You need to have a basic knowledge of load balancers to use the solution. You can deploy the solution on-premises or on the cloud. Analytics-wise, the solution is much better compared to other vendors. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.
Loadbalancer.org is highly valuable for organizations dealing with extensive file transfers. It helps prevent server overload by distributing the load across multiple servers, ensuring stability and enhancing security. I would rate it an eight out of ten.
I give the solution a ten out of ten. Our organization purchased the enterprise R20 set up and we are currently using version 8.4.3. of the solution. We have two telephone switches, one in New York and one in LA, the Loadbalancer.org devices in the Enterprise R2 solution are on Dell N240s in our data centers. The other feature that I like about the solution is the graphing for network bandwidth and system load averages that are right on your front screen. You can see when somebody's attacking you. Throw that picture up on a screen in your NOC, and then you can see how your domains are doing. When there's a sudden spike from normal traffic, say five megabytes, and now all of a sudden it hits 50 megabytes, you know there's something going on. Look at the WAF logs. Regarding stability, the box has been up for three years. They are deployed in an N+1. We had a router crash, on the underlying router of the network. We had an instance where the default router crashed and it was brought back up and the Loadbalancer itself did a switchover to the other device and became active. It was stable for over a year after that. Overall the solution is very stable, with no crash problems. We're not running a huge load through it. For example, our system load of the N240 box is probably less than 2%. It's not pushing a lot. The amount of traffic we are pulling through is maybe at peak times for SIP provisioning servers for phones, maybe 10 megabytes. We run roughly 20,000 phone lines and customer portals through the WAF. It's not a heavy load, but they've been very consistent, with no crashes, and good support. I find their support contracts in this industry reasonable. When you purchase this solution you get the extra firewall, you get the HAProxy control, you get the WAF rules, and you get a Loadbalancer functionality if you ever need it. The solution requires on average one person for one hour a day to maintain. I recommend learning how to write your own rules to match your deployment after starting with the standard delivered set. Customization is easy! Know what is good on your system and what's bad on your own system when you see these Internet requests coming in. For an enterprise, you could use this device to lock down any unwanted entry to your network to make yourself truly private. If you know the IP addresses of your sites, you can tell this device, "Don't let anything else through." Have some dedicated personnel monitoring it at first for two to three weeks in order to get the rules correct, the way you want to improve, or control your network traffic. Then turn on the blocking. After that, do your daily monitoring for about an hour a day to see if anything needs to be modified.
I would definitely recommend this solution. It's highly scalable. There are different scenarios provided to suit different customers. If it's a small environment, there is a box card virtual plan that allows up to 2000 concurrent users to load balance. If the load is high, there is the option of a physical box and physical scaler. If there's a higher load, one can opt for SDX that works as a cluster. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.
Senior Network and Security Specialist at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 20
2022-07-06T15:05:15Z
Jul 6, 2022
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.
I would recommend this solution for small businesses with limited resources and do not have complicated requirements. I would rate Loadbalancer.org an eight out of ten.
IT manager at a university with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
2020-12-03T15:07:14Z
Dec 3, 2020
We are planning to change to another load balancer with the bonding capability feature. I would recommend this solution to others, but it would be better if it had the bonding capability. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.
Assistant Manager at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
2020-04-19T07:40:00Z
Apr 19, 2020
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.
IT Manager at a recruiting/HR firm with 51-200 employees
Real User
2018-02-28T07:44:00Z
Feb 28, 2018
For what it is and what it does, it's not a very glamorous piece of kit. It's a load balancer, it takes the connection and decides where to put it, to another server or somewhere else. It's the speed at which it can do it and the fact that when it does go wrong - and obviously things do happen - how quickly and how well the company resolves it. Those are the two things which make us stick with and recommend it to anyone else. Most people, if they need a load balancer, they know that they need a load balancer. It's not something which you can just say, "Oh yeah, I was talking to the guy in the pub, and he said, 'Oh you really need to get one of these.'" It's quite a very specific requirement to have one. But if anyone does need one, absolutely, it's bang on. Give it a go. They're great.
