Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users
Kodanda Ramji C.S - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager | Engineering | Cloud Managed Services at Sify Technologies
Real User
Top 5
The product is secure, robust, and reliable, but it is very expensive
Pros and Cons
  • "The solution is robust and reliable."
  • "The product is expensive."

What is our primary use case?

We are using the solution for our internal and client purposes. We are a cloud service provider.

What is most valuable?

The solution provides good application delivery and network optimization features. We use all the features provided by the solution. It fulfills our requirements. All our infrastructure is set up with high availability through hardware and virtualization in all flavors and levels based on the customer requirements.

What needs improvement?

The pricing must be more flexible. We get billed for firewalls based on the usage. It will be helpful if the solution provides such flexibility.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using the solution for many years.

Buyer's Guide
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM)
November 2024
Learn what your peers think about F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM). Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: November 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The tool is stable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The tool is scalable. It meets the requirements.

How are customer service and support?

We have contacted the technical support team. The team is customer-friendly and knowledgeable.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is straightforward. The deployment takes just one minute because we use scripts. We need one technical person for the deployment.

What was our ROI?

The solution is robust and reliable. It provides us with security.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The product is expensive. We pay a yearly licensing fee.

What other advice do I have?

We recommend the product to others. It is scalable and reliable. Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
PeerSpot user
Saurabh-Pal - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Security Specialist at a tech vendor with 11-50 employees
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
Accommodates enterprise-level scalability and easy initial setup
Pros and Cons
  • "The initial setup is easy."
  • "If one virtual portion is unavailable, it can cause issues."

What is our primary use case?

For my clients, the primary use cases include load balancing, both for server and link load balancing.

What is most valuable?

We have used it to link two or three servers and make them communicable from outside. It works well as a load balancer.

What needs improvement?

There is room for improvement in terms of stability. The F5 BIG-IP LTM allows multiple virtual machines to run on a single appliance. However, if one of those virtual portions fails, it can cause issues and impact the overall stability of the solution.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been working with this solution for four years. I have worked with F5 as a system integrator, partner, and MSP.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It is a stable solution. I would rate it an eight out of ten. Rather than having separate appliances for each virtual machine, the F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) allows multiple virtual machines to run on one appliance. However, if one of those virtual portions is no longer available, it can cause issues.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It is scalable. I would say it's around eight or nine out of ten. Our clients are at the enterprise level. 

How are customer service and support?

The customer service and support is good. 

How would you rate customer service and support?

Positive

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is easy. I would rate the initial installation a nine out of ten, one being very difficult and ten being very easy.

What about the implementation team?

We installed the solution in a web-based environment and have implemented it in two data centers, one located in New Jersey and the other in a different location. We have used F5 for both firewall load balancing and link load balancing. We have two sets of F5 deployed at each location. 

We completed the installation within a week with the help of a team of five people. At present, a team of five is managing and maintaining the solution in the data center and for the local portion.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

It is cheaper than the average on the market. I would rate it as a five since it is in the middle range, with ten being the most expensive. It is good, and the price is reasonable. 
Moreover, I have only worked on five or six devices and have not dealt with licensing rules. However, in my previous job as a system integrator, I did work on local installations, which were relatively quick and inexpensive.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

In my opinion, the Radware product is also good. F5 and Alteon products are equally good, so I would rate them an eight.

What other advice do I have?

I would recommend using the solution. Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: MSP (Managed Service Provider)
PeerSpot user
Buyer's Guide
F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM)
November 2024
Learn what your peers think about F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM). Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: November 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Nirav_Shah - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Solutions Architect at MindTree
Real User
Capability is good but integration and scalability need improvement
Pros and Cons
  • "The capability is at a seven or eight out of ten."
  • "In terms of native integrations, there is a lot of instability. Also, integration is not robust with F5."

What is our primary use case?

We use it to publicly deliver applications.

What is most valuable?

The capability is at a seven or eight out of ten.

What needs improvement?

In terms of native integrations, there is a lot of instability. Also, integration is not robust with F5.

We need a very large team to manage the solution. Had it been cloud native, it would have been very seamless, but because it's not cloud native, it does not integrate really well.

For how long have I used the solution?

We've been using it for a few years.

It's a cloud solution.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

From a scalability point of view, this solution is not really up to the mark. The on-demand requirements or on-demand scalability options are not good.

We have close to 5,000 applications hosted on F5 that are delivered.

How are customer service and support?

The technical support is very poor. They do not deliver on their SLAs, and even when we escalate the issue, we do not get a good response in 24 hours.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is straightforward. For a very basic, standard F5 setup, the best practices based deployment will work fine. However, for very large scale deployment models, the recommendations that come in from F5 may not really meet your requirements.

