Setting Up HTTP(S) Load Balancing – WebSocket proxy support

Re:Setting Up HTTP(S) Load Balancing – WebSocket proxy support by akanet on Tuesday April 25, 2017 @04:30AM (#14191718)

I don't think I would be so quick to dismiss this sentiment. I run a profitable SaaS business, and every opportunity to give up responsibility results in highly profitable refocusing of effort on the things we do that actually matter. I'd much rather have a team of Google engineers running our LBs than myself.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Setting Up HTTP(S) Load Balancing – WebSocket proxy support by stephenr on Tuesday April 25, 2017 @04:37AM (#14191746)

This entire thread is about the hoops people are having to jump through to get pretty basic functionality from a load balancer, specifically because they took your approach.

I didn't say it can't work for anyone, I said its depressing how it's the default/only approach for so many people who call themselves "hackers".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Setting Up HTTP(S) Load Balancing – WebSocket proxy support by akanet on Tuesday April 25, 2017 @04:43AM (#14191774)

I think it's tempting to assume that sentiment expressed here is reflective of the majority - everyone whose use case is served well is happy and likely doesn't comment.

As for the "hackers" comment - HN might have "Hacker" in the name, but it's about a lot of things, and a big focus is on making money. Farming out boring stuff to "the cloud" has been fantastic for making money for pretty much everyone.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Setting Up HTTP(S) Load Balancing – WebSocket proxy support by manigandham on Tuesday April 25, 2017 @07:54AM (#14192617)

Where are you reading that? All of the GCP load balancers are the best available. There are no hoops to jump through. SNI based TLS is an additional feature that some would like, which is available now by just adding a CDN in front and should solve that need for most.

I'm sure anyone here can spin up a haproxy instance, that's not a big deal nor impressive in any way and there are better things to spend time on for most people and companies.

Do you write web apps in assembly code or something because you're a "hacker"?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Setting Up HTTP(S) Load Balancing – WebSocket proxy support by stephenr on Tuesday April 25, 2017 @10:16AM (#14193695)

> that's not a big deal

So surely it wouldn't take that long then?

> there are better things to spend time on

Like putting CDN's in front of your load balancers I guess?

A TLS terminating proxy that doesn't support SNI in 2017 is like a browser that doesn't support SNI in 2017.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Setting Up HTTP(S) Load Balancing – WebSocket proxy support by manigandham on Tuesday April 25, 2017 @02:11PM (#14196401)

You're just being flippant at this point but here goes:

You will never achieve the same reliability, scalability, performance, and security, at the same cost, by doing it yourself. And it's fine to layer 2 services together to get all the functionality needed. That's completely normal - like how you can use multiple APIs to build an app - unless you have a specific scenario, like security regulations, to avoid a managed solution.

Maybe building all that means you're a "hacker" but most users are acting on behalf of businesses and there are far better things to spend time on than creating a worse solution to a solved problem.

[ Parent | on HN ]