The solution doesn't require any maintenance. I think Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is very easy to configure, a good software, and a good platform overall. It's easy to use, making it better for the user. I rate the overall solution a ten out of ten.
I'd advise potential new users to exploit the next-generation capability in Load Balancer. Everyone should consider this next-generation solution for the deployment and high availability of applications. I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.
Network Security Consultant at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
2022-09-19T10:53:52Z
Sep 19, 2022
I rate this product ten out of ten. The solution is entirely virtual. SDDC technologies drive it, and the integration with other projects is compelling. Additionally, it has been used in a VMware tonsil product. It is a good solution, but the security features can be improved.
I'm in sales and I sell Avi Networks Software Load Balancer to enterprise customers in the North America area. I have enough familiarity with the product. I have customers that have deployed Avi Networks Software Load Balancer in all of the various models: on-premises, hybrid, and all the various permutations of that. In terms of user roles for Avi Networks Software Load Balancer, the typical user roles are networking and security teams, though some customers are more progressive and rely on development organizations to manage balancing capability. More of the legacy environments would have a networking security team that would operate the platform as you get into more of the hyperscale and the dev-ops organizations that are a little bit more progressive. The development teams make that part of the CICD pipeline and operate the platform in an agile way. As for how much staff is required for the deployment and maintenance of Avi Networks Software Load Balancer, it varies. There's no prescribed number of operators per workload, and the intent is because it was developed as a cloud-first type of platform, it's very automated in low touch as far as operational requirements and overhead, versus some of the competition I've seen out there. Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is on the very efficient side of low operator requirements for deployment versus what you may have typically seen, for example, a hundred applications per administrator ratio. It just depends on how the organization operates and how the operations teams are organized and divided. My company has a lot of customers that are operating F5 and NetScaler, and many of the other competitor platforms, and I don't see customers making large new investments in more staff to bring in Avi Networks Software Load Balancer as part of the solution mix, so it's a solution customers can bring in and not overburden existing teams with. The advice I would give others looking into implementing the solution is to not look at Avi Networks Software Load Balancer as a brand new load balancer that is complex and hard to deploy, but look at it more as a cloud-first architecture that provides both automation to ease operations, and analytics that provides real-time feedback on platform health and how it's able to auto remediate any problems that it might have. It's not a new, scary skill set that some operations team is now burdened with, rather, it's more of a very efficient tool that makes jobs easier. I'd give Avi Networks Software Load Balancer a rating of eight out of ten. I don't know if there's any platform out there that can get a ten, but this solution is on the very high end.
Go for it, but do it in chunks. The best way to implement Avi Networks is not to do it like F5. With Avi Networks, you need to understand the product and you need to conceptualize your network exactly like Avi Networks conceptualizes it. You cannot do it in the way that traditional data centers are set up. For example, F5 as a box, holds 700 virtual servers, supporting 700 applications. You cannot do that on Avi Networks. So when I say to do it in chunks, that means you need to set up three or four Avi Networks Software Load Balancers, distribute the licenses accordingly, and then run it. That should definitely work, so that one will not end up with CPU spikes or that kind of thing. The fact that it's a virtual appliance, it's not a hardware appliance, is a great thing because with a hardware appliance it's just one appliance and then you need to buy another one. But with virtual, you can always spin up another server and you can make as many application delivery controllers you want. Avi Networks has some great innovations. It just didn't fit in with our requirements. I did not go with it because their APM module is a different product altogether. It's a common thing that companies do. They sell something and then they add on top of it as a different product. It is a type of marketing strategy. But when it comes to the overall management, it takes a lot of time to really look into it. If it is one box, great. But when it's one module and then another module and another module, separately, there can be a lot of hassle.
Devops & OpenShift Architect at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
2020-03-30T07:58:00Z
Mar 30, 2020
I would recommend this solution to anybody considering it. In the next release, I would like to see better documentation and better pricing. I would rate it a nine out of ten.
Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is an application delivery controller (ADC) platform. The solution provides scalable application delivery across any infrastructure and allows your organization to deliver multi-cloud application services, such as load balancing, autoscaling, application security, container networking, and web application firewall. It is designed with 100% software load balancing to ensure a fast and secure application experience. Additionally, Avi Networks Software Load...
I have more than ten years of IT experience. If the pricing is lowered, the product will sell more. Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.
The solution doesn't require any maintenance. I think Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is very easy to configure, a good software, and a good platform overall. It's easy to use, making it better for the user. I rate the overall solution a ten out of ten.
I'd advise potential new users to exploit the next-generation capability in Load Balancer. Everyone should consider this next-generation solution for the deployment and high availability of applications. I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.
I rate this product ten out of ten. The solution is entirely virtual. SDDC technologies drive it, and the integration with other projects is compelling. Additionally, it has been used in a VMware tonsil product. It is a good solution, but the security features can be improved.
I'm in sales and I sell Avi Networks Software Load Balancer to enterprise customers in the North America area. I have enough familiarity with the product. I have customers that have deployed Avi Networks Software Load Balancer in all of the various models: on-premises, hybrid, and all the various permutations of that. In terms of user roles for Avi Networks Software Load Balancer, the typical user roles are networking and security teams, though some customers are more progressive and rely on development organizations to manage balancing capability. More of the legacy environments would have a networking security team that would operate the platform as you get into more of the hyperscale and the dev-ops organizations that are a little bit more progressive. The development teams make that part of the CICD pipeline and operate the platform in an agile way. As for how much staff is required for the deployment and maintenance of Avi Networks Software Load Balancer, it varies. There's no prescribed number of operators per workload, and the intent is because it was developed as a cloud-first type of platform, it's very automated in low touch as far as operational requirements and overhead, versus some of the competition I've seen out there. Avi Networks Software Load Balancer is on the very efficient side of low operator requirements for deployment versus what you may have typically seen, for example, a hundred applications per administrator ratio. It just depends on how the organization operates and how the operations teams are organized and divided. My company has a lot of customers that are operating F5 and NetScaler, and many of the other competitor platforms, and I don't see customers making large new investments in more staff to bring in Avi Networks Software Load Balancer as part of the solution mix, so it's a solution customers can bring in and not overburden existing teams with. The advice I would give others looking into implementing the solution is to not look at Avi Networks Software Load Balancer as a brand new load balancer that is complex and hard to deploy, but look at it more as a cloud-first architecture that provides both automation to ease operations, and analytics that provides real-time feedback on platform health and how it's able to auto remediate any problems that it might have. It's not a new, scary skill set that some operations team is now burdened with, rather, it's more of a very efficient tool that makes jobs easier. I'd give Avi Networks Software Load Balancer a rating of eight out of ten. I don't know if there's any platform out there that can get a ten, but this solution is on the very high end.
Go for it, but do it in chunks. The best way to implement Avi Networks is not to do it like F5. With Avi Networks, you need to understand the product and you need to conceptualize your network exactly like Avi Networks conceptualizes it. You cannot do it in the way that traditional data centers are set up. For example, F5 as a box, holds 700 virtual servers, supporting 700 applications. You cannot do that on Avi Networks. So when I say to do it in chunks, that means you need to set up three or four Avi Networks Software Load Balancers, distribute the licenses accordingly, and then run it. That should definitely work, so that one will not end up with CPU spikes or that kind of thing. The fact that it's a virtual appliance, it's not a hardware appliance, is a great thing because with a hardware appliance it's just one appliance and then you need to buy another one. But with virtual, you can always spin up another server and you can make as many application delivery controllers you want. Avi Networks has some great innovations. It just didn't fit in with our requirements. I did not go with it because their APM module is a different product altogether. It's a common thing that companies do. They sell something and then they add on top of it as a different product. It is a type of marketing strategy. But when it comes to the overall management, it takes a lot of time to really look into it. If it is one box, great. But when it's one module and then another module and another module, separately, there can be a lot of hassle.
I would recommend this solution to anybody considering it. In the next release, I would like to see better documentation and better pricing. I would rate it a nine out of ten.