For a typical setup, you would like to mimic how it's been set up on-premises, but this is not the way you would set it up on the cloud. You will end up hitting limitations on the cloud, and you would have to rearchitect your overall design or configurations when you deploy it. As a result, the setup for the hybrid model is not straightforward.

What other advice do I have?

We strongly recommend not to go with F5 when internal teams or verticals want to mimic the same architecture.

In terms of the capability, I would rate F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) at seven or eight, on a scale from one to ten, and in terms of scalability at four or five. Overall, I would rate it at six.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Managing Director at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Load balancing brings high availability and a bigger ability to scale out
Pros and Cons
  • "Load balancing generally brings high availability and a bigger ability to scale out. In some cases, it brings security, depending on how it is configured."
  • "I would like them to expand load balancing, being able to go across multiple regions to on-premise and into the cloud. This could use improvement, as it is sometimes a little cumbersome."

What is our primary use case?

When we migrate workloads into the cloud, we need the same functionality in the cloud, and low balancing is part of that. Being able to manage the platform on cloud, the same as on-premise, is the use case.

How has it helped my organization?

Load balancing generally brings high availability and a bigger ability to scale out. In some cases, it brings security, depending on how it is configured.

What is most valuable?

  • Flexibility
  • Capacity
  • Reputation in the market.

What needs improvement?

I would like them to expand load balancing, being able to go across multiple regions to on-premise and into the cloud. This could use improvement, as it is sometimes a little cumbersome.

For how long have I used the solution?

More than five years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It is very stable. It's a pretty solid product.

Our clients use it pretty heavily. Most all of them are production workloads and some of them are external facing workloads, so you can see seasonal peaks.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It's very scalable. Probably the largest implementation I did was with hundreds of servers behind it.

How is customer service and technical support?

The technical support is very good.

What about the implementation team?

We haven't had any issues with the integration and configuration of AWS. It works just like it would on-premise. I have some questions around its scale in the cloud. We haven't done as much work in the cloud as we've done with on-premise. However, so far we haven't had any problems with it either.

What was our ROI?

My clients have seen ROI.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

It could be priced a little less, especially on the virtual side. It gets a bit expensive, but you get what you pay.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

There is always the Cisco on-premise solution in play. There are also the AWS native functionalities.

The ease of management is the tie-breaker for F5, being able to manage the on-premise and cloud with the same tools.

It's fairly easy to integrate. If you compare it to Cisco products, Cisco is very regimented and works best with themselves. F5 has been forced to play nice with others, which is a bonus.

What other advice do I have?

The three key things to look at closely:

  1. Look at the flexibility of the products.
  2. The ability to work with it on-premise and in the cloud is a huge advantage.
  3. The ability to integrate it with other non-F5 products.

We use both the AWS and on-premise versions. They work about the same, which is what I like about the product: same management plane and configuration.

It integrates with the networking layer, which is fairly complicated. Depending on the customer, there are different products that it integrates with. More often than not, it's load balancing in front of Windows in Unix. In some cases, integrating with other tools like the LP or other network products.

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner.
PeerSpot user
Operator at Capgemini Engineering
Real User
Top 20
Helps to balance traffic but needs improvement in pricing
Pros and Cons
  • "We use F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager to balance traffic."
  • "F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is expensive. Pricing needs to be improved."

What is our primary use case?

We use F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager to balance traffic. 

What needs improvement?

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is expensive. Pricing needs to be improved. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using the solution for five to eight years. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The solution is stable. 

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is a scalable solution. 

What other advice do I have?

I rate the product a ten out of ten. 

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
John Bayangos - PeerSpot reviewer
Lead Infrastructure Engineer at a educational organization with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 5
Reliable with good support and useful load-balancing features
Pros and Cons
  • "The setup is pretty easy."
  • "The GUI needs improvement."

What is our primary use case?

We usually use the product for load balancing, as a web server, and for web traffic.

How has it helped my organization?

We're hosting a website for our company, and the solution has helped a lot with load balancing. 

What is most valuable?

The load-balancing features are great. You can do several different types, depending on the application. 

The solution offers good automation. 

It's stable and reliable. 

The solution can scale.

The setup is pretty easy.

They offer good technical support.

What needs improvement?

The GUI needs improvement. They need some sort of help section in the GUI, like descriptions of certain features. There are a lot of features, and it is hard to remember what does what. Having some sort of prompt or pop-up in the GUI would help a lot. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using the solution for around six years. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability and reliability are great. I'd rate stability nine out of ten. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability is good. I'd rate it nine out of ten. It's easy to expand. 

We have two or three users directly dealing with the solution. 

How are customer service and support?

Technical support has been helpful and responsive so far. 

How would you rate customer service and support?

Positive

How was the initial setup?

