[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       pfsense-support
Subject:    Re: [pfSense] is pfsense a light process similiar to haproxy?
From:       "Adam Thompson" <athompso () athompso ! net>
Date:       2012-01-24 22:37:25
Message-ID: 014d01ccdae8$bee9e850$3cbdb8f0$ () athompso ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

> HAProxy seems to be a very light process where people run it on the same 
> server as their web server etc.
> Is it common practise to do the same with pfsense?

Yes, and haproxy is available for pfSense.  I believe Scott Ulrich 
recommends the use of varnish, instead, on pfSense.  They do slightly 
different things, although there is a great deal of overlap in their 
feature sets.
With the pfSense GUI, it appears varnish is somewhat more flexible than 
haproxy.

From a performance standpoint, you can put a reverse proxy anywhere on 
your network.
From a security standpoint, if you can't put the reverse proxy in the DMZ, 
on a separate host behind the firewall is the next-best option.  The 
third-best option (in my opinion) would be to run it on the firewall 
itself, which is what pfSense allows.

-Adam Thompson
 athompso@athompso.net



_______________________________________________
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]