Hadoop monitoring is crucial for maintaining the health, performance, and reliability of Big Data ecosystems. In this blog, find out how Hadoop cluster monitoring works, common issues, key metrics, and observability and monitoring tools that can be leveraged in Hadoop implementations.  

Why Is Hadoop Monitoring Important?

In Hadoop, robust monitoring can provide real-time visibility into cluster health, as well as identify potential bottlenecks or failures before they impact day-to-day operations. Hadoop monitoring also enables teams to track key metrics such as execution times, CPU, memory and data storage, enabling them to make informed decisions to plan for the capacities on the clusters. This level of insight is particularly valuable in complex, distributed environments where manual oversight alone is insufficient to manage various Hadoop components and services.

How Hadoop Cluster Monitoring Works

Hadoop cluster monitoring relies on collecting and analyzing metrics data from various sources, including HDFS (NameNodes and DataNodes), YARN, Oozie, MapReduce, and ZooKeeper. These components generate large amount of performance data, such as resource utilization, storage capacity, job status, and node health. Monitoring tools collect information from those components to provide an overview of the cluster’s health and performance. By streaming this data to dashboards, users can gauge the overall state of the Hadoop environment, address bottlenecks, and take steps to optimize performance and prevent downtime.

Benefits of Proactive Hadoop Monitoring

Proactive Hadoop monitoring offers a variety of benefits. Organizations can detect potential issues sooner, such as node failures or nodes that are over- or under- provisioned, and delay data processing before it cascades into larger issues that could cause production outages. This helps minimize downtime, improving both the reliability and availability of data services. It also helps in analyzing workloads and identifying patterns in resource usage, enabling better allocation and scaling of the resources.

Furthermore, it assists in performance optimization by monitoring metrics like CPU, memory, disk I/O, and network usage. Proactive Hadoop monitoring also bolsters security, reducing the risk of data breaches or unauthorized access, which leads to more stable, efficient, and secure clusters.

Challenges and Common Issues with Hadoop Monitoring

• The complexity and scale of Hadoop ecosystems can make it difficult to gain an overall view of cluster health and performance across all nodes and components.
• The distributed nature of Hadoop, where issues in one part of the cluster can have cascading effects on other components, makes troubleshooting tricky.
• The sheer volume of metrics data generated by Hadoop components can result in alert fatigue, making it difficult to distinguish between critical issues and normal performance fluctuations.
• The pace at which updates occur in Hadoop can sometimes result in gaps in monitoring coverage.
• Installing, setting up, and maintaining monitoring tools like Apache Ambari and Ganglia requires expertise not all teams possess.
• Correlating resource constraints across different components—such as associating a spike in resource usage on HDFS to a specific YARN job—can make root-cause analysis time-consuming and inefficient, potentially delaying troubleshooting and impacting cluster performance.

Overcoming these obstacles requires a combination of hardened monitoring tools, well-established processes, and continuous updates to monitoring strategies to keep pace with the evolving Hadoop landscape.

 

Protect Your Data With Hadoop Support and Services

OpenLogic offers both SLA-backed technical support for Hadoop and a service bundle that includes migration from Cloudera (or your current data platform) to an open source Hadoop stack fully administered and monitored by OpenLogic experts.

Explore HadooP Solutions

Key Metrics for Hadoop Monitoring

Hadoop monitoring relies on tracking a set of critical metrics that provide insights into the cluster health, performance, and resource utilization of the cluster. These metrics span across various components of the Hadoop ecosystem. Below is a breakdown of the key metrics for each of the major components.

HDFS

For HDFS, the most critical metrics concern storage and data integrity. HDFS storage utilization monitoring involves tracking the space (used space, free space, and total capacity) across NameNodes at both cluster and node levels. This information helps in capacity planning and ensuring efficient resource usage across the cluster.

Data integrity monitoring in HDFS can be achieved through regularly performing file system checks, and calculating and storing checksums for each data block in separate hidden files within the HDFS namespace. CRC32 (Cyclic Redundancy Check) checksum algorithm is used for its efficiency and low overhead. DataNodes continuously validate integrity by computing and storing checksums when they receive new data blocks, verifying stored data against these checksums and checking for corruption.

