Steelhead Reviews

I am currently working with Riverbed for replication between PR to DR for synchronization purposes, and for WAN optimization between replication from one data center to another data center. The main use case of Steelhead is for replication and branch connectivity for WAN optimization purposes. The goal is to achieve WAN optimization. For example, if I have a 500 GB link and use this product for WAN traffic over the 500 GB, it reduces traffic by 70 to 90%. The 500 GB traffic would reduce to around 100 GB. The main purpose of Steelhead is reducing bandwidth from 500 GB to around 100 GB. This reduction helps in lowering the cost of bandwidth that was previously paid to ISP service providers. Riverbed solution also claims it reduces latency and response times.

The logs in Steelhead are fantastic. There is a deep level of logs such as top 10 docker and top 50 docker. I can check from the top 50 docker which type of application is optimizing well and which type of traffic is not optimized. Steelhead provides logs and percentage levels, which is good. I can see any type of log report, report security, different types of report availability, but it is not customizable. Overall, this is a good feature.

Steelhead provides real-time optimization with graphs and tables on real-time optimization, informing us packet by packet including port, source IP, destination IP, and destination port number. This reporting and real-time monitoring is fantastic, although I faced a problem in Oracle.

Steelhead mainly saves the money that needs to be paid to ISPs. My actual traffic is around 2 GB, but I purchased a link from the ISP for only around 700 to 800 MB. All the prices that need to be paid monthly to the ISP are saved, which is a significant saving for my company after using Riverbed.

In my experience with Steelhead, monitoring tools, logs, and live monitoring features can be improved. These are fantastic now, but a few additional options can be added. Oracle performance is a main concern. Steelhead is very expensive, and the vendor should work on handling Oracle type of traffic better.

I have been working with Steelhead for the last three years.

Steelhead is a stable device. I can say it is stable due to its significant features. For instance, even if there is a power failure, Riverbed still works. If the power is unplugged from Riverbed, it goes into fail-to-wire mode.

Steelhead is not too scalable due to its licensing scenario. I have a model that provides only two licensing options. When I asked my vendor partner to increase the bandwidth, they told me the box is in full utilization license. Therefore, it is not scalable, as there are only two options: 300 or 600 MB. If a customer has 1 GB traffic, they will only be able to utilize 600 MB of traffic with Steelhead.

I have no issues with technical support from Riverbed, and I would rate them eight out of ten.

Positive

In Pakistan, Riverbed is only focused on WAN optimization. For NPM, there are many other solutions working such as SolarWinds and others. Steelhead solution is the only Riverbed solution available in Pakistan for WAN optimization.

The setup process for Steelhead is somewhat complex because the behavior of Riverbed is different from other networking devices such as firewalls, routers, and switches. There is one in-path, but the in-path has two different interfaces, which can confuse beginners during deployment. The deployment process is a little difficult, but after deployment, operation is smooth with no issues. Cable connectivity is acceptable.

I have considered multiple competitors, but I have not worked with any of them, such as Cisco, which also provides a WAN optimization solution, so I cannot comment on their products.

Application performance may improve with Steelhead, but it varies application to application. Some applications, such as Oracle traffic, are not working well, but other traffic performs fine. The traffic is passing, but Oracle DB traffic experiences lag and slowness due to Steelhead, while other applications perform fine.

There are very few improvements. I cannot say anything definitively, but it may have reduced page load time by 5 to 10%. This is not a significant improvement. With Oracle, my Oracle DB traffic was very slow.

Overall, I am satisfied with Steelhead. I would rate the price for the product as seven to eight due to it being high. I would rate Steelhead with a final mark of six to seven, with six being a better option in my opinion.

We use Riverbed Steelhead devices for WAN optimization, which saves us considerable money on our international bandwidth. It's particularly beneficial for optimizing bandwidth while connecting internationally between multiple international DCs.

Steelhead has drastically improved user experience. Users, even those far from the server location, experience performance as if the applications were locally hosted. This has optimized our MPLS bandwidth usage and overall network performance without requiring upgrades.

