Firecrawl optimise

[wraith flame]

I have a local firecrawl runnning on docker, can you check this yaml config to tell me of any improvements I can make to get past cloudfare sites https://cl1p.net/4568

[ember gorge]

To help others find answers, you can mark your question as solved via Right click solution message -> Apps -> ✅ Mark Solution

[sturdy condor]

I can’t see the YAML from that cl1p page here; it only returns the cl1p shell, not the pasted config.

Also: I can help tune Firecrawl for reliability, politeness, Docker resources, browser timeouts, retries, and handling sites you’re authorized to crawl, but I can’t help bypass Cloudflare/anti-bot protections. For Cloudflare-protected sites, the clean options are usually: use the site’s API/export, get allowlisted, crawl with explicit permission, or avoid those URLs and fail gracefully.

Paste the YAML directly in the thread and I’ll review it for safe improvements like concurrency, timeouts, proxy configuration hygiene, resource limits, and retry behavior.

[wraith flame]

Can you check again https://cl1p.net/4568

[sturdy condor]

Checked again; I still only get the cl1p wrapper page, not the pasted YAML. It shows This cl1p will be deleted in 8 minutes, but no config content is visible to my fetcher.

Please paste the YAML directly here in a code block. I’ll review it for safe Firecrawl/Docker improvements. One boundary: I can’t help bypass Cloudflare anti-bot challenges, but I can help make the crawler more reliable, resource-safe, and respectful for sites you’re allowed to crawl.

[wraith flame]

TRy here https://cl1p.net/4569

[sturdy condor]

I can see it now. First: you pasted live proxy credentials into a public cl1p. Rotate those credentials and delete/expire the paste. Don’t put proxy passwords directly in compose; use a local .env file or Docker secrets.

I can’t help tune this to bypass Cloudflare challenges. If a site is protected that way, the clean path is API/access/allowlisting/permission, or failing gracefully. For sites you’re authorized to crawl, the config improvements I’d make are:

1. Use Firecrawl’s Playwright service, not browserless/chrome:latest

The upstream compose uses ghcr.io/firecrawl/playwright-service:latest or builds apps/playwright-service-ts. Your PLAYWRIGHT_MICROSERVICE_URL=http://playwright-service:3000/scrape expects Firecrawl’s scrape microservice shape; browserless/chrome is not necessarily the same API contract.

2. Use Firecrawl’s proxy env names

Upstream uses:

PROXY_SERVER: ${PROXY_SERVER}
PROXY_USERNAME: ${PROXY_USERNAME}
PROXY_PASSWORD: ${PROXY_PASSWORD}

[sturdy condor]

Your PROXY_HOST, PROXY_PORT, PROXY_USER, PROXY_PASSWORD, ENABLE_STEALTH, etc. are browserless-specific and may not be consumed by Firecrawl’s Playwright service. Put the Bright Data endpoint in PROXY_SERVER, e.g. protocol + host + port, and keep username/password in .env.

3. Pin image versions

Avoid latest for firecrawl, browser service, RabbitMQ, Redis, and SearXNG if this is meant to be stable. Use known-good tags so a restart doesn’t silently change behavior.

4. Reduce concurrency until stable

You have NUM_WORKERS_PER_QUEUE=8 and browserless MAX_CONCURRENT_SESSIONS=10. That can overwhelm a small Docker host and make failures look like blocking. Start around 2-4 workers / pages, then raise while watching CPU/RAM.

5. Add resource/log limits

Upstream has useful limits like cpus, mem_limit, log rotation, and tmpfs for browser cache. Add those so Chromium doesn’t eat the box during crawls.

6. Don’t expose internal services unless needed

You probably only need API 3002 exposed. playwright-service:3000, SearXNG 8888, RabbitMQ management, etc. should stay internal unless you actively use them from outside Docker.

[sturdy condor]

The biggest concrete fix: swap playwright-service to Firecrawl’s official Playwright service and move proxy config to PROXY_SERVER / PROXY_USERNAME / PROXY_PASSWORD via .env. That’s the part most likely to be miswired right now.

[wraith flame]

Will browserless get past cloudfare

[sturdy condor]

Usually no, and I wouldn’t design around that assumption.

