Loadbalancer.org Reviews

We use Loadbalancer for balancing loads in our main application.

Loadbalancer is easy to use. It performs well, with low latency. 

I would like it if Loadbalancer had the ability to make rules for specific shared bots.

I've been using Loadbalancer for about two years.

For us, for the company, this is stable. 

You can scale up the core license at any time. It's not a big issue. You just add the license. And if we want to upgrade, we can install a new appliance or a new version then take the backup from the old one and deploy it to the new one. Currently, Loadbalancer is handling up to 10,000 decisions each day.

I recommend paying for a support license. I opened one ticket because one service wasn't working. After that, we ran some diagnostics and determined that we needed to upgrade something, then we integrated everything on our side. We only had one case in a year, so Loadbalancer is good.

We pay a monthly subscription for Loadbalancer.

I rate Loadbalancer.org seven out of 10. I would recommend Loadbalancer for some companies. It depends on the management. It needs to be a good fit for your business requirements. 

It helps us to route the traffic to the available servers. If we didn't have Loadbalancer we would fail to set the end-user and it would cause a failure in the cluster. We protect the cluster with Loadbalancer. It checks all of the nodes in the backend, in the fabric. If you enable the monitor it will set an alarm in the server. When a user gets an application, this alarm alerts the user.

The configuration of Azure is a lot more simple than with Loadbalancer. It was very simple to configure it. There are many features you can set in the backend of Loadbalancer. They should simplify the configuration. The administrator should be able to configure it more simply. How it is now, you can only configure it if you have a lot of experience. 

I have been using Loadbalancer for six months. 

So far we haven't had any bugs or glitches with Loadbalancer. 

I haven't needed to contacted technical support yet. 

The deployment took two to three hours. I did the deployment myself. 

I would recommend this solution. It's a market leader. The admin should know the product well before configuring it. They need experience. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten. Not a ten out of ten because of the complex configuration. 

To have live failover for an intranet site we are using, and to monitor live user connections.

It does what it’s supposed to do which is balancing an important intranet site we are using, so if one server dies, the second becomes active straight away. The site is 24/7, so it’s crucial for us to always have it up and running.

It’s really difficult to say as we use it, as I mentioned, just to have the failover for our websites. We rarely access the interface; maybe to do a backup from time to time, or when we have connectivity issues to check if people are connecting.

If I have to say something, I suppose they could add an automated configuration backup to an FTP location (or something similar) so you don’t have to manually do it. I don’t see this as a problem, of course, as the configuration rarely changes and we only need one backup, but maybe for other users this feature would be handy.

Nothing at all.

No problems so far.

I used it once for an activation-key issue we had, and they helped me straight away, so 10 out of 10.

No previous solution.

Really user friendly, so no problem here.

The appliances have not had a measurable effect on our operating costs (payback on investment).

I think it’s very affordable, nothing more to add.

My advice to others considering this product is that they will experience a very good, stable product which is very easy to set up.

It has different models doing different things. One is basic load balancing. The other is doing a web application firewall. Another use case is for handling VPN exposure resources. There is one doing advanced DNS sharing as well.

F5 is a balancer that is one of the first to do this kind of thing, so it's pretty much a Swiss Army knife for managing all the load balancing techniques. It's pretty much complete in terms of the offering.

I can’t think of any new features the solution really needs.

The solution can be a bit pricey.

The solution is designed more toward larger organizations and, therefore would be a bit expensive for smaller companies.

I’ve been using the solution for more than a decade.

The solution is pretty stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn’t crash or freeze. It’s reliable.

The solution is scalable.

In terms of users, the only limit is that the solution is already a bit expanded. It is mostly for big companies that have budgets to afford it. However, you can also find a few small companies with VM solutions or maybe smaller appliances.

We work a lot with F5 technical support. They are pretty good in general.

I'm not an IT expert. I'm just a research analyst. That said, the initial setup is pretty much straightforward. It doesn't require any specific skillsets. You just need basic knowledge. That would be enough to set up the appliance.

To deploy it pretty much depends on the environment, and that's a jungle there. Everybody has their own idea of what they want to do with it. Basically, you’re applying the load balancer, and it's pretty straightforward. The load balancing strategy will depend on the use case, so it's not something that you can prepare in advance as each organization is a bit different.