Additionally, HDFS maintains a replication factor for each data block, storing multiple copies across different DataNodes. This redundancy helps the system to recover from corrupted blocks by accessing uncorrupted replicas. Executing various HDFS commands can help identify and address any inconsistencies in the file system. Should there be any discrepancy, exception is detected, alerting the system for potential data corruption.

MapReduce

Monitoring MapReduce tasks involves tracking various metrics and logs throughout the execution of MapReduce jobs to identify bottlenecks, optimize resource allocation, and resolve issues. Task completion times, input/output records processed, CPU and memory usage, and disk I/O patterns for both map and reduce tasks should be monitored.

Hadoop’s built-in tools, like the JobTracker web interface or the ResourceManager web UIs (in YARN), can be leveraged to track those metrics. These interfaces provide real-time information on job progress, task statuses, and resource utilization. Additionally, analyzing job history logs can offer valuable insights into past performance trends and help identify recurring issues.

Workload optimization should also be monitored via the shuffle and sort phases between map and reduce tasks. These phases often represent significant bottlenecks, especially in jobs with large amounts of intermediate data. Metrics data such as shuffle bytes, spilled records, and merge times can provide insights for optimizations, such as adjusting compression strategies.

Troubleshooting MapReduce jobs involves analyzing task-specific logs. Hadoop generates detailed logs for each task attempt, which can be critical for diagnosing issues like out-of-memory errors, data skew problems, or application-specific bugs. Setting up centralized log aggregation and analysis tools can speed issue resolution.

YARN

YARN serves as the resource management layer in Hadoop. YARN metrics provide critical data on resource allocation, execution times, and utilization across the cluster, as well as available and allocated memory, CPU cores, and container statistics.

In YARN, ResourceManage provides critical insights into cluster-wide resource utilization. Monitoring metrics like total available resources, allocated resources, and pending resource requests provides a comprehensive view of cluster capacity and demand.

The CapacityScheduler, or FairScheduler, determines how resources are distributed among applications and queues. Tracking queue-level metrics, including used capacity, pending resources, and currently running applications, helps identify skews in resource allocation.

ApplicationMaster tracks the number of containers requested and allocated, as well as the resources (CPU, memory, and custom resources) assigned to each container that are critical for optimal performance. Job workloads behavior can be monitored by analyzing metrics such as job progress, task completion rates, and resource utilization efficiency. YARN’s web UI and REST API provide access to these metrics, allowing for real-time monitoring and historical analysis.

NodeManager tracks CPU, memory, and disk usage per node to help identify overloaded or underutilized machines, enabling better load balancing and capacity planning. Additionally, monitoring container execution statistics, including launch times, execution durations, and failure rates, can provide insights into performance issues or resource constraints on specific nodes.

Additionally, YARN monitoring strategies might include analyzing resource allocation over time to identify trends, peak usage periods, and potential areas for optimization. It could also include reviewing job queuing times, resource wait times, and different scheduling policies on overall cluster performance.

ZooKeeper

ZooKeeper metrics are essential for monitoring the coordination and synchronization services, including latency, throughput, and connection status. Additionally, system- level metrics, such as CPU and memory usage, disk I/O, and network throughput, are critical for analyzing the overall health of the Hadoop infrastructure.

JVM

JVM (Java Virtual Machine) metrics are essential for understanding the performance of Hadoop workloads, including garbage collection frequency and duration, heap memory usage, and thread counts. These metrics can be helpful when it comes to identifying memory leaks and fine-tuning memory settings for optimal performance.

HBase

HBase metrics such as region server load, read/write request latencies, and compaction queue sizes, are vital for optimal performance.

Spark

Spark metrics, including executor memory usage, shuffle read/write sizes, and job execution times, are critical for clusters leveraging Spark for in-memory processing.

Other Metrics

Network-related metrics, such as packet loss rates, network utilization, and TCP retransmission counts, are crucial for identifying network bottlenecks. Additionally, monitoring user and group quota usage helps in managing resource allocation of shared cluster resources. Monitoring security-related metrics like HDFS permission changes and audit logs is critical for maintaining the security of the Hadoop cluster.

Hadoop Monitoring Tools

Let’s look at three of the most popular Hadoop monitoring tools.

