HAProxy Reviews

We use it in a model teacher, project, and financial trading system.

Overall, it's a good solution.

We don't have a problem with the user interface. It's good.

We've changed solutions as it doesn't fit with our current needs. 

We have used the solution for a while, however, we are currently moving away from it.

We are currently moving away from it. We changed our orchestrator solution and we move to something else and now use an internal proxy.

We are end-users and customers. We don't have a business relationship with the solution.

I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

We are using it for application load balancing.

The feature that I have found the most valuable is that it works for my use case of application load balancing. I'm using it for PeerSense, and it's easy enough for PeerSense.

Pricing, monitoring, and reports can be improved. 

I have just started using HAProxy. In my organization, they've been using it for a year or two.

It was a little bit straightforward.

HAProxy is free in the initial offer. However, pricing can be improved.

I would recommend HAProxy because it is free in the initial offer, which would work for low budget enterprises that don't have much to start with. 

I would rate HAProxy a seven out of ten. 

Our primary use for this solution is to mount service for Redis.

It made something possible where I do load balancing on a container, without having to configure it at the firewall.

The most valuable feature is the TCP load balancing. It solves a problem for me where I can build files, not based on the health of the check, but rather the speed of the check. I found that functionality to be quite useful.

The logging functionality could use improvement, as it is a little cryptic. Additional logging functionality with better documentation would be helpful.

I'm quite happy with the frequency in which new versions and updates come out. Each release either adds some functionality or fixes some bugs, from what I've seen. I've upgraded the HAProxy probably ten times now, and have never had an issue.

I have never had to use the solution's technical support.

I found that the setup was pretty straightforward, although I had read a book on HAProxy before I started the project. I had given it some thought in terms of what it was that I wanted to do. The book that I read was good, and it was easy for me to install the product.

Only one person is required for deployment and maintenance.

We are not paying for HAProxy support. We're using the free version, compiling it in a container, and using it. The only cost is for the image manager, who is responsible for uploading the image, and that is trivial. 

I chose this solution because I have to operate within a Docker container, and this is the only one that I could get to work.

Once the container is set up, the time it takes to deploy is typically under a minute. That is a full-blown solution with all the plugins and images that I'm planning on using. I'm pretty happy with it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

HAProxy is used both as an external (customer facing) and internal (between service APIs) solution. We use it for SSL offload, domain and path based ACLs, request header manipulations, and much more.

Layer 7 health checks improved stability. Logs and metrics are very rich and easy to export which makes it easier for us to pinpoint once something is not working as we expect.

With each new release, I find very useful features and love each addition. Recently, the seamless reload feature was much needed and very helpful.

I would like to see a two (or more) native cluster support without third parties or DNS manipulations.

Load balancing and SSL termination.

HAProxy enabled better performance at lower costs. That enabled us to provide more stability to our clients.

Performance.

A better GUI would be nice.

No issues with stability.

No issues with scalability.

Very professional, helpful.

We used F5 BIG-IP in the past and switchED due to performance issues and costs.

It is mostly straightforward and HAProxy was very helpful, guiding us during the deployment.

I think that the pricing is very fair, I would definitely recommend buying the Enterprise license.

Citrix Netscaler and Kemp LoadMaster.

HAProxy is a very powerful solution with great performance, but it needs to be evaluated carefully according to the specific environment and requirements.

I'm using HAProxy in two use cases. 

The first is as an internal load balancer for OpenStack services, in private cloud solutions. So HAProxy is used in front of Galera (MySQL cluster), Nova API, and also in front of exposed docker services. 

The second use case is as a load balancer for a Web hosting solution. HAProxy is load balancing external traffic.

Configuration of HAProxy includes brute force sandboxing (including stick tables and hardcoded ACL for defined paths), splitting traffic by dynamic and static content to redirect it to the proper back-end, SSL, and HTTP headers management.

I can simplify configurations of many internal services (e.g. Web server configs) by moving some elements (like SSL) to HAProxy. I can also disable additional applications, like Varnish, by moving traffic shaping configurations to HAProxy.

Advanced traffic rules, including stick tables and ACLs, which allow me to shape traffic while it's load balanced.

Performance configuration options with threads, processes, and core stickiness are also very valuable.

In my opinion, there are three main areas to improve:

1. Make remote management more modern by adding API.
2. Propose a general HA solution for HAProxy (no I'm using keepalived for this).
3. Thread option should be a bit more stable.

No issues with stability.

No issues with scalability, but multiprocess config for HAProxy is more efficient than multi-thread.

I used NGINX in my Web environment. HAProxy has more traffic shaping options and it's a dedicated VNF load-balancer.

Initial setup was straightforward. The documentation is pretty thorough and up to date, and it is also easy to search.

During the implementation, you have to plan ACLs and back-ends first. That allows you to prepare a cleaner config.

I rate HAProxy a 10 out of 10. It is fast, flexible, and rock solid.

With an OpenShift environment, HAProxy gives us an easy way to handle a lot of containers.

The ability to handle a sequence of front- and back-ends gives the user the opportunity to send traffic through different services.

HAProxy needs to improve its ability to handle a lot of connections, to be more like NGINX.

No issues with stability.

I haven't had any issues with scalability but, as I mentioned above, some reviewers have said that NGINX is able to handle more connections than HAProxy.

It was straightforward. I created an Ansible playbook to install HAProxy. It is simple to install and the configuration files are easy to understand.

I have always used an open-source version.

Before using it, you need to understand your environment's sizing and check if HAProxy is able to handle the quantity of connections.

In my previous company, we had a lot of connections with carriers and we had this communication centralized with HAProxy. We had a high-availavility environment with HAProxy, and Keepalived too for database connections.

We were able to use HAProxy for round robin with our databases, or for a centralized TCP connection in one host.

Round robin and monitoring.

From my point of view, the configuration should be more friendly, perhaps with a Web interface. For example, I work with the ClusterControl product for Severalnines, and we have a Web interface to deploy the HAProxy load-balancer.