Arista Networks Platform Reviews

We use three different models of the 7000 series switches to make up the network in one of our data centers. We use the 7060SX as an active leaf, the 7260 as a border leaf, and the 7500 series as the spines.

The most valuable feature is the Linux shell, which is useful for troubleshooting or capturing traffic. 

The documentation for this solution needs to be improved. In the documentation, it is not easy to find the exact solution which describes the configuration step by step. It means that we've had to ask our supplier how to use certain features, and which commands to use. We can find a simple description on the website, as well as a list of the features, but a more complete description is not available. It is not clear exactly how to configure and use each of the features. For other vendors, we can find the exact configuration, with examples, that we need to deploy for any new features.

The documentation did not explain that we could not vary the speed between ports that are in the same block. For example, we cannot have 1G and 10G on the neighboring ports. All four ports have to be 1G or 10G, which was very annoying for us when we realized that we needed to change the configuration and the cabling that we had already prepared.

In the next release of this solution, we would like the option to use two switches as one virtual switch.

The CVP management platform needs to be improved.

This solution is quite stable if the configuration is done according to the best practices. We found, however, that when we made some changes, we ran into problems.

These were temporary changes for test purposes. Nowhere was it explained that making these types of changes could lead to the problems that we observed, or that we would have any trouble. One such problem was that the utilization of links was very high because of an error in our test configuration.

Generally speaking, this is a very stable solution.

In our environment it is scalable. We can find the proper models to meet our requirements. I'm not sure how it would be in the case of very large networks, but in our data center there are a few hundred switches, so it is scalable.

We have thousands of users who use this network. This includes internal and external clients for our data center.

The technical support for this solution is quite good, but the deepness of the explanation in the documentation is not as good as I expect.

Most of the equipment that I have used is Cisco, although I have also used Juniper and Cumulus. For this new type of data center architecture, however, we did not use a solution prior to this one.

The initial setup of the individual switches is simple.

Using the Zero Touch Provisioning (ZTP) feature with the CloudVision Portal (CVP) is not simple, and it takes quite a long time.

Each of the switches can be deployed in about ten minutes, after several restarts, using the management interface. If I deploy using the command line then it will take a minute or two.

The CVP is supposed to be automated, but it is rather complicated and takes time.

For the initial deployment, we needed the help of our local supplier, the Arista representative. It was very helpful for us because we could not find good examples on the website. The best practices were descriptive from a very high-level view and did not contain detailed configuration examples.

I think that it would be very hard to prepare the whole configuration for the data center architecture without the help of our local supplier and Arista engineers.

This solution was my first experience with the new, modern data center architecture.

My advice to anybody who is implementing this series of switches is to carefully check the features that are supported on each model. Some new features are not supported on all platforms. I know that Arista still sells some old models that do not support the newest features.

This is a good solution, but the documentation needs to be improved. More detailed configuration examples are definitely needed.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

It basically is the switching room platform for both of our data centers. We've got two private data centers in California.

We are fully upgraded, so we are running the latest version of this solution.

It is very stable. It has good hardware and very stable code. It provides good value for its price.

They are a very lean type of organization, so they are very responsive, and they are able to focus more on their platform versus having multiple products out there.

Its price can be better. 

We deployed Arista in 2019 to replace our Cisco devices.

It is very stable.

Its scalability is really good. All of our data centers, systems, storage, and applications are using it. It is being used for everything that we host on-prem. All of our users are essentially using it.

They've been really good. I actually enjoy them a lot more than Cisco. I would rate them a nine or ten out of ten. They solve issues. I've opened five cases, and I haven't had a poor experience with any of the cases.

We were using Cisco devices. What we really liked about Arista is that they have embraced a more open multi-vendor approach. Cisco is more towards a closed proprietary. After deploying Arista, we saw quite a few congestion issues that we were having with Cisco being resolved.

It was fairly easy.

It is pretty pricey for a networking platform. It is on par with Cisco.

I would recommend this solution. We've been happy with it. I don't really have too many complaints about it. They are pretty good about releasing new features. They keep adding new features on their centrally managed platform, which is CloudVision. 

I would rate Arista Networks Platform a nine out of ten. 

It's our main platform. We centralize all network functionalities inside of our hospital network in two locations. From the data center to the distribution level.