Apache Ambari

Apache Ambari is a widely used open source tool for provisioning, managing, and monitoring Hadoop clusters. It provides an intuitive web interface to monitor cluster health, manage services, and configure alerts. Ambari also includes the Ambari Metrics System for collecting metrics and the Ambari Alert Framework for system notifications, making it a useful tool for managing Hadoop environments.

Prometheus

Prometheus is an another open source monitoring system that can be effectively leveraged to monitor Hadoop clusters. It features a powerful query language (Prom QL) and a flexible data model for metrics collection.

Prometheus can scrape metrics from various Hadoop components, offering easily customizable dashboards and alerting capabilities that helps to maintain cluster performance and reliability. It also includes AlertManager for configuring and managing alerts directly and has service discovery mechanisms for automatically finding and monitoring new targets. Prometheus has a multi-dimensional data model that organizes metrics into key-value pairs called labels, which provide powerful filtering and grouping capabilities.

Ganglia

Ganglia is another open source monitoring tool designed for Hadoop clusters. It provides real-time metrics visualization, allowing administrators to track the performance of individual nodes and the overall health of the cluster. It also offers real-time visualization at node, host, and cluster-level views.

Monitoring vs. Observability in Hadoop

The difference between monitoring and observability is that monitoring involves collecting and analyzing the metrics from the Hadoop clusters, while observability provides knowledge about cluster behavior, providing insights into unpredicted issues and root causes. At a basic level, monitoring can be understood as the “what” whereas observability is the “why.”

Monitoring consists of analyzing predetermined sets of data from various systems and tracking metrics using dashboards and alerts. Monitoring tools detect issues and generate alerts when metrics exceed specified thresholds.

Observability, on the other hand, is more holistic, considering the state of systems from its data. Observability enables you to anticipate system behavior in advance, making troubleshooting easier.

Best Practices for Hadoop Monitoring and Observability

1. Implement Comprehensive Real-Time Monitoring: Establish a monitoring system that provides real-time visibility into the health and performance of the Hadoop clusters. Track key metrics across HDFS, MapReduce, YARN, and ZooKeeper components via tools like Ambari, Prometheus, or Ganglia.
2. Set Up Automated Alerts and Thresholds: Configure for automated alerts based on predefined thresholds levels for critical metrics. This enables faster responses to potential problems before they escalate. Alerts should be tied to things like resource utilization, CPU, memory usage, data integrity, and system health. Leverage tools like Prometheus AlertManager to manage and distribute alerts.
3. Implement Centralized Logging and Analysis: Set up a logging system to collect logs from all Hadoop components and related services. This will make troubleshooting and root cause analysis much easier. You can use tools like ELK stack (Elasticsearch, Logstash, Kibana) to collect, index, and analyze logs from across the cluster for faster resolution.
4. Adopt a Multi-Layered Monitoring Approach: Implement monitoring across different stacks of the Hadoop ecosystem, including infrastructure (hardware, network), platform (HDFS, YARN), and application layers (MapReduce). This provides visibility into all components of the Hadoop environment.
5. Implement End-to-End Tracing: Set up an end-to-end tracing system across the Hadoop ecosystem to track requests and transactions as they flow through various components.

Final Thoughts

For enterprises that depend on Hadoop clusters to process and store massive amounts of data, monitoring is essential part of preventing downtime, optimizing resource utilization, and ensuring data integrity. If you need assistance with Hadoop monitoring or are interested in alternatives to Cloudera for your Big Data stack management, talk to an OpenLogic expert to learn about our enterprise Hadoop support and services. 

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published on the Fintech Open Source Foundation (FINOS) blog and is reprinted here with permission.

Financial organizations increasingly rely on open source software as a foundational component of their mission-critical infrastructure. In this blog, we explore the top open source trends and technologies used within the FinTech space from our last State of Open Source Report — with insights on the unique pain points these companies experience when working with OSS. 

About the State of Open Source Survey

OpenLogic by Perforce conducts an annual survey of open source users, specifically focused on open source usage within IT infrastructure. In 2024, we teamed up with the Open Source Initiative for the third year in a row, and brought on a new partner: the Eclipse Foundation, who helped us expand our reach and get more responses than ever before.

For those looking for the non-segmented results from the entire survey population (not just respondents working in the financial sector), you can find them published in our 2024 State of Open Source Report here.

