Arista Networks Platform Reviews

In the broadcasting industry, I use Arista extensively for production trucks, especially with media involved like video and audio. Arista switches have excellent PTP support. I also find Arista useful in setups such as Spine-Leaf architectures in networks, where each port on the device acts as a gateway.

I find the operational system used by Arista to be very valuable, and the hardware is exceptionally nice. Arista has a unified operational system called EOS that is easy to set up and replicate on other devices. 

The ease of configuration and transition between devices is a significant advantage for me.

In my opinion, the solution for network monitoring is quite expensive. More ACLs and traffic filtering make setups complex. I believe there could be improvements to make the initial configuration less prone to errors.

I have a lot of experience with Arista as it is heavily used in the broadcast industry.

When I configure it properly, the setup is stable and reliable.

I have not dealt with Arista's customer service, as we do not have Arista devices on our premises.

Positive

We have used RTL devices before, which, in my view, offered almost the same features but were less powerful.

From my experience, the complexity of the setup depends on the network. For simple networks, I find it manageable with CLI, but more complex networks requiring ACLs and filtering increase the difficulty.

Two years ago, I found Arista to be more expensive than RTL devices with almost the same features.

We have used RTL devices before.

I would recommend Arista to others because of its powerful processors and superior performance.

I would rate Arista a ten out of ten.

In the media industry, if you work for a channel, even a single second of screen loss will lead to a business outage and impact the business. After Arista solutions came into the picture, we deployed it, particularly for multicasting purposes. We were quite happy when I was in the media industry at the time.

I like the spine as a leaf model and low latency. The hardware is robust and meets expected latency in all environments, mainly if you belong to the media or trading industry. For multicast-based solutions, Arista is number one. 

They need to enhance their code and their EOS. They need to improve some security features, and there are quite a number of bugs in their system. So, they need to work on that piece.

In the next release, we need to have a modular feature. Instead of providing an integrated solution, they should go for something modular. They need to come up with modular highly scalable models. Even at the chassis layer, I want to see some improvement. 

I have been using the Arista Networks Platform for about six years.

It could be more stable. There are so many issues and vulnerabilities they need to fix.

Arista Networks Platform is scalable. This design is not for a particular user. This is a backbone that we are using, and the whole business relies on Arista.

On a scale from one to five, I would give technical support a three.

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward. The architecture, framework, and command line are approximately the same as Cisco. In terms of deployment as a network guy, I didn't face any issues. We need about two to three people per shift to manage this solution.

Because of latency, as per our business needs, it is meeting our expectations.

Specific tools definitely require a license for the subscription. But we are not using these tools in our environment. In terms of licensing, you need to spend approximately $10,000 per month. 

I would tell potential users that if they are supporting a media or trading kind of business, they should go for Arista because it is a low-latency switch that will meet the expectation of the business.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Arista Networks Platforma nine.

Arista Networks Platform is designed for next-generation data centers. They support asymmetric IRB, symmetric IRB, flood and learn types, EVPN types two, five, three, overlay and underlay. When Juniper first came out, they did not support symmetrical IRB. They only supported CRB, central routing and bridging, and asymmetrical IRB.

So, to make it work, we had to do IBGP for the overlay, EBGP for the underlay, and then use the IBP as a route reflector so that the spine could be the server and the top-of-rack could be the client. So it reflects the route down for all of the overlay. When you deal with internal activities, it's hard to troubleshoot, which is why we like the Arista Networks Platform. Unfortunately, Juniper doesn't support CRB anymore.

They support open standard features, and they have one feature that is proprietary and is marked VARP. That is the way for any cash routing. You can do that at the top of the rack layers. Juniper doesn't support this, and they don't have a chipset. Juniper claims that they have a feature where they can do symmetrical IRB, but their product hasn't been tested. Arista Networks Platform is widely used for all data centers.

Arista has done a pretty good job, but there's room for improvement. They should have a more stable code. Their code is a lot better than Juniper, but there are a lot of bugs, issues that arise and memory leaks.

We have been using this solution for 12 years and are using the new release. It can be deployed both on-premises and on cloud. For example, if you use their CVP (cloud vision portal), you can deploy it using their orchestration management. You can also deploy it manually, and I prefer doing it that way because you can see all the features being enabled.

It is a stable solution as long as the top of the rack and the spine are at the same code level. For example, if you use the same code level and run 4.21 on the spine, then run 4.21 on all the top racks, and it will be stable.

Their technical support is very good, and I rate them an eight out of ten.

Positive

I've used Cisco and Juniper. I built a network in Juniper, CRP, leaf and spine design, and the same in Cisco using leaf and spine design. I've also used their ACI, which is very cumbersome and complex.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. They have a zero-touch feature where as long as there's a DATP service somewhere, you can grab an IP address, take over the switch and then automatically configure the switches for it.

The time for deployment depends on the environment. It could take a couple of hours to deploy 50 switches or even 30 minutes to deploy three or four switches. We completed the deployment in-house. We have ten of thousands of users, and we are always scaling.

