4 ms·

Considering "it works" as a feature sets the bar really low.

vacri 9y ago
Lucky I didn't say that, eh? A scooter can transport cargo. A truck can transport cargo effectively.
blowski 9y ago
Given two load balancers, one can load balance 20K requests per second but has good monitoring, the other can load balance 500K requests per second but has bad monitoring. Which is the better load balancer? Note that I'm not implying these figures are true of either HAProxy or nginx, just pointing out that the OP is probably correct that the number one feature of a load balancer is its ability to load balance. Good monitoring makes it easier to use, though.
- gedrap 9y ago
  All is good when it's working well, but when something's not right... well, you really wish that you had that monitoring. The truth is that most load balancing solutions are capable of handling _a lot_ of traffic, way way more than the majority of the people need. So performance is not a huge concern, typically. However, if you are at the level where it does actually matter and want to use nginx, chances are, you'll have no problem paying for the premium version.
- user5994461 9y ago
  They both have the same performance for HTTP(S) traffic, both software are the same in their algorithms and performance critical aspects. The limit is set by the harware, they will either saturate the NIC or the CPU. HAProxy has a status page to see how many requests are processed and going where. nginx doesn't.
- StreamBright 9y ago
  You have two airplanes, one can carry 100 passengers and you can see where you are flying; the other can carry 1000 but you are flying blind. Monitoring is essential to any infrastructure, regardless of its scale.
  - vacri 9y ago
    > the other can carry 1000 but you are flying blind. This is a bad analogy, because 'flying blind' in a plane means you can't use it effectively. Being able to see out of a plane isn't a 'bonus'; it can't be used without this feature. Whereas plenty of people can and do use a load-balancer without heavy monitoring. (not to mention that there are strong moves towards self-driving transportation at the moment) The analogy also doesn't work because a loadbalancer that can handle 1000 units is going to have far fewer problems that are in need of diagnosis than one whose limit is 100 units; when the traffic level is between 100 and 1000. When the traffic is at 100, then yes, you're going to want monitoring on the 100-unit LB, because you're trying to squeeze extra performance out of it. Whereas the 1000-unit one isn't even sweating at that point.
    - user5994461 9y ago
      A status page is by no means "heavy monitoring".

Lucky I didn't say that, eh? A scooter can transport cargo. A truck can transport cargo effectively.

Given two load balancers, one can load balance 20K requests per second but has good monitoring, the other can load balance 500K requests per second but has bad monitoring. Which is the better load balancer? Note that I'm not implying these figures are true of either HAProxy or nginx, just pointing out that the OP is probably correct that the number one feature of a load balancer is its ability to load balance. Good monitoring makes it easier to use, though.

gedrap 9y ago
All is good when it's working well, but when something's not right... well, you really wish that you had that monitoring. The truth is that most load balancing solutions are capable of handling _a lot_ of traffic, way way more than the majority of the people need. So performance is not a huge concern, typically. However, if you are at the level where it does actually matter and want to use nginx, chances are, you'll have no problem paying for the premium version.
user5994461 9y ago
They both have the same performance for HTTP(S) traffic, both software are the same in their algorithms and performance critical aspects. The limit is set by the harware, they will either saturate the NIC or the CPU. HAProxy has a status page to see how many requests are processed and going where. nginx doesn't.
StreamBright 9y ago
You have two airplanes, one can carry 100 passengers and you can see where you are flying; the other can carry 1000 but you are flying blind. Monitoring is essential to any infrastructure, regardless of its scale.
- vacri 9y ago
  > the other can carry 1000 but you are flying blind. This is a bad analogy, because 'flying blind' in a plane means you can't use it effectively. Being able to see out of a plane isn't a 'bonus'; it can't be used without this feature. Whereas plenty of people can and do use a load-balancer without heavy monitoring. (not to mention that there are strong moves towards self-driving transportation at the moment) The analogy also doesn't work because a loadbalancer that can handle 1000 units is going to have far fewer problems that are in need of diagnosis than one whose limit is 100 units; when the traffic level is between 100 and 1000. When the traffic is at 100, then yes, you're going to want monitoring on the 100-unit LB, because you're trying to squeeze extra performance out of it. Whereas the 1000-unit one isn't even sweating at that point.
  - user5994461 9y ago
    A status page is by no means "heavy monitoring".