Demographics and Firmographics

For the purposes of this blog, we segmented the results to focus on the Banking, Insurance, and Financial Services verticals. This segment, comprising 250 responses, represented 12.22% of our overall survey population. Before we dive into some of the key results of the survey, let’s look at demographic and firmographic datapoints that will help us to frame the results.

Among respondents representing the Banking, Insurance, and Financial Services verticals, most of their companies were headquartered in North America (32% of responses), with Africa, Asia, and Europe as the next most popular locations at 18.8%, 17.6% and 16%, respectively.

The top 3 roles for respondents were System Administrators (32%) Developers / Engineers (18.8%) and Managers / Directors (16.4%). Within this segment, we also saw strong large enterprise representation with 38.4% of respondents stating they work at companies with over 5000 employees.

Open Source Adoption

Our survey data painted a clear picture, with a combined 85.4% of respondents from these industries increasing their use of open source software. 59.4% said they’re increasing their use of open source significantly. This rate of open source adoption within a heavily regulated set of verticals shows how many companies are confidently deploying open source for their mission-critical applications.

Looking more granularly at areas of open source investment, we saw 37.3% from this segment investing in analytics, 30.8% investing in cloud and container technologies, and 30.3% investing in databases and data technologies.

When asked for the reasons for adopting open source technology, our respondents identified improving development velocity (53.51%), accessing innovation (35.14%), and the overall stability (28.11%) of these technologies as the top drivers. Cost reduction and modernization rounded out the top 5, at 24.86% and 21.08% of responses within the segment, respectively.

Top Challenges When Using Open Source Software

When we asked teams to share the biggest issues they face as they work with open source software, some key themes emerged. Companies within this segment identified maintaining security policies and compliance (56%), keeping up with updates and patches (49.09%), and not enough personnel (49.05%) as the most challenging.

Later in the survey, we asked specifically about how organizations are addressing open source software skill shortages within their organizations. The top tactics selected by our respondents were hiring experienced professionals (48.18%), hiring external consultants/contractors (44.53%), and providing internal or external training (40.88%).

Infrastructure scalability and performance issues (67.98%), and lack of a clear community release support process (59.75%) represented the least challenging areas for respondents within this segment.

Top Open Source Technologies

The State of Open Source Report has sections dedicated to technology categories (i.e. programming languages, databases) to assess which projects have gained adopters and are going strong vs. those that may be declining in popularity. As a reminder, the following results are specific to the Banking, Insurance, and Financial Services verticals.

When looking at Linux distributions, the top five selections were:

• Ubuntu (33.75%)
• Amazon Linux (21.88%)
• Oracle Linux (20.00%)
• Alpine Linux (16.88%)
• CentOS (15.62%)

Here’s the full breakdown:

Get Expert Enterprise Linux Support

OpenLogic supports top community and commercial Linux distributions including AlmaLinux, Rocky Linux, Oracle Linux, Debian and Ubuntu. We also offer long-term support for CentOS.

Explore Enterprise linux Support

Looking at cloud-native technologies, the top five selections were:

• Docker (32.50%)
• Kubernetes (26.25%)
• Prometheus (18.13%)
• OpenStack (15.63%)
• Cloud Foundry (13.12%)

This chart shows the top 10:

For open source frameworks, we did notice a surprising amount (26.62%) of respondents reporting usage of Angular.js (which has been end of life since 2021).

For those who indicated using Angular.js, we asked a follow up question regarding how they plan on addressing new vulnerabilities. 30.77% expressed that they won’t patch the CVEs, 26.92% noted that they have a vendor that provides patches, and 19.23% said that they will look for a long-term support vendor to help when it comes time.

In terms of open source data technology usage, we saw MySQL (31.08%) and PostgreSQL (30.41%) at the top of the list, with MongoDB (23.65%), Redis (20.27%), and Elasticsearch (18.24%) rounding out the top 5.

In the full report, we also look at the top programming languages/runtimes, infrastructure automation and configuration technologies, DevOps tools, and more. You can access the full report here. 

Open Source Maturity and Stewardship

At the end of the survey, we asked respondents to share information about the overall open source maturity of their organizations. 55.88% noted that they perform security scans to identify vulnerabilities within their open source packages, 41.91% noted that they have established open source compliance or security policies, and 34.56% have experts for the different open source technologies they use.