While I was involved in the on-premises deployment. For the cloud, I didn't have to do much. It's a pretty straightforward setup. The only complex part is building the HA since it's linked to following a certain procedure. In that case, the ease of implementation depends on the experience of the one who's going to deploy it.

Two people should be able to handle deployment. 

What was our ROI?

We have witnessed a return on investment. 

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

I'd rate the pricing three out of ten. It is quite expensive to scale up. 

What other advice do I have?

The product can be deployed on-premises and on the cloud.

If a customer really wants a robust and stable load-balancing appliance, they should go for LTM.

I'd rate it eight out of ten. 

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Hybrid Cloud
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Senior Security Specialist at Tech Mahindra Limited
Vendor
Top 20
Good load balancing and web proxy features with good attack prevention
Pros and Cons
  • "It has helped a lot to protect our organization from external attacks, especially XSS or XSRF types of attacks."
  • "It requires a particular skill or training before being able to manage it."

What is our primary use case?

We use this product to hide true identity of our web servers from external users while balancing the loads of those external users. 

For load balancing, we have various load balancing method. We can define these methods at the node or pool level. 

We are retail users and have lot of websites for online businesses to prevent attacks. On those sites, there is a WAF module that we also use, which prevents attacks on it. 

It acts as a reverse proxy for our web servers, and we can use certificate to protect from attackers and send encrypted traffic to F5 which then decrypt and passes to the internal server after encrypting again using a server-side certificate or sending in plain form.

How has it helped my organization?

It has helped a lot to protect our organization from external attacks, especially XSS or XSRF types of attacks. 

It serves as a reverse proxy for our web servers which takes the request from the internet users on F5 public-facing IP using an encrypted connection and then it decrypts the packet using a client-side certificate. We use server-side certificates to encrypt the traffic and send it to the server. Internet users never know what the real server IP is. It does NATing to hide the identity and it has an ASM module to protect it from web attacks.

What is most valuable?

There are a lot of good things this solution has, including:

The LTM module helps to load balance the traffic among the internal web server in our case using round robin and least connection method.

The ASM module prevents web attacks and protects our web servers.

The irule feature is used to write these irules to redirect the traffic or sometimes prevent automated attacks such as through BOTs where the distinction between real and fake users becomes increasingly tricky.

Its virtual servers have the option to configure other things to increase the speed of serving requests like the use of a persistence profile.

What needs improvement?

The major drawback is it has lot of options nested inside, and each option has a lot of options. I'm not sure who might be using all those options or even some (limited) good options. They should pare everything down.

It requires a particular skill or training before being able to manage it. Creating virtual servers, managing pools, and nodes until it is working on WAF side of it becomes difficult while writing the irules.

Another drawback is we are using a physical appliance. It becomes very slow and unresponsive. Even logs cannot load on the box to troubleshoot. It overwrites the logs. They need to do something in log storage locally on this box in the next release.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Michael-Yuen - PeerSpot reviewer
COO at International Household Retail Company Ltd
Real User
Reliable and good support, but ease of use could improve
Pros and Cons
  • "F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is a stable and reliable solution."
  • "F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager could improve by having an FNI feature for a single source to multi-domain load balancing."

What is our primary use case?

I am using F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager for load balancing. For example, I create the virtual server, and in there we have a pool and member server. This is used for simple load balancing.

We are using the on-premise and cloud versions of the solution.

What needs improvement?

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager could improve by having an FNI feature for a single source to multi-domain load balancing.

When I was using the solution I was using the basic functions and I found it difficult to handle some of the more advanced features. I needed assistance from my IT department or the vendors themself. There should be more workshops are places to gain knowledge on how to use the solution. You need specific skill sets to use it.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have used F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager(LTM) within the past 12 months.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is a stable and reliable solution.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Our whole IT department is using the solution with some application teams. We have approximately 50 people using the solution in the IT department.

How are customer service and support?

When there is an issue it is first looked at by our internal team rather a ticket being opened directly with the vendor. I open the tickets to our internal team and if they cannot solve the issue, they will escalate to the vendor. The technical support from F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager is good.

What about the implementation team?

We did not do the implementation ourselves.

What other advice do I have?

It is important to know how the solution works. For example, how to set up the interface, routing, pools, and the implementation steps. After the basic configurations, you will understand you may need or want to try to learn more of the features, such as the layers of the SNI. It is ideal to start with the very basic implementation first. We have been doing the day-to-day operation.

When it comes to troubleshooting, it is important to know how to isolate the problem, analyze it, and be fast to solve them when it appears.

I rate F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager a six out of ten.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Buyer's Guide
Download our free F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.
Updated: November 2024
Buyer's Guide
Download our free F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager (LTM) Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.