controls.
Re: Traefik's 10-year anniversary
#30Traefik's F/OSS projects are useless to me. Every single feature that I need to use is locked away in a closed source product. Close to the same issue with Varnish Enterprise. Why would I pay for Varnish Enterprise if I can't even review or extend the source? Know what I have to do with Varnish's source once a quarter? I have to look at it. Because the documentation is non-existent. The closed source version is going…
They have to put bread on the table somehow.