Another marker for organizational open source maturity is the sponsorship of nonprofit open source projects. The most supported organizations among Banking, Insurance, and Financial Services verticals were the Apache Software Foundation (27.94%), the Open Source Initiative (22.06%), and the Eclipse Foundation (19.85%). It’s also worth noting that 19.85% of respondents didn’t know of any official sponsorship of these projects within their organization. Overall, 89.41% noted that they sponsored at least one open source nonprofit organization.

Banking on Open Source: Finding Success With OSS in the Finance Sector

 

In this on-demand webinar, hear about how banks, Fintech, and financial services providers can meet security and compliance requirements while deploying open source software.

Final Thoughts

In this blog, we looked at segmented data from our 2024 State of Open Source Report specific to the Banking, Insurance, and Financial Services verticals. Considering these industries are heavily regulated, with most required to meet compliance requirements with their IT infrastructure, it was encouraging to see over 85% increasing their usage of open source software.

Not surprisingly, maintaining security policies and compliance was a top challenge for this segment. Given the current pace of open source adoption within this space, we expect this to continue to be a pain point. It’s up to organizations to manage the complexity that comes with juggling so many open source packages, and ultimately ensure that they have the technical expertise on hand to support that software — especially when it’s used in mission-critical IT infrastructure. 

Learn about Harbor and the benefits of using it for container image management in cloud-native environments like Kubernetes. In this blog, our expert describes key features and ideal use cases, and discusses the pros and cons of two Harbor alternatives. 

What Is Harbor?

Harbor is an open source registry for securely storing and managing container images in cloud-native environments.

Originating as an internal project at VMWare, Harbor entered the open source scene in 2016. Its focus was clear: Storing and securing container images in a cloud-native environment. In its ideal configuration, Harbor is typically deployed to a Kubernetes cluster, where it provides container images from all sources a single home.

Providing a unified storage space proved invaluable when it came to managing images. As Harbor is capable of pulling from other registries as well as accepting user submissions, teams could route all images through their Harbor deployment, ensuring consistent policies would be applied. Vulnerability scanning, access control, signature verification — all of it could now be configured and controlled in one place.

Owing to its ease of use and substantial benefits, Harbor took off in popularity. By 2018, Harbor had joined the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) and reached “Graduated” status by 2020. Since then, Harbor has continued to grow and remains a staple in Kubernetes environments.

Harbor Registry Key Features

Harbor comes with a host of features tuned to address common challenges in containerized environments. Instead of jumping straight into a list of everything Harbor can do (which might be overwhelming), let’s start with some of the core concepts, and build an understanding of Harbor’s feature set piece by piece.

Interface

Once deployed, Harbor exposes a web interface for interacting and exploring its artifacts and configurations. In addition to this, an API is exposed such that common tools, like the Docker client, can push and pull images directly to the registry.

Users

The interface, and much of the registry’s functionality, is locked by permissions granted to users. In the simplest cases, users can be created by Harbor itself and managed internally. However, this doesn’t scale particularly well, so Harbor also provides integration into other popular services such as OIDC, Active Directory, and LDAP.

Projects

Artifacts within Harbor are owned by a project. This grouping allows settings and permissions to be tuned for sets of artifacts as opposed to a purely global level. From there, users can be granted a role in a project, such as Guest (read-only), Developer (read-write), or Project Admin (read-write-configure).

Security

Aside from access control, Harbor includes several other critical security features. By utilizing popular image scanners, such as Trivy, images can be automatically scanned for known vulnerabilities. The results of these scans can be leveraged to prevent pulling of artifacts with unaddressed security issues.

On top of scanning, Harbor also includes support for signature verification. After using a tool like Notary or Cosign to sign an artifact, Harbor is capable of verifying each signature and rejecting artifacts which fail the verification process.

Additional Features

With the core functionality out of the way, we can now take a brief look at some of the other features of Harbor.

• Storage of OCI Artifacts – In addition to container images, Harbor can store OCI artifacts such as Helm charts.
• High-Availability – As Harbor deploys to Kubernetes, it follows the common pattern of providing a high-availability configuration, ensuring maximum uptime.
• Registry Replication – While users can manually push and pull from the registry, images may also be automatically replicated to and from external registries. This is highly configurable, allowing for control over how and when artifacts are replicated.
• Observability – Harbor natively supports a standard suite of observability features, including logging, metrics, and tracing.
• SBOM – As well as scanning artifacts, Harbor can generate a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM), which acts as a list of all found dependencies within an image.

