Should beehaw ditch NGINX for Caddy?

Cinnamon@beehaw.org to Programming@beehaw.org – 14 points –

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

75

You are viewing a single comment
View all commentsShow the parent comment

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]/;
    }
}
  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

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.

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.