Loadbalancer.org is a versatile solution that offers load balancing for small businesses, multiple instances of applications, web application firewall, publishing Windows and SQL applications, and security for telephone service systems. It is easy to use, cost-effective, and performs well with low latency.
The connection maintenance and security features are valuable, including managing logs on WAFs, identifying break-in attempts writing rules to block them and using HAProxy to control...
I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.
You need to have a basic knowledge of load balancers to use the solution. You can deploy the solution on-premises or on the cloud. Analytics-wise, the solution is much better compared to other vendors. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.
Loadbalancer.org is highly valuable for organizations dealing with extensive file transfers. It helps prevent server overload by distributing the load across multiple servers, ensuring stability and enhancing security. I would rate it an eight out of ten.
I rate loadbalancer.org 10 out of 10. It is an essential solution, but it can be tricky, so you need to test your use case.
I give the solution a ten out of ten. Our organization purchased the enterprise R20 set up and we are currently using version 8.4.3. of the solution. We have two telephone switches, one in New York and one in LA, the Loadbalancer.org devices in the Enterprise R2 solution are on Dell N240s in our data centers. The other feature that I like about the solution is the graphing for network bandwidth and system load averages that are right on your front screen. You can see when somebody's attacking you. Throw that picture up on a screen in your NOC, and then you can see how your domains are doing. When there's a sudden spike from normal traffic, say five megabytes, and now all of a sudden it hits 50 megabytes, you know there's something going on. Look at the WAF logs. Regarding stability, the box has been up for three years. They are deployed in an N+1. We had a router crash, on the underlying router of the network. We had an instance where the default router crashed and it was brought back up and the Loadbalancer itself did a switchover to the other device and became active. It was stable for over a year after that. Overall the solution is very stable, with no crash problems. We're not running a huge load through it. For example, our system load of the N240 box is probably less than 2%. It's not pushing a lot. The amount of traffic we are pulling through is maybe at peak times for SIP provisioning servers for phones, maybe 10 megabytes. We run roughly 20,000 phone lines and customer portals through the WAF. It's not a heavy load, but they've been very consistent, with no crashes, and good support. I find their support contracts in this industry reasonable. When you purchase this solution you get the extra firewall, you get the HAProxy control, you get the WAF rules, and you get a Loadbalancer functionality if you ever need it. The solution requires on average one person for one hour a day to maintain. I recommend learning how to write your own rules to match your deployment after starting with the standard delivered set. Customization is easy! Know what is good on your system and what's bad on your own system when you see these Internet requests coming in. For an enterprise, you could use this device to lock down any unwanted entry to your network to make yourself truly private. If you know the IP addresses of your sites, you can tell this device, "Don't let anything else through." Have some dedicated personnel monitoring it at first for two to three weeks in order to get the rules correct, the way you want to improve, or control your network traffic. Then turn on the blocking. After that, do your daily monitoring for about an hour a day to see if anything needs to be modified.
I would definitely recommend this solution. It's highly scalable. There are different scenarios provided to suit different customers. If it's a small environment, there is a box card virtual plan that allows up to 2000 concurrent users to load balance. If the load is high, there is the option of a physical box and physical scaler. If there's a higher load, one can opt for SDX that works as a cluster. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.
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.
I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.
I would recommend this solution for small businesses with limited resources and do not have complicated requirements. I would rate Loadbalancer.org an eight out of ten.
We are planning to change to another load balancer with the bonding capability feature. I would recommend this solution to others, but it would be better if it had the bonding capability. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.
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.
For what it is and what it does, it's not a very glamorous piece of kit. It's a load balancer, it takes the connection and decides where to put it, to another server or somewhere else. It's the speed at which it can do it and the fact that when it does go wrong - and obviously things do happen - how quickly and how well the company resolves it. Those are the two things which make us stick with and recommend it to anyone else. Most people, if they need a load balancer, they know that they need a load balancer. It's not something which you can just say, "Oh yeah, I was talking to the guy in the pub, and he said, 'Oh you really need to get one of these.'" It's quite a very specific requirement to have one. But if anyone does need one, absolutely, it's bang on. Give it a go. They're great.