Harbor Registry Installation

Harbor provides two paths for installation:

1. The first is to use their own installer, which deploys Harbor locally using Docker. This is a great option to try Harbor out or for small teams which will be leveraging Harbor in a limited fashion.
2. The second path is to deploy to Kubernetes. This is accomplished via Helm and enables high-availability configurations. The Kubernetes deployment is the recommended approach for most teams.

To get started with either of these paths, we recommend following the official documentation for the most up-to-date instructions.

Need Help With Harbor?

OpenLogic now offers Gold-level, SLA-backed support for Harbor. Talk to an expert today to learn more or request a quote for Harbor technical support.

Talk to an Expert

Using Harbor for Container Image Management

With the high-level understanding of Harbor out of the way, we can dig a bit further into understanding when Harbor is worth considering. Typically, as organizations grow and their usage of containers increases, hosting your own registry becomes a stronger choice. While the operation cost of Harbor is low, any new piece of infrastructure must be maintained. As such, if your organization or team makes light use of containers, it may be better to look at cloud-based providers first.

Let’s take a look at three scenarios in which Harbor could be leveraged.

Private Registry

Let’s suppose your team is building and consuming their own container images. While these images shouldn’t contain any sensitive information, they may hold proprietary software or similar materials that need to remain safe. This, understandably, makes externally hosted options less desirable.

By deploying Harbor locally as a private registry, images can be kept on-site, greatly reducing the potential for accidental leaks. Furthermore, corporate security policies are enforced on all images, ensuring scanning and signing take place without ever leaving the network.

Proxy Registry

Now let’s consider a case in which a team makes heavy use of public images. This is a fairly common setup and typically not an issue. However, depending on how these images are being consumed, the team may find themselves running into rate limiting and bandwidth issues.

In this case, by using Harbor to mirror an external registry, each image only needs to be pulled by Harbor once, greatly reducing the load on the external service. As an added benefit, Harbor will remain available even when the external registry is not.

Air-Gapped Registry

Finally, let’s consider a critical system which relies on both public and internal container images to function. For security reasons, this environment is air-gapped, preventing access to public registries.

Here, a self-hosted image registry is the only viable option, making Harbor a smart choice. Images can be manually marshalled in and assigned different security policies by grouping based on source. On top of that, Harbor provides a mechanism for manually updating the security vulnerability database in its scanner, enabling up-to-date scans without a connection to the internet.

Back to top

Harbor Alternatives

Many options exist within the container registry space. As Harbor is a CNCF graduated project, it is typically the recommended choice for organizations looking to host their container images on-site. Instead of direct comparisons, let’s take a look at two alternatives with some significant tradeoffs.

Sonatype Nexus

Nexus is an artifact registry in a much broader sense than Harbor. While it does support acting as a container image registry, its strength lies primarily in the range of artifacts it can hold. This includes artifacts for Docker, Go, Maven, Python, Yum, and more. The advantage here is clear: If container images are smaller component of your broader technical needs, a general-purpose repository can provide quite a bit of value.

However, these features come with a drawback: Container images are supported, but many of the security features are not. At the time of this writing, Nexus does not support signing or vulnerability scanning on container images.

Artifactory

Similar to Nexus, Artifactory supports a much wider range of artifact types. However, unlike Nexus, it does not sacrifice container image security features. Instead, its drawback is a common one: Cost. Artifactory is an offering form JFrog, and while it has a wide range of features, it requires a paid license for full functionality. A side effect of this is that Artifactory tends to leverage other offerings from JFrog as well.

When considering Artifactory, it’s important to evaluate the surrounding ecosystem and community. While we recommend open source solutions for their flexibility and community support, options like Artifactory may fit particular use cases better.

Harbor Container Registry FAQs

In this section, we’ll answer some of the most common questions about Harbor.

What Is the Difference Between Docker Hub vs. Harbor?

Docker Hub is a popular cloud-based registry. It provides many of the features available in Harbor but cannot be hosted on-site. Additionally, some functionality is gated behind paid tiers of membership. By comparison, Harbor’s self-hosted nature is ideal for teams needing on-site security and control over their registry.