There are several features specific to branches, like keeping data hot and active on Steelhead devices. These features prevent unnecessary data travel across the international MPLS. Additionally, functions like acting as an NTP server, DNS, DHCP for branches and auto-optimization mode enhance efficiency along with really good QoS for bandwidth shaping.

There was a significant challenge when moving from an older version to a newer one due to change in QoS policies. It would help if Riverbed could prevent such drastic impacts during updates. Utilizing AI for faster resolution in support cases could be beneficial like Cisco TAC

I have been working with Steelhead for more than 12 years now.

Steelhead is a very stable solution. In my 14 years of usage, I can attribute only one international MPLS outage due to Steelhead. It's quite stable and provides all necessary alerts if something is wrong.

Steelhead is scalable, and I would rate its scalability as eight out of ten. It allows us to maximize use of our MPLS providers by handling traffic efficiently across phased deployments.

Steelhead's support is generally good for typical issues yet can be time-consuming during complex problem-solving across teams, particularly for Active Directory integration.

Neutral

Before Steelhead, when didn't use a similar solution. We were constantly increasing our MPLS bandwidth as our business requirements changed from time to time. Shaping bandwidth on cisco device was challenging too.

The initial setup is relatively easy, which I'd rate as eight out of ten. Some challenges arose from familiarizing oneself with the platform and integration intricacies.

We used third-party professional services from Dimension Data for the initial configuration. One engineer per site was sufficient for the deployment process.

The return on investment is significant. Without Steelhead, we would have spent much more on bandwidth costs. Additionally, the user experience is drastically improved.

Buying the hardware initially is costly, but yearly maintenance and licenses are not as expensive. Across our 12 data centers, we spend around $150k annually.

If you are using Steelhead, it's crucial to utilize all features such as the quality of service and Active Directory integration to maximize bandwidth optimization.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Positive

Our major use case involves optimizing data replication between the primary and backup data centers in a banking system. Typically, banks have multiple data centers, and they replicate data for backup and disaster recovery. Using Steelhead devices between these centers helps in optimizing bandwidth, which is crucial as dedicated fiber and bandwidth can be expensive.

The most valuable feature of Steelhead is its optimization capabilities.

One area for improvement is related to monitoring and visibility. Specifically, when I created two in-path interfaces between two Steelhead nodes, I faced a limitation in tracking traffic on each channel separately. The current system only provides a comprehensive graph for all traffic passing through, without the ability to distinguish between traffic on interface one and interface two. It would be beneficial if Steelhead could offer more detailed insights, allowing users to monitor and analyze the traffic on each specific interface separately. 

I have been working with Steelhead for a year.

In terms of stability, Steelhead performs well with no downtime. Even in situations like a power outage, the traffic continues to pass through the box, though optimization temporarily stops. It is a robust system that ensures uninterrupted traffic flow. Additionally, the option to use two boxes in High Availability mode adds an extra layer of stability. If one box encounters issues, the standby box acts as a backup, maintaining a smooth operation. The technology is resilient, ensuring that productivity doesn't halt even if optimization is temporarily paused. Overall, it is a stable solution without noticeable lag, crashes, or downtime.

Steelhead is quite scalable. If a customer wants to add another site, like opening a new branch office in a third city, it is a straightforward process. You just need one more box with the necessary license. Setting it up involves creating two rules - one in the existing HQ device and another in the new remote office. This scalability makes it easy to expand the network without significant issues.

The technical support from Steelhead is good. As a relevant gold partner, we handle customer contacts and, if needed, personally visit the customer site to resolve issues. If a challenge persists, contacting Steelhead's higher-level engineers usually gets a response within one to two hours, depending on the ticket priority. I find their support to be fast and accurate, with an accuracy rate of around 80-90%. I would rate the support as an eight out of ten.