In the past year, we have implemented this solution in two new hospitals. Arista is on the core and distribution layer, so our experience is approximately six core units and 36 lead switches of Arista and the pooling layer three overlays that they are providing.

We are using the most recent version, the release tracks had some overlap. Arista is suggesting a change to the release track.

Arista has been in our network since we started the new hospital building in August.

We are striving to exchange all existing hardware with Arista.

What we like most is its performance to price ratio. We also like the standard-based approach in contrast to other vendors in the network market, and the constant and timely support.

Some new features are needed.

Arista is technology-driven by themselves. At times they are limited by standards that are not formally closed. 

I would like to see more integration with one of the providers from each intent-based network for compliance documentation and IT security purposes. For future development of the product, being able to manage the security or relevant paths with intent-based networking is important. The intent-based network is a management that is on our security level.

The intent-based networking management, together with the provider of these solutions that are already free, would be beneficial.

I don't worry that there is a time gap between finalizing as triple E standards before integrating with the future release.

We have been using this solution for one year

This solution is stable, it is rock solid.

It is scalable up to a point where we don't have enough requirements so far.

For each location, we have approximately 30,000 clients, so approximately 60,000 total.

For the network, we are the IT solution provider for the hospital. The workgroup section has six staff members, but we will increase it to eight because we added more wireless capabilities and real-time location services.

In a hospital network, you have to sometimes support old systems. For instance, patient entertainment with an old fashioned multicast structure, they seem able to provide us with the proper solution within two days. 

They set up our environment back in California and they'll be able to provide us next Monday morning with a proper solution.

We would rate the technical support a ten out of ten. We can't complain and we are always surprised about the proficiency of the speed.

The initial setup is complex because our environment is complex. The hardware setup itself is quite straightforward.

We had implementation support by a gold partner here in Germany who are closely attached to Arista. We never ran into any issues where we had to go back to another point.

We are a publicly funded hospital in North Germany, so we are limited in what we would like to add to our infrastructure.

If you are looking for a future-proof solution, you just need to ask questions about the scalability and stability. You should do a proof of concept with Arista.

Get in contact with them to see how they solve problems. This is a beneficial experience. Even if somebody chooses another vendor, they should base a valid opinion about Arista.

I would strongly recommend this solution. 

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

In the broadcasting industry, I use Arista extensively for production trucks, especially with media involved like video and audio. Arista switches have excellent PTP support. I also find Arista useful in setups such as Spine-Leaf architectures in networks, where each port on the device acts as a gateway.

I find the operational system used by Arista to be very valuable, and the hardware is exceptionally nice. Arista has a unified operational system called EOS that is easy to set up and replicate on other devices. 

The ease of configuration and transition between devices is a significant advantage for me.

In my opinion, the solution for network monitoring is quite expensive. More ACLs and traffic filtering make setups complex. I believe there could be improvements to make the initial configuration less prone to errors.

I have a lot of experience with Arista as it is heavily used in the broadcast industry.

When I configure it properly, the setup is stable and reliable.

I have not dealt with Arista's customer service, as we do not have Arista devices on our premises.

Positive

We have used RTL devices before, which, in my view, offered almost the same features but were less powerful.

From my experience, the complexity of the setup depends on the network. For simple networks, I find it manageable with CLI, but more complex networks requiring ACLs and filtering increase the difficulty.

Two years ago, I found Arista to be more expensive than RTL devices with almost the same features.

We have used RTL devices before.

I would recommend Arista to others because of its powerful processors and superior performance.

I would rate Arista a ten out of ten.

Arista Networks is my go-to for network security at work. It is excellent for controlling access, blocking malware sites, and managing web filtering to keep users focused.

The user-friendly policy manager lets us apply different controls for various user groups easily. Plus, deployment is a breeze, and if issues arise, restoring a backup takes just 30 minutes. Arista has become a reliable and efficient solution for our network security requirements.

In my view, Arista could enhance the Wide Area Network balancer and failover. While the failover is swift, less than five seconds, it tends to be overly sensitive, triggering unnecessary alarms and emails. A smoother transition between ISPs during failover would improve the user experience by reducing unnecessary notifications and interruptions.

I have been working with Arista Networks Platform for ten years.

The stability has been outstanding. There is no lagging or crashing, and downtime is minimal, usually only required for significant updates. The system maintains a detailed uptime record, and despite hearing about potential issues, I have never personally experienced any.