Is Harbor Free?

Yes. Harbor is both free and open source under the Apache License 2.0.

Can I Use Harbor With Kubernetes?

Yes. Harbor is built from the ground up to support Kubernetes, including high-availability configurations.

Where Can I Get Harbor Support?

The Harbor community is active and you can connect with other Harbor users on X and/or attend biweekly community meetings on Zoom to get updates and submit feedback. There are also distribution lists for both Harbor users and developers to join.

However, there is no guarantee someone in the community will have expertise or knowledge that relates to your particular use case, or that you’ll be able to get help quickly. This is why some teams opt for SLA-backed support provided by vendors like OpenLogic. The advantage of this is having an exact timeline for resolution and the ability to talk directly, 24-7, with an Enterprise Architect.

Final Thoughts

As covered in this blog, Harbor is an excellent choice for container image management, particularly in instances where you want to host your registry on-site, mirror an external registry, or have an air-gapped environment. As a project, Harbor is well-maintained and benefits from a robust community of contributors. While it is free to deploy, all infrastructure software requires some degree of maintenance, so it’s always a good idea to consider the “soft cost” in terms of your team’s time to decide whether it makes sense to get support from a third party like OpenLogic. 

NGINX and HAProxy share much in common at a high level: Both are open source technologies used to manage web traffic. However, the more specific the use case and volume of data, the more the minor differences become significant. This is when weighing the benefits and drawbacks of NGINX vs. HAProxy can be beneficial.

In this blog, our expert highlights the key differences between NGINX vs. HAProxy and explains how to determine which is more suitable for your website or application.

Note: While both NGINX and HAProxy have commercial versions (NGINX Plus and HAProxy Enterprise), this blog is focused on the FOSS versions. 

NGINX vs. HAProxy: Overview

The main difference between NGINX vs. HAProxy is that while both are effective as load balancers and reverse proxies, NGINX is a web server with broader range of capabilities, making it more versatile. HAProxy is ideal for complex load balancing scenarios where high throughput and low latency are needed to manage a high volume of web traffic.

The key technical differences between NGINX and HAProxy come into play in two areas: the efficiency of the worker processes and load balancing health checks of the next endpoint. The latter is particularly limited in NGINX (less so in NGINX Plus, which has a number of premium features left out of the free OSS version). 

What Is NGINX?

NGINX is an HTTP web server, reverse proxy for TCP/UDP and web traffic, and mail proxy server. It’s characterized by its lightweight footprint, and efficient and modular design.

What Is HAProxy?

HAProxy is a layer 4 TCP proxy and an HTTP gateway/reverse proxy that can handle HTTP 1.1, HTTP2, and HTTP3 requests/responses on either end and a combination of protocols. Due to its queue design and features, HAProxy can terminate TLS and normalize HTTP and TCP traffic.

While there are many use cases where HAProxy shines, it is not capable of per-packet load balancing or serving static web content, nor is it a good fit as a dedicated, large-scale caching proxy.

NGINX vs. HAProxy: Key Similarities and Differences

When it comes to reverse proxying and load balancing, there are more similarities than differences between NGINX and HAProxy. However, we’ll explore a few areas where the two technologies differ and when/why it matters.

Architecture

NGINX and HAProxy both utilize event-driven architecture, though HAPRoxy has a multi-threaded single process design and NGINX uses dedicated worker processes.

Configuration

NGINX uses a hierarchical block structure for configuration. The main NGINX configuration file is typically nginx.conf with additional configuration loaded in a separate file (for example, the TLS configuration). The directives in the configuration blocks are structured in key-value pairs and encapsulated in curly brace blocks.

The main contexts are http, server, and location. The context is inherited from parent context and directives have priorities. When building more complex ‘location’ and ‘match’ logic, the directive order and priority is often overlooked.

Here are some best practices for location blocks in NGINX:

• Use exact matches for static pages that you know won’t change.
• Utilize regular expressions for dynamic URI matching but be aware of the order of precedence.
• Prefix matches (^~) can be used for performance benefits if you do not need regular expression matches.
• Root-level (/) location should be your fallback option.

