I’ve recently been wondering if Lemmy should switch out NGINX for Caddy, while I hadn’t had experience with Caddy it looks like a great & fast alternative, What do you all think?

EDIT: I meant beehaw not Lemmy as a whole

  • Cinnamon@beehaw.orgOPEnglish
    4·
    2 years ago

    While I can’t speak for others, I’ve found NGINX to have weird issues where sometimes it just dies. And I have to manually restart the systemd service.

    The configuration files are verbose, and maybe caddy would have better performance? I hadn’t investigated it much

    EDIT:

    Nginx lacks http3 support out of the box

    • Speff@melly.0x-ia.moeEnglish
      9·
      2 years ago

      I’m running a lot of services off my nginx reverse proxy. This is my general setup for each subdomain - each in its own config file. I wouldn’t consider this verbose in any way - and it’s never crashed on me

      service.conf

      server {
    listen       443 ssl http2;
    listen  [::]:443 ssl http2;
    server_name  [something].0x-ia.moe;

    include /etc/nginx/acl_local.conf;
    include /etc/nginx/default_settings.conf;
    include /etc/nginx/ssl_0x-ia.conf;

    location / {
        proxy_pass              http://[host]:[port]/;
    }
}
      • Cinnamon@beehaw.orgOPEnglish
        1·
        2 years ago
        1. there are hidden configs
        2. this adds up quickly for more complex scenarios
        3. Yeah, fair enough it is really a preference thing and caddy supports it
        • Speff@melly.0x-ia.moeEnglish
          1·
          2 years ago

          The hidden configs are boilerplate which are easily imported for any applicable service. A set-once set of files isn’t what I would count towards being verbose. 90% of my services use the exact same format.

          If a certain service is complicated and needs more config in nginx, it’s going to be the same for caddy.

          • Cinnamon@beehaw.orgOPEnglish
            1·
            2 years ago

            The hidden configs are boilerplate which are easily imported for any applicable service. A set-once set of files isn’t what I would count towards being verbose. 90% of my services use the exact same format.

            I don’t know, I prefer it to be easier to set up my proxy especially when it comes to configs, each to their own I guess.

    • Illecors@lemmy.cafeEnglish
      4·
      2 years ago

      nginx was built for performace, so I doubt caddy would have any significant different in regards to that. I’ve not found config verbosity to be a problem for me, but I guess to each their own. I’m aware I may come across as some gatekeeper - I assure you that is not my intention. It just feels like replacing a perfectly working, battle testing service with another one just because it’s newer is a bit of a waste of resources. Besides - you can do it yourself on your instance. It’s just a load balancer in front of a docker image.

      • Cinnamon@beehaw.orgOPEnglish
        1·
        2 years ago

        Isn’t caddy battle tested too? And looking into alternatives is not really a waste of resources. It just feels like nginx is not as reliable and likes to drop requests. It’s not just a load balancer, mind you.