Arista Networks is highly scalable, especially when it comes to VRP routing. Handling VRP routing requires some expertise, but for general use, configuration, and maintenance, the platform is surprisingly user-friendly. The GUI is one of the most intuitive interfaces I have encountered, making everyday tasks straightforward to manage.

Arista's tech support is impressive. They typically respond in less than two hours with effective solutions. The only consideration is the fee for support, which might be an issue for some, especially if not factored into the initial purchase. However, their support offerings are transparent, with clear options available during the checkout process. Overall, I would rate the support as a nine out of ten.

Positive

Deploying Arista Networks is a one-person task, and it is straightforward. Deploying it from scratch, including downloading the main ISO for the AVO file, typically takes around 35 minutes. Before diving in, ensuring compatibility with OEM layers like Bitdefender is key. The platform is backed by 85 million sensors globally, offering robust internet security, including malware solutions. Arista's user-friendly interface makes it easy to implement comprehensive security policies across different layers. 

I find Arista's pricing to be good. While it is not the cheapest, it's more affordable than Cisco or Palo Alto, offering a comprehensive solution that includes everything I need. There are no false alarms or unexpected fees, making it a cost-effective choice for the features and reliability it delivers.

I considered Meraki, CentOS, ClearOps, and SonicWall, before choosing Arista. Arista stood out for its flexible security suite with automatic alerts, unlike other options that felt manual and less comprehensive. My past experiences with Arista and as an MSP recommending solutions to clients confirmed its reliability and effectiveness.

Overall, I would rate Arista Networks Platform as an eight out of ten.

In the media industry, if you work for a channel, even a single second of screen loss will lead to a business outage and impact the business. After Arista solutions came into the picture, we deployed it, particularly for multicasting purposes. We were quite happy when I was in the media industry at the time.

I like the spine as a leaf model and low latency. The hardware is robust and meets expected latency in all environments, mainly if you belong to the media or trading industry. For multicast-based solutions, Arista is number one. 

They need to enhance their code and their EOS. They need to improve some security features, and there are quite a number of bugs in their system. So, they need to work on that piece.

In the next release, we need to have a modular feature. Instead of providing an integrated solution, they should go for something modular. They need to come up with modular highly scalable models. Even at the chassis layer, I want to see some improvement. 

I have been using the Arista Networks Platform for about six years.

It could be more stable. There are so many issues and vulnerabilities they need to fix.

Arista Networks Platform is scalable. This design is not for a particular user. This is a backbone that we are using, and the whole business relies on Arista.

On a scale from one to five, I would give technical support a three.

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward. The architecture, framework, and command line are approximately the same as Cisco. In terms of deployment as a network guy, I didn't face any issues. We need about two to three people per shift to manage this solution.

Because of latency, as per our business needs, it is meeting our expectations.

Specific tools definitely require a license for the subscription. But we are not using these tools in our environment. In terms of licensing, you need to spend approximately $10,000 per month. 

I would tell potential users that if they are supporting a media or trading kind of business, they should go for Arista because it is a low-latency switch that will meet the expectation of the business.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Arista Networks Platforma nine.

Arista Networks Platform is designed for next-generation data centers. They support asymmetric IRB, symmetric IRB, flood and learn types, EVPN types two, five, three, overlay and underlay. When Juniper first came out, they did not support symmetrical IRB. They only supported CRB, central routing and bridging, and asymmetrical IRB.

So, to make it work, we had to do IBGP for the overlay, EBGP for the underlay, and then use the IBP as a route reflector so that the spine could be the server and the top-of-rack could be the client. So it reflects the route down for all of the overlay. When you deal with internal activities, it's hard to troubleshoot, which is why we like the Arista Networks Platform. Unfortunately, Juniper doesn't support CRB anymore.

They support open standard features, and they have one feature that is proprietary and is marked VARP. That is the way for any cash routing. You can do that at the top of the rack layers. Juniper doesn't support this, and they don't have a chipset. Juniper claims that they have a feature where they can do symmetrical IRB, but their product hasn't been tested. Arista Networks Platform is widely used for all data centers.

Arista has done a pretty good job, but there's room for improvement. They should have a more stable code. Their code is a lot better than Juniper, but there are a lot of bugs, issues that arise and memory leaks.