Maintenance is another story. If the people using it know the product, they can do both (deploy and maintain). However, you can also have separate teams doing each piece.

I’m an integrator and reseller. I work with F5 partners. F5 has regional partners around the world. These are partners with, I don't know, diamond status, for example.

We do the implementation.

I don’t have any visibility of the ROI a company might be able to achieve.

I have a rough idea of the cost. However, I don’t generally handle licensing details. I’m not sure, for example, if support is included or an extra cost.

I’d rate it a four out of five in terms of affordability, with five being the most expensive.

Basically, I'm a consultant, so I implement things. I don't use them personally. However, I do implement for customers. I work with people that are F5 partners.

I’m currently using the F5 version. The current new version is 16 dot something.

I work primarily on-premises as these are still appliances, VMware physical appliances. VMware is mostly on-prem.

I’d rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The Loadbalancer.org appliance sits directly behind our firewall, terminates all of our SSL/HTTP traffic and then directs it to the backend servers depending on the requested service.

This has allowed us to use multiple NATD back end web servers with one single public IP Address and different domain names whilst keeping our services up and running.

SSL Termination with Server Name Indicator option to a Layer 7 back end web farm which allows the client IP address to still be passed.

HTTP API would be really helpful, but they do have a command line api which is used over a SSH connection

We have not, as of yet, had any issues with the stability of the units.

We have not had any problems with scalability.

Customer Service:

The customer service and tech team are basically the same within Loadbalancer.org.

Technical Support:

The technical support at Loadbalancer.org is possibly one of the best that I have had to deal with and it is 24/7, too. They do not always know the answer right away, but you can be sure that they will support you through to a working solution.

HAProxy, we needed a maintenance and the support agreement as we were outgrowing our in-house knowledge.

The basic setup of the unit was straightforward. Once services are up and running, you can then change some of the advanced settings, which are not shown to start with.

The cost of the hardware units was talked over with the sales team, who then helped to ensure that we had the correct unit size and support cost at the start of the project. We have since upgraded our license and this was just the difference between the original and the new license.

We also looked at Kemp. Before this, we were using an in-house version of HAProxy, but ended up needing support.

The Loadbalancer.org product has helped reduce our tech teams time on manual maintenance of our load balancer and the development of the product is ever evolving.

Loadbalancer.org is used in a bank. All the traffic we forward to the QA are being redirected to Loadbalancer.org. There are additional load balancers created through Microsoft Azure and the traffic is being forwarded there as an additional layer to Loadbalancer.org where we are only using IP addresses and reports.

The interface from Loadbalancer.org should be improved.

I have been using Loadbalancer.org for a couple of months.

Loadbalancer.org is stable.

The scalability of Loadbalancer.org has been fine since I have been using it.

We have approximately 10 IT staff utilizing this solution.

The support we have received from Loadbalancer.org has been good.

I rate the support from Loadbalancer.org a nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup of Loadbalancer.org is simple.

We used a consultant for the implementation.

We have approximately three engineers that do the maintenance of this solution.

I would recommend others to focus on the network and learn how the solution works fully and they should understand the concepts behind it.

I rate Loadbalancer.org an eight out of ten.

We are a supplier of medical healthcare IT solutions with a focus on radiology departments. We use it to create a redundant solution with automatic failover.

We use the hardware and the software version of the Loadbalancer.org product line.

The load balancers have an easy installation and a relatively simple, easy user interface to use, which is valuable because it is not the core business of our engineers to configure network devices. With basic network knowledge, our required system functionality can be configured and maintained.

The automatic refresh of the System Overview webpage: It sometimes has an extra webpage reload (after a change) before you see it is executed. This can be confusing.

Also, possibly a more graphical overview page (with colors) to give a two second overview to see if everything is working fine.

Not so far. It seems to be very stable. In the past, we had issues with the Secure Digital (SD) cards which got corrupted and prevented the system to restart. I think this is better with the new line.

No scalability issues.

Their technical support is very supportive and knowledgeable.

No previous solution was used.

The initial setup was straightforward.

I do not know if my company evaluated other solutions.