Positive

I have had hands-on experience with the initial setup of Steelhead, particularly in deploying it for a banking system in Pakistan. The deployment involved two cities, Karachi and Larkana, with around sixteen to eighteen branches. To start, we needed licenses for both Steelhead devices, crucial for optimizing traffic. Understanding the volume of traffic between the nodes is essential. For instance, if there is a 1 GB traffic requirement, we need to select a license capable of optimizing that volume. While the claim is that Steelhead can optimize up to 90%, we typically set realistic expectations, aiming for 60-70% optimization. Choosing the right device, analyzing its processing capabilities, ensuring hardware compatibility with the selected license, and understanding the specific requirements are key aspects of the setup process. The initial installation of Steelhead is more about careful planning than complex configuration. The trickiest part is deciding on the right device, box, and license. Figuring out which box suits the purpose and which license can handle the expected traffic volume is crucial. Once that is sorted, the configuration itself is relatively straightforward, mostly done through a user-friendly GUI. The key for engineers is understanding how to analyze the graphs and reports. During deployment, the focus shifts to selecting the appropriate box, software version, and license. The reports become essential for ongoing optimization. The full installation of Steelhead typically takes around one day. However, I usually monitor the system for about a week after deployment to gather mature data and generate comprehensive reports. The deployment of Steelhead is a team effort, not a solo task. Typically, it involves a presales person and a technician, especially if we are setting up in a data center. The infrastructure management and operations team, including system, network, and software teams, are also part of the process. In total, around nine to ten people might be involved, depending on the specific needs.

The pricing for Steelhead is on the higher side, especially when compared to other products like SolarWinds. However, the support provided by Steelhead is exceptional, adding significant value to the overall package.

My advice to new users considering Steelhead is to focus on its strengths, particularly in WAN optimization. If the primary requirement is monitoring tools like NTA, then SolarWinds might be a more suitable recommendation. It is about aligning the solution with the specific needs of the user, and in the context of WAN optimization, Steelhead is a strong choice. Overall, I would rate Steelhead as a six out of ten, mainly because it is on the expensive side.

The tool is useful as an optimization tool, especially in scenarios with limited bandwidth, like intra-connecting sites. It optimizes WAN traffic so that critical traffic gets priority and is optimized, preventing the bandwidth from being exhausted too quickly.

One of our most valuable features is Steelhead's cloud migration optimization. Moving to the cloud helped optimize our workflow, improving performance for end-users.

In terms of data optimization, the key benefit is the optimization itself, as it can result in significant improvements. With Steelhead, you can achieve up to a 25% optimization rate. For example, instead of passing one terabyte of data via one link, Steelhead can bring it down to as fast as 300. So, in terms of cost-benefit analysis, you realize many benefits.

Using Steelhead provides several benefits to the company. Firstly, it makes the client application easier to use. Additionally, it helps optimize costs by reducing bandwidth requirements.

The product needs improvement in its integration with SDN. 

I have been using the product for 15 years. 

The product is stable.

The solution is scalable. My company has 4000 users. 

Steelhead's support is impressive. 

Positive

The tool's deployment is not complex. You would need five resources for the technical team. 

With the installation or deployment of Steelhead, we optimize the WAN instead of buying additional tools or increasing our internet capacity. We're able to optimize our bandwidth, which, optimizes our return on investment.

WAN optimization is Steelhead's most valuable feature. 

Steelhead's handling of encrypted traffic could be improved because it requires some complex configuration to optimize encrypted traffic, especially when working with Microsoft protocols for mail servers and VPN services

Steelhead is stable, and it can even help you avoid service interruption in the event of a power outage. If your hardware fails, technical support will replace your device quickly. 

I rate Steelhead support six out of 10. Their technical level is fine, but it's hard to reach them at the call center.

Neutral

Setting up Steelhead is straightforward. You place it in the rack, connect it to your console, and plug in the IP address for the management interface. It only takes a little time to get everything running. You will need some additional configuration to optimize encrypted traffic, but the initial configuration is simple. 

I work on the technical side, so I don't know the price, but I know it's expensive and consists of multiple modules. There are devices for each scale, and the prices vary. Every device can support a specified number of sessions. For example, a customer can deploy a large-scale device in their data center with mini-sessions that simultaneously communicate with all the branches. 

I rate Steelhead seven out of 10. Riverbed is not just for WAN optimization. They have a solution called NPM for monitoring network devices, like routers, switches, and firewalls. You can monitor your entire network from a single dashboard. Riverbed NPM is a powerful solution similar to SolarWinds.