We have been using this solution for 12 years and are using the new release. It can be deployed both on-premises and on cloud. For example, if you use their CVP (cloud vision portal), you can deploy it using their orchestration management. You can also deploy it manually, and I prefer doing it that way because you can see all the features being enabled.

It is a stable solution as long as the top of the rack and the spine are at the same code level. For example, if you use the same code level and run 4.21 on the spine, then run 4.21 on all the top racks, and it will be stable.

Their technical support is very good, and I rate them an eight out of ten.

Positive

I've used Cisco and Juniper. I built a network in Juniper, CRP, leaf and spine design, and the same in Cisco using leaf and spine design. I've also used their ACI, which is very cumbersome and complex.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. They have a zero-touch feature where as long as there's a DATP service somewhere, you can grab an IP address, take over the switch and then automatically configure the switches for it.

The time for deployment depends on the environment. It could take a couple of hours to deploy 50 switches or even 30 minutes to deploy three or four switches. We completed the deployment in-house. We have ten of thousands of users, and we are always scaling.

We have seen a return on investment, which is worth the price. Unfortunately, the pricing is a little out of touch because most companies do not have the budget. Arista Networks Platform is about 40% more expensive than Cisco and about 70% more than Juniper. Juniper gives you their hardware for free, but they get you on the backend for support, maintenance, and service contracts.

Arista Networks Platform is the most expensive of all the platforms.

We evaluated LinkedIn, Cumulus, Big Switch, and Mellanox as smaller players. There are only four major players, Brocade, Cisco, Arista and Juniper, but the three most prominent are Cisco, Arista and Juniper.

I rate this solution a nine out of ten. I would recommend Arista Networks Platform for next-generation data centers because it is very stable. They have stable hardware and code, which is better than Cisco and Juniper. However, it has one operating system for all platforms, which could lead to problems because you're running on one code.

We are manufacturers for certain storage platforms and we have our own storage software for enabling GPU clustering. We work more in the video segment. We have our own solutions that we put on that particular cluster which enable a remote workspace management portal for people who are into content. We don't generally provide solutions for micro-level storage customers that are dealing with your retail data or the like. We specialize in macro-computing, video analytics, audio/video editing solutions, editing over the cloud, and remote editing of spaces. It's a very specialized platform.

We set up a private cloud architecture for customers. There are certain customers who are large-scale photo editors, video editors — companies like BBC — that are in the content business. They don't want their content to be on multi-user platforms. They want to have control of their platforms. We have a solution where they can have a YouTube-like experience, but it's totally private. We have very bespoke solutions for media-related mining.

Arista is a nice platform. It's an extremely reliable platform for the network switches we use.

We have never seen a project where people have complained that it's not working. Never.

We have found their networks to be very high-end, low-latency, and we have never had a problem scaling up.

Generally, Arista's technical support is prompt. There can be delays but they're not bad. When we go back to them, they get the job done. They are very good at support.

Overall, Arista is a good team to work with. They are very straightforward.

Arista is very expensive. Not everybody is in a position to spend $70,000 to $80,000 for one switch.

For our customers that have a budget of $4,000 to $5,000 for one switch fabric, we generally recommend NETGEAR. That is also a very good switch. If somebody wants something cheaper than that, we recommend they go for something else.

For a market like India, Africa, and Asia, people always think twice because Arista is expensive compared to the competition. Of course, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. There are no other products that you can directly compare with Arista. It's the difference between getting a V12 engine and a generic engine. You need to be able to afford a V12. Arista is not for everybody.

We have deployed many enterprise platform switches, depending on the customer's capacity to buy a given platform. We have tested the Huawei switches. For certain protocols and traffic, and especially for video transmissions, Huawei has a good platform. But it's not like Arista, which has the highest one. Cisco has a bit of delay and a lag. From a robustness perspective, you pay a premium for Arista but you get the most from it.

We don't recommend Cisco because Cisco is a very different ballgame altogether. It's more into infrastructure networking data management. Cisco is made for something very different. When you are talking about IoT, Cisco meets expectations.

I would recommend Arista for certain applications, for microbiological and molecular calculations; for supercomputing. If you are looking for an ultra-low latency network, this is the only solution. There is nothing else that is similar.

It has low-latency, stability, and scalability because it is modular. If you have the budget, go for it.