Kemp LoadMaster Reviews

We implement it for our customers and we have every different version available from Kemp. The primary use case is for load balancing for different applications, mostly Microsoft Exchange. We use the on-prem deployment model.

The security features are the most valuable features of this solution.

It works very well. It's a good product that has good support. 

It is very stable.

It's very scalable. There are solutions for small customers and very large customers available from Kemp. In terms of users, we have different customers. The largest customer has about 5,000 co-workers.

We are satisfied with technical support. 

The implementation is not complex. The deployment took one day. 

The price is fine for their solution and what they give back from the product.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. To make it a perfect ten out of ten it would need better connection logging. If there is an active connection, then there is better logging. It should also have better management monitoring tools. 

They have great technical documentation on their website. That would be my recommendation if someone needs to implement Kemp Technology products.

Load balancing to server farms upon response time performances. Usage of Web Application Firewall module.

There is a simplicity to the setup and configuration. It helps with efficiency and reactivity, in case of assistance needs.

The trio: Simplicity (no needs for many days of training) and a very attractive ratio of price/performance.

SNMP and/or RESTCONF management, in order to collect many counters, for plotting in a central application need to be improved.

When patching Skype for Business Enterprise, we experienced no downtime at all for internal users.

• Skype for Business
• Reverse proxy
• Web application firewall
• Multi-factor authentication 

There is a Forefront TMG replacement together with Skype for Business which even Microsoft recommends for DNS LB. However, customers require uptime, and my tests show that DNS for external users will have quite long time downtimes versus HLB.

• Templates
• More detailed documentation

No issues. It is stable.

No issues. On the VLM, just update the license.

Technical support is very good. They are quick to answer questions and provide online help. 

Simple to install with good documentation. Some documentation is out-of-date versus the new version, and things have been moved.

I have control on the licensing and all the prices since I work for a partner.

KEMP gives away free trials for 30 days. This can be stretched if you want. During the test, you will have access to KEMP support.

We looked into F5 BIG-IP. However, for small customers, they can't pay for four to five days do to basic config.

Look into what you need. Do you want to use virtual (VLM running on Hyper-V or VMware) or physical (LM)?

We have several customers for different services. We have built services on private cloud libraries. We load Java and Python. A lot of these applications interact at multiple data points. For that, we use software load balancers. 

It has been functional. We don't have any outages. 

When we go serverless, we may again have to revisit this because the configuration needs to be changed. With this change, we can run into a lot of other configurations that we haven't got into, which involve additional expenses. It would be challenging to convince management to buy at that price point. It would be a balancing act of justifying that expense and the value, that is, how it is going to save a bit of time and make our platform secure.

It can have better configuration ability. A lot of iterations happen when we have multiple servers pointing to the same domain. If we do not orchestrate carefully, it gets into a loop, which takes away the precious time of the user who is trying to subscribe to a service. It takes a little longer time to realize services as well as web pages.

I have been using this solution for the past four months.

It is stable. We don't have any outages.

It is scalable. It is a load balancer. We have around 2 lakh customers who are using our systems. Every single login has to go through these load balancers.

In terms of our plans to increase its usage, we are thinking of implementing our solution across the cloud. Therefore, when we go serverless, we may need a lot of cloud balancers. We will have to move to a virtual cloud balancer, which is altogether a multi-cloud. We want to take it across multiple geographic locations, which would be huge work.

They are excellent. I would rate them a ten out of ten.

The initial setup was easy. We took it into production after two days, and it took less than 30 minutes.

We implemented it ourselves, but consultants gave us all the information and required knowledge about how to verify. We spent two days doing a hands-on exercise in our staging area, and we were able to understand the entire software ergonomics. After we understood and played around, we finally did some hackathon. We finally concluded that the build is safe and secure, so we posted it. After that, we decided to post it to production. It took less than 30 minutes. We have three DevOps. Our overall software development team has around 20 people.

Currently, no cost is involved with a virtual load balancer. They have used open source. We did not pay for software. We paid for the expertise. We are only paying the consulting charges, which are very reasonable, that is, around a thousand dollars.

The load balancer that we're using right now is for having a tougher load balance between all the services. Very soon, we are looking forward to rolling out a serverless platform on Azure so that we remove the dependency on DevOps configurations and having this container management hub. We will move to a virtual load balancer. They have offered us a pretty competitive price. We are not using all the capabilities. We are only using a subset. We are in touch with their team, and they are very collaborative.

I would definitely recommend this solution to others. If they're looking out for a load balancer for a cloud or on-premises deployment, Kemp LoadMaster definitely works.

I would rate Kemp LoadMaster a nine out of ten. It is hard to find a thing to complain about.

Most interesting features are like geo-redundancy, support of important Microsoft application like Exchange, Lync, Sharepoint, Skype for business etc. It also integration with Azure make unique about this tool.

It help to provide efficiently and robust load balance of Exchange servers when one or more server/service failure occurs.

It needs to offer support for more business applications.

We had no issues with the deployment.

There were no issues with the stability.

We have had no issues with scaling it for our needs.

They are are very knowledgeable and friendly.

They are are very knowledgeable and friendly.

Implementation was easy. We implemented the virtual load balancer and it was a very simple and straightforward installation

I would recommend trying the trial version, and if it meets all your needs then go ahead and implement it.

Having LDAP authentication from the LoadMaster to the AD.

Edge Security Pack, because of the way it differentiates between critical infrastructure and the public internet. That, I think, is essential.

They need to improve the UI environment. Currently, it's hard to navigate and use product.

No issues with stability.

No issues with scalability.

I would rate tech support at nine out of 10.

This is the first such solution we have used.

It has a great price for the solution they offer.

We evaluated Azure but we preferred Kemp.

We do not use this solution on AWS.

Ease of usage and configuration templates to make deployment easy.

I would say overall improvement of the solution features

We have been proposing it to end customers from last July and have been using the Virtual edition.

no

no

no

nil

good

Previously we were proposing Citrix NetScaler or F5. We switched due to cost.

Very straightforward.

Yes, Citrix NetScaler and F5.

Try the VLM edition to get a feeling for the product.

We are using Kemp Virtual LoadMaster for Microsoft Exchange load balancing, Skype for Business reverse proxy, and Oracle Forms load balancing.

For Skype for Business, we were using Microsoft TMG which is now end-of-support. Then we tried to use IIS as a reverse proxy but that feature was not suitable, especially on video calls where there were many issues. When we started using KEMP, we didn't face a single connectivity or delay issue on Skype for Business.

Previously, when we had maintenance on Exchange Servers, we had to take downtime. Also, whenever there was a glitch in the network our cluster got shifted to the secondary node. With KEMP, we don’t have to take any downtime for maintenance nor do we face any Outlook disconnect issue when there is a network interruption.

The load balancing for Exchange and reverse proxy for Skype are the features I like about it so far.

Reporting and monitoring need serious improvement.