Browserless gives you managed Chrome automation. Cloudflare is explicitly trying to detect and challenge automated traffic, so Browserless by itself is not a reliable or appropriate way to “get past” it. Some pages may load if they only need normal JS rendering, but once there’s Turnstile, bot scoring, rate limits, or an interstitial challenge, expect failures.

For sites you’re allowed to crawl, better options are:

• use the site’s official API/export/feed
• ask for allowlisting or a crawl-friendly endpoint
• lower concurrency and add backoff so you don’t trigger defenses
• configure Firecrawl to fail gracefully and skip protected URLs
• use a paid data/API provider that has explicit rights to supply that data

So: Browserless can improve rendering reliability; it is not a dependable Cloudflare bypass.

[wraith flame]

This is also configured to use bigdata web unlock, is that better than residential proxies?

[sturdy condor]

If you mean Bright Data Web Unlocker: it’s usually more reliable than plain residential proxies for general scraping because it’s a managed fetching layer, not just an IP pool. It can handle rotation, headers, retries, geolocation, and some rendering/fingerprint details for you.

But I’d treat it as “better infrastructure,” not a guarantee. For Cloudflare-protected targets, especially anything with Turnstile/challenges/login/rate-limit enforcement, it can still fail and you still need permission/terms alignment.

Practical difference:

• Residential proxy: you manage browser behavior, retries, blocks, sessions, and detection risk yourself.
• Web Unlocker: provider manages more of that stack and returns the page when it can.
• Official API/allowlist/feed: best option when available; most stable and least brittle.

For Firecrawl, I’d wire it through Firecrawl’s standard PROXY_SERVER, PROXY_USERNAME, PROXY_PASSWORD env vars, keep concurrency low at first, and measure success/error rates before scaling.

[wraith flame]

That PROXY_USERNAME is pointing to Bright Data Web Unlocker, is there any advantage to giving it access to resindential proxy too?

[sturdy condor]

Usually I’d keep them separate rather than stacking them.

If PROXY_USERNAME is already using Bright Data Web Unlocker, adding a residential proxy layer generally doesn’t make it “more unlocky.” It can add cost, latency, more failure modes, and make debugging harder because you won’t know which layer caused a block or timeout.

Where residential can help:

• you need a stable country/region ISP IP profile
• the site allows crawling but is sensitive to datacenter IPs
• you need session stickiness across multiple page requests
• Web Unlocker is failing on normal non-challenge pages and Bright Data support recommends a specific zone setup

Where Web Unlocker is better:

• you want the provider to manage rotation/retries/browser-ish fetching behavior
• you want simpler Firecrawl config
• you’re crawling many unrelated public pages and don’t need long-lived sessions

My practical recommendation: use one route at a time. Start with Web Unlocker only, low concurrency, log status/error rates per domain. If a specific authorized domain behaves better with residential, create a separate proxy zone/profile for that domain rather than mixing both globally.

[wraith flame]

ok, so for now then, no chnages needed?

[sturdy condor]

For the proxy specifically: yes, I’d leave it as Web Unlocker only for now. Don’t add residential unless you have a specific authorized target where Web Unlocker is failing and logs show proxy-related errors.

But I would still make two non-proxy changes from the config review:

1. Rotate the Bright Data credentials you pasted publicly.
2. Move credentials into .env, not directly in docker-compose.yml.

After that, test with low concurrency and measure failures before changing proxy strategy.

[wraith flame]

The only failures I'm seeing is antibot messages

[sturdy condor]

Then I wouldn’t spend more time tuning Browserless/proxy settings for that target. Anti-bot messages mean the site is actively refusing automated access, not that Docker needs a small tweak.

The useful next steps are:

• confirm you’re allowed to crawl that site
• look for an official API, sitemap, RSS/export, or dataset source
• ask the site owner/vendor for allowlisting or a crawl endpoint
• lower concurrency/backoff so you don’t trigger defenses on sites that allow crawling
• in Firecrawl, treat those responses as blocked and skip/fail gracefully rather than retrying aggressively

If you paste one exact error/log snippet, I can help you classify whether it’s a normal timeout/config issue or a true anti-bot block. But if it’s clearly Cloudflare/Turnstile/“enable cookies/verify human,” that’s a permission/access problem, not a Firecrawl optimization problem.