SteelHead works from the application. I use it to optimize traffic from Amazon. It is mainly used for customers who need to increase the traffic to 33K. For other users, it has been more of an operation.

It depends upon the enterprise and the application that the organization has. We have used the tool to release one optimization. It depends upon the port account that you are trying to push it across.

I would like to see improvement in the solution’s configuration and protocol aspects. We have some configurations that are not set. I would also like to simplify the call detection of some protocols.

The initial setup is hard since you need to have the configurations and protocols. At one stage of the configuration of the initial setup, the solution said that it didn’t recognize my business. The initial setup needs to be assisted on the mobile device.

The deployment needs some basic information like an IP. We have a centralized software configuration that gives our customers access to the solution. We also do the crosscheck as part of the support during deployment for our customers.

I do not like the pricing of the support. Most of the vendors will charge you for the other support or they will charge you through the app.

The solution is a non-premise one like the router. For the most part of the protocol, the solution is kept on-site. You need to have time to accelerate cloud-based applications like Office 356. We require a license from the Russian authorities.

The solution works for a remote user as well. We have customers with a mixed setup where they are not the only end users. They are major businesses with more than 100 branches.

The application’s sizing needs to be done well. They should have complete access to the applications that come under the particular bandwidth loss. They will also require a certificate of application.

We primarily use the solution for the optimization of our WAN.

The solution has been very good since the beginning. It is quite reliable. 

It is very easy to install the solution. 

Technical support has been very good.

We would like the solution to be less expensive.

If the solution was more secure, that would be ideal.

The product should offer more integration capabilities. 

I've been using the solution for more than ten years at this point. It's been about a decade or more. I've used it for a long time. 

The solution has been very stable. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. It's a reliable product.

Currently what we have in the system can not support the software-defined networks, so I won't say it's scalable. However, newer iterations might be.

We currently have about 2,000 users on the solution.

We've dealt with technical support in the past and they have been okay. We're satisfied with how helpful and responsive they have been overall. 

The initial setup is not difficult. It's very simple and quite straightforward. A company shouldn't have trouble setting it up.

When the product was originally installed, it was not the lead. Therefore, I cannot speak to how long the deployment itself took.

We only have just a few people on staff that really manage the infrastructure at the moment. We don't need a big team.

The cost of the product is too high. We would like it to be lower. 

We pay a yearly licensing fee.

We are a customer and an end-user. We don't have a business relationship with the company itself. 

We are still using the CX 5070 across our sites. We have one in the system.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We've been very pleased with the solution and its capabilities over the years. 

I would recommend the product to others.

We use the solution to optimize traffic between our vastly geographically dispersed offices.

I find the most valuable to be the compression and exchange replication. It is very useful, user friendly, and the documentation manuals are helpful.

They should include a network switch in a future release.

I have been using this solution for 15 years.

The stability has been good.

The scalability is not the best. If you find that you have outgrown the capacity of your appliance you are forced to repurchase the license and the appliance with very little discount even if your appliance is still under contract.

The customer service is quite professional and helpful.

When I first purchased this solution it was the first of its kind. There was no other option.

I have 15 years of experience with this product. When I first did the install it was hard, but now it is very easy.

I did the deployment myself and do the maintenance. It does not take very long.

The solution is expensive and the service contacts are costly too. The cost of the device makes the value proposition borderline acceptable for us. The service contract fees we pay is approximately $30,000 annually.

We are approximately midway to the life cycle of our current products and I do not think I will be rebuying Riverbed just because of the cost. Silver Peak is one of the other solutions we have been looking at, carries a lower cost, and has some additional options such as SD-WAN.

I would advise others to do tests and make sure they really need the product before purchasing it because it is expensive.

I rateRiverbed Steelhead a seven out of ten.

The solution is being used for optimization. 

The connectivity to speed is the valuable feature. 

The solution needs to have alert notifications. 

I have been using Steelhead for the last ten years. 

The solution is highly stable so it's a ten out of ten.

The initial setup is easy. The deployment takes eight hours time. 

The pricing is reasonable. 

Overall, I would rate Steelhead a nine out of ten.