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.
Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers
41–50 of 266 posts
Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers
#42I use Traefik in production (with containers), and my favorite aspect of it is that the configuration is carried via the labels on containers which means I rarely if ever need to make any modifications to the Traefik config itself. I'd say the biggest con is trying to figure out how to pronounce the name - I think it's just regular traffic, but I can't help wanting to call it "trey-feek" or something like that.
Heavy +1 on the labels thing. Reduces the scope of things to keep track of massively, even if writing them the first time is slightly harder because of the escaping and verbosity. I think a combination of traefik and docker compose are in the sweet spot for small scale self hosters that haven't reached the point where k8s will pay off. i.e. if you have less servers than a k8s HA control plane would use.
Small-scale self hoster would certainly describe my situation (though we do have some of the same infrastructure issues as larger companies). We actually use Swarm which I generally like, but if it was my call we might have looked more at a simplified Kubernetes platform like K3s just because of a safety in numbers aspect.
Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers
#43> you mount the docker socket into the traefik container and gain the ability to auto-detect other containers that you might want to expose using traefik.
Totally not a security issue. Source: trust me bro.
Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers
#44Why 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?
I think https://github.com/caddyserver is the best option here. Automatic handling of SSL certs, it's incredibly lightweight, and has super clear config syntax.
Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers
#45I'm considering moving reverse proxying to Traefik for my self-hosted stuff. Unlike the article's author, I'm running containerized workloads with Docker Compose, and currently using Caddy with the excellent caddy-docker-proxy plugin. What that gets me, currently: - Reverse proxying, with Docker labels for configuration. New workloads are picked up automatically (but I do need to attach workloads to Caddy's network b…
I use Caddy for single-purpose hosts and the like, but I 100% would throw Traefik at the problems you're describing--and I do, it's my k8s cluster ingest and it runs in my dev environments to enable using `localtest.me` with hostnames.
It's worth kicking the tires on. Both are great at different things.
Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers
#46I use caddy wherever I can. That it can already handle automatic certificates is a big plus. Plus it's very easy to congiure.
Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers
#47I'm considering moving reverse proxying to Traefik for my self-hosted stuff. Unlike the article's author, I'm running containerized workloads with Docker Compose, and currently using Caddy with the excellent caddy-docker-proxy plugin. What that gets me, currently: - Reverse proxying, with Docker labels for configuration. New workloads are picked up automatically (but I do need to attach workloads to Caddy's network b…
I've used caddy-docker-proxy in production and it doesn't cause Caddy to drop connections when loading a new config. I just tested it locally to check and it works fine.
Hmm, I'll have to take a better look at my setup then, because it's a daily occurrence for me. Either I'm "holding it wrong" (which is admittedly possible, perhaps even likely given the comments here), or I have a ticket to open soon-ish.
Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers
#48I use Traefik in production (with containers), and my favorite aspect of it is that the configuration is carried via the labels on containers which means I rarely if ever need to make any modifications to the Traefik config itself. I'd say the biggest con is trying to figure out how to pronounce the name - I think it's just regular traffic, but I can't help wanting to call it "trey-feek" or something like that.
ae is closest to y, or hi. So Tryfik, is my guess, otherwise is Trayfik. If it's European fik, might be feek. *Just taking a guess here.
> ae is closest to y, or hi. So Tryfik, is my guess, otherwise is Trayfik. If it's European fik, might be feek. *Just taking a guess here.
I wondered how to pronounce Traefik myself, so I started googling, and came across this: https://traefik.io/blog/how-to-pronounce-traefik-d06696a3f02...
Tldr: just pronounce as you would "traffic".
Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers
#49You can also use Cloud Seeder [1] which might be easier since it gives each container a dedicated IP.
Re: Take a look at Traefik, even if you don't use containers
#50> you mount the docker socket into the traefik container and gain the ability to auto-detect other containers that you might want to expose using traefik. Totally not a security issue. Source: trust me bro.