What’s new in HAProxy 1.6

External check pleases me greatly, but sending emails for me seems to be overkill, there are well established ways to do this in unified manner (logparsers, snmp traps etc). Half way trough to fullfill Zawinski's Law.

Re: What’s new in HAProxy 1.6

#7

Post by ausjke » Wed, Oct 14, 2015, 1:32 PM UTC

I was comparing HAproxy to Squid a while ago and could not figure out what's haproxy's advantage over squid? I ended up using Squid but still am very interested in HAproxy, would like to learn more about it.

Squid remains to be the only one that can deal with SSL proxying(yes it's kind of MITM, but it's needed sometimes), and it's also the real "pure" open source. HAproxy might be better fit for enterprises that need support?

Re: What’s new in HAProxy 1.6

#8

Post by jdub » Wed, Oct 14, 2015, 1:40 PM UTC

ausjke wrote: post #7

I was comparing HAproxy to Squid a while ago and could not figure out what's haproxy's advantage over squid? I ended up using Squid but still am very interested in HAproxy, would like to learn more about it. Squid remains to be the only one that can deal with SSL proxying(yes it's kind of MITM, but it's needed sometimes), and it's also the real "pure" open source. HAproxy might be better fit for enterprises that need…

HAProxy is a TCP/HTTP load balancer, so the entire perspective of the software (from configuration to feature emphasis) stems from that.

Squid is a caching HTTP proxy, which began with forward proxying but also supports reverse proxying. I wouldn't regard it as relevant to modern, dynamic architectures as HAProxy or Varnish (another caching-focused project).

There's no real difference in open source purity between any of these projects, unless you dislike the stewardship of a company. HAProxy has existed for a long time without such stewardship (as has Varnish). Indeed, Squid's lack of commercial backing might be a hint as to its current relevance.

Re: What’s new in HAProxy 1.6

#9

Post by A010 » Wed, Oct 14, 2015, 1:55 PM UTC

jdub wrote: post #8

ausjke wrote: post #7

I was comparing HAproxy to Squid a while ago and could not figure out what's haproxy's advantage over squid? I ended up using Squid but still am very interested in HAproxy, would like to learn more about it. Squid remains to be the only one that can deal with SSL proxying(yes it's kind of MITM, but it's needed sometimes), and it's also the real "pure" open source. HAproxy might be better fit for enterprises that need…

HAProxy is a TCP/HTTP load balancer, so the entire perspective of the software (from configuration to feature emphasis) stems from that. Squid is a caching HTTP proxy, which began with forward proxying but also supports reverse proxying. I wouldn't regard it as relevant to modern, dynamic architectures as HAProxy or Varnish (another caching-focused project). There's no real difference in open source purity between an…

Varnish is a good HTTP caching server, but with the rise of HTTPS and soon HTTP/2 I'm not sure it'll change since last time I heard its developers don't intend to support TLS at all.

Re: What’s new in HAProxy 1.6

#10

Post by jdub » Wed, Oct 14, 2015, 2:07 PM UTC

A010 wrote: post #9

jdub wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HAProxy is a TCP/HTTP load balancer, so the entire perspective of the software (from configuration to feature emphasis) stems from that. Squid is a caching HTTP proxy, which began with forward proxying but also supports reverse proxying. I wouldn't regard it as relevant to modern, dynamic architectures as HAProxy or Varnish (another caching-focused project). There's no real difference in open source purity between an…

Varnish is a good HTTP caching server, but with the rise of HTTPS and soon HTTP/2 I'm not sure it'll change since last time I heard its developers don't intend to support TLS at all.

Still true, but you can use HAProxy (or Pound, or...) to terminate TLS, and pass the TCP connection through to Varnish 4.1 using the PROXY protocol (so you get the client IP).