Hacker News Reader

Comment by Trufa | Hacker News Reader

Nice, just today, I was trying ngrok, localtunnel, and a couple more, they all were pretty slow, fair enough for the free tier, but I'm interested in knowing is there something architecturally hard or expensive with having fast traffic?

I love this and will definitely try it.

I would honestly love to have it with a dockerized version with something like caddy that manages ssl so I can basically just run a docker command have it up and running.

Thank you very much! Great stuff will give it a try.

View on HN

You might need to define 'fast'.

This should not add more latency than your average VPN, since the overhead of websocket is minimal and roundtrip time is about the same.

At the moment, this is running on a single-instance with no load-balancing. The intended use case was to enable streaming of MCP SSE traffic, which is very lightweight. I would expect this to be able to handle a lot of traffic just like that, but if people start using the public instance for other use cases, I will need to think of ways to scale it.

I am keeping one eye on how this is scaling.

At the moment there are 5 active tunnels and CPU is at 2%.

I would therefore expect that this can scale quite a bit before it becomes some sort of bottleneck.

Who knows though – maybe I am underestimating the demand. Didn't expect this to get to the front page of HN.

The overhead of encryption is huge, comparatively speaking.

Simply using 4096 bit RSA instead of 2048 is enough to cause a denial of service attack.

connet [1] works in p2p fashion and is pretty quick if it can establish direct connection. Most other solutions do route through a separate node, so if your direct to node latency is low it should be comparable to directly hitting that node. It also has a docker release on ghcr. There is also a saas version [2], if you just wanna try it without running the control plane.

[1] https://github.com/connet-dev/connet

[2] https://connet.dev

Reply on news.ycombinator.com