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

NGINX open sources TCP load balancing

hg.nginx.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 121 posts

Re: NGINX open sources TCP load balancing

#51

Post by phildougherty »

amenod wrote: post #47
fasteo wrote: post #14

Many installations would go from haproxy->nginx to nginx->nginx. Having to support a single product will make many devops happy. In the same tense, haproxy is adding Lua support[1], which has been available in nginx - using openresty[2] - since 2011, and nginx core is doing the same with Javascript[2]. Interesting times aroung haproxy and nginx. [1] http://blog.haproxy.com/2015/03/12/haproxy-1-6-dev1-and-lua/ [2] htt…

Not sure about that... HAproxy is a proven technology (very reliable and a joy to use at that) in this field while Nginx is a newcomer and needs to establish its credibility first. I personally wouldn't use such technology for load balancer until it is properly battle-tested. Also, I can't see much of an advantage over (proven) HAproxy - am I missing something? As for supporting a single product, I don't see the poin…

Nginx has supported http loadbalancing basically forever using the upstream directive along with proxy_pass. It supports leastconn, round-robin, and ip-hash (sticky). It is far from unproven. I have personally used it successfully in some huge projects. This new announcement simply makes the existing functionality work with tcp backends.

Re: NGINX open sources TCP load balancing

#52

Post by shuzchen »

amenod wrote: post #47
fasteo wrote: post #14

Many installations would go from haproxy->nginx to nginx->nginx. Having to support a single product will make many devops happy. In the same tense, haproxy is adding Lua support[1], which has been available in nginx - using openresty[2] - since 2011, and nginx core is doing the same with Javascript[2]. Interesting times aroung haproxy and nginx. [1] http://blog.haproxy.com/2015/03/12/haproxy-1-6-dev1-and-lua/ [2] htt…

Not sure about that... HAproxy is a proven technology (very reliable and a joy to use at that) in this field while Nginx is a newcomer and needs to establish its credibility first. I personally wouldn't use such technology for load balancer until it is properly battle-tested. Also, I can't see much of an advantage over (proven) HAproxy - am I missing something? As for supporting a single product, I don't see the poin…

For anyone already using nginx in their stack, I don't think these things (being a newcomer, or needing credibility) are a very big concern. Some people are already used to using nginx as a load balancer for HTTP traffic (this new feature adds load balancing for any TCP traffic) so those users won't have much gap to cover. Also this feature was in the nginx+ version, which presumably means it has already been battle-tested by their enterprise customers.

Re: NGINX open sources TCP load balancing

#53

Post by fasteo »

amenod wrote: post #47
fasteo wrote: post #14

Many installations would go from haproxy->nginx to nginx->nginx. Having to support a single product will make many devops happy. In the same tense, haproxy is adding Lua support[1], which has been available in nginx - using openresty[2] - since 2011, and nginx core is doing the same with Javascript[2]. Interesting times aroung haproxy and nginx. [1] http://blog.haproxy.com/2015/03/12/haproxy-1-6-dev1-and-lua/ [2] htt…

Not sure about that... HAproxy is a proven technology (very reliable and a joy to use at that) in this field while Nginx is a newcomer and needs to establish its credibility first. I personally wouldn't use such technology for load balancer until it is properly battle-tested. Also, I can't see much of an advantage over (proven) HAproxy - am I missing something? As for supporting a single product, I don't see the poin…

>>>>>> EDIT: btw, the Lua thing was an April Fool's joke...

Are you sure ? The 1.6 dev repo contains Lua related code [1]

[1] http://git.haproxy.org/?p=haproxy.git;a=blob_plain;f=src/hlu...

Re: NGINX open sources TCP load balancing

#55

Post by 6chars »

mattdeboard wrote: post #22
bennylope wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what's so ironic about this. That's the Mercurial server that's not responding.

Yes, the Mercurial server being mercurial isn't ironic, it's coincidental

It would be ironic if the Mercurial server were saturnine though.

Re: NGINX open sources TCP load balancing

#56

Post by adrenalinup »

Why would somebody need a TCP load balancer in a web server ?

Is there a use-case where the TCP load balancer being with the web-server made a lot of sense ?

Integrating too many features into a single software can be risky as it may compromise simplicity and the UNIX way, 1 tool for 1 job..

Re: NGINX open sources TCP load balancing

#59

Post by robusto »

amenod wrote: post #47
fasteo wrote: post #14

Many installations would go from haproxy->nginx to nginx->nginx. Having to support a single product will make many devops happy. In the same tense, haproxy is adding Lua support[1], which has been available in nginx - using openresty[2] - since 2011, and nginx core is doing the same with Javascript[2]. Interesting times aroung haproxy and nginx. [1] http://blog.haproxy.com/2015/03/12/haproxy-1-6-dev1-and-lua/ [2] htt…

Not sure about that... HAproxy is a proven technology (very reliable and a joy to use at that) in this field while Nginx is a newcomer and needs to establish its credibility first. I personally wouldn't use such technology for load balancer until it is properly battle-tested. Also, I can't see much of an advantage over (proven) HAproxy - am I missing something? As for supporting a single product, I don't see the poin…

I think the April Fool's joke was around HAProxy being completely rewritten in Lua: http://www.haproxy.org/news.html

Re: NGINX open sources TCP load balancing

#60

Post by hbz »

adrenalinup wrote: post #56

Why would somebody need a TCP load balancer in a web server ? Is there a use-case where the TCP load balancer being with the web-server made a lot of sense ? Integrating too many features into a single software can be risky as it may compromise simplicity and the UNIX way, 1 tool for 1 job..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebSocket are a completely legitimate use.
Post reply on HN