The most common issues when configuring location blocks in NGINX include:

• Regular expressions evaluated out of order can lead to unexpected results.
• Overusing regular expressions can degrade performance.
• Prefix directives without the ^~ modifier may be overridden by regular expressions.

Get more NGINX setup and configuration tips >>

Now let’s compare to HAProxy, which uses a flat section-based configuration. The configuration file for HAProxy is commonly haproxy.cfg. The main sections are global, defaults, frontend, backend, and listen.

Some common issues to be aware of regarding HAProxy configuration:

• Not using graceful reload to avoid connection interruptions.
• Lack of observability implementation for the golden signals of the HAProxy Frontend and Backend systems (Latency, Service Saturation, Errors, and Traffic Volume).

Key difference: HAProxy configuration tends to be more specific to load balancing and proxying, while NGINX configuration can cover a broad range of web server functionalities that HAProxy lacks.

Performance

When evaluating the performance of NGINX vs HAProxy, the differences are pretty nuanced, and comparable only on a use case by use case basis. Generally speaking, they are both considered high-performance in terms of delivering content to clients and users.

There are some features of HAProxy that can be useful in scenarios where NGINX does not have an equivalent function. For example, HAProxy’s design with multiple threads on the same process allows it to share resources among the processes. This is advantageous when many different clients access similar endpoints that share resources or web services.

Scalability

Again, both NGINX and HAProxy are highly scalable. One drawback of NGINX is that each request can only be served by a single worker. This is not optimal use of CPU and network resources. Because of this request-process pinning effect, requests that do CPU-heavy or blocking IO tasks can slow down other requests.

Security

HAProxy offers fine-grained Access Control List (ACL) configurations via a flexible ACL language. NGINX, on the other hand, uses IF statements for routing.

For observability, NGINX relies on logging, and an OpenTelemetry module can be added during build time, whereas HAProxy offers a native API and statistics on demand.

Learn more about web server security >>

Support

Both NGINX and HAProxy have a very large user bases and communities, and are being actively developed with new features (e.g. QUIC, HTTP/3) and updated regularly with security patches. Additionally, both also have active Github projects with discussion forums where users can submit questions and share feedback on features.

For teams that need immediate, expert-level remediation beyond what OSS communities provide, OpenLogic offers SLA-backed technical support up to 24/7/365 for both NGINX and HAProxy.

Use Cases: NGINX vs. HAProxy

On a qualitative basis, NGINX is the go-to option for fast and simple builds. This is also why NGINX is so popular as an ingress controller in Kubernetes and edge deployments.

While HAProxy will cover all the same use cases as NGINX, it is more feature-rich as a reverse proxy. For example, you could use HAProxy for a layer 4 database frontend for a MySQL cluster/replication architecture, multiple monolithic web applications or services, DNS cache, and initial Denial of Service protection via queueing. SRE Engineers will appreciate the detailed real-time metrics and monitoring capabilities in HAProxy as well.

Using NGINX and HAProxy Together

In large, data-intensive distributed architectures, there are some use cases where the upsides of combining the strengths of NGINX and HAProxy are appealing. However, there are also some drawbacks worth considering.

Use cases

• High-traffic websites and microservices requiring both content delivery and load balancing
• Applications with mixed static and dynamic content, especially beyond web type content

Upsides

• Complementary strengths: NGINX excels at content caching and serving static content, while HAProxy is optimized for load balancing.
• Enhanced security: NGINX can act as a reverse proxy, adding an extra layer of security before requests reach HAProxy.
• Flexibility: This setup allows for more complex architectures and fine-tuned control over traffic flow.

Drawbacks

• Increased complexity: Managing two separate systems can be more challenging.
• Potential bottlenecks: If not configured properly, the additional layer can introduce latency.
• Higher resource usage: Running both services requires more server resources.
• Configuration challenges: Ensuring both systems work harmoniously together can be tricky.

Final Thoughts

Hopefully it is now clear that comparing NGINX vs. HAProxy is a worthwhile exercise. There are use cases that favor each, as well as situations when deploying them together can be an effective strategy. Most agree that the learning curve for NGINX is less steep, with easier setup and configuration, so for simpler applications delivering static content where speed is prioritized over complexity, NGINX works. However, for applications that require real-time responsiveness and high availability, and teams that want more advanced customization for traffic routing and better observability, HAProxy is probably a better fit.