We have seen a return on investment, which is worth the price. Unfortunately, the pricing is a little out of touch because most companies do not have the budget. Arista Networks Platform is about 40% more expensive than Cisco and about 70% more than Juniper. Juniper gives you their hardware for free, but they get you on the backend for support, maintenance, and service contracts.

Arista Networks Platform is the most expensive of all the platforms.

We evaluated LinkedIn, Cumulus, Big Switch, and Mellanox as smaller players. There are only four major players, Brocade, Cisco, Arista and Juniper, but the three most prominent are Cisco, Arista and Juniper.

I rate this solution a nine out of ten. I would recommend Arista Networks Platform for next-generation data centers because it is very stable. They have stable hardware and code, which is better than Cisco and Juniper. However, it has one operating system for all platforms, which could lead to problems because you're running on one code.

In my previous job, I used the solution to make connections, remove connections, to work plans, plan for the future, et cetera. We had a big Cisco router with 9,000 connections and we were connecting and disconnecting. I wasn't the person directing the equipment so deeply, as I wasn't a member of the network team. I was a member of the broadcasting and distribution team. This solution was used largely for making physical connections. 

The solution offers a lot of features. We were able to organize our network around them.

The configuration capabilities were good. 

I do prefer the Cisco interface.

Cisco is not too user-friendly, however, in terms of the comments to deploy the configurations, to change or update configurations, Cisco is easy compared to Arista.

We did at one point have a software bug. I remember that sometimes they used to make the physical connection and then everything was all right, however, the port, the physical port didn't come up. We needed to set the port down and then up again to work. 

We also had a problem when using the internet service providers that connected to Arista. When the internet was down and came up again, the suite couldn't recognize and keep the status as unavailable.

The solution is a bit pricey.

I am at a new job, however, I have used the solution within the past year. I used it for about five months. 

The solution did have a bug when I dealt with it. 

I have previously worked with Cisco solutions. Not deep, but I have some experience with switches and with routers.

I am focusing on broadcasting and broadcasting solutions, broadcasting equipment, and cloud solutions. I have some experience with Azure and Azure deploys using PowerShell, using ScriptRunner, and this kind of stuff.

I know that Arista is more expensive than the Catalyst or Nexus.

I can't speak to the exact pricing. 

I was an Arista customer. 

I wasn't a part of the integration process and therefore can't speak to those capabilities. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Arista Networks Platform is used for non-blocking switches. We are using them in the data centers for spine-leaf connectivity. There are servers hooked to these switches.

Arista Networks Platform is comfortable, easy to deploy, and easy to manage, with non-blocking technology. Additionally, it has a useful CloudVision platform and automation capabilities.

Arista Networks Platform should focus on improving the compatibility or integration with Cisco solutions.

I have been using the Arista Networks Platform for approximately two years.

I have found the Arista Networks Platform to be stable.

Arista Networks Platform is highly scalable.

We have approximately 250,000 users that go through the data center which passes through the Arista Networks Platform.

The technical support is good from the Arista Networks Platform. However, we are waiting on a response back from them regarding enhancements. We have not received a positive response.

We were previously using Cisco Nexus switches, Cisco Catalyst switches

The installation is simple. It takes approximately two hours for each Arista Networks Platform to implement.

We used an integrator to implement the Arista Networks Platform.

We have three to four engineers who work on Arista Networks Platform deployments.

We have decided not to expand the Arista Networks Platform because of some of the issues we have had.

There is an annual license required to use the Arista Networks Platform.

I rate the Arista Networks Platform a seven out of ten.

If you have a large network, it's one of the easiest solutions to deploy and manage.

The best part is the single operating system that they have. Regardless of your model, it's the same operating system functioning across the board, which means you don't have to worry about backward compatibilities between your older switches and the new ones that you deploy, which is a big plus when compared to maybe Cisco, HP, or Juniper, where you get into these different operating systems based on the model. 

Against that, if you look at the competitors, you always have to worry about the operating system that the older units are running on, and the integration between the old and new, and what are the limitations and stuff like that. All those questions you simply don't have to worry about when you talk about Arista. Therefore, the deployment becomes pretty easy.

The solution is very stable.

Technical support is extremely responsive and helpful.

The solution is quite expensive. One of the negative aspects of it is the pricing. 

I've used the solution for a while. I was an employee at Arista for a couple of years. In addition to that, I have almost four customers who have been using Arista.

The solution is absolutely stable. If you look at the customer base, that itself is a testimony. They have a very, very good customer base, and it's a pretty stable solution. Rarely we have encountered any challenges with Arista.

The solution works well for large-scale organizations.

The nice thing about technical support from Arista is you don't have to go through multiple levels of check-ups where there is someone who collects your information and stuff and then passes on the baton to someone else. That's not how they work. It's an engineer on the call who would directly help you out, which saves a lot of time and headache. The whole time with the technical support of Arista is significantly lower than others. My experience has been that when you call Arista tech support, your call is answered within a couple of minutes. Compared to the rest, where it could be 15 to 20 minutes at least, it's great. Arista is very quick on the response time when it comes to assistance.

I also have an understanding of Cisco, HP, and Juniper.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward and simple. For roughly around 50 switches, you could deploy them in a day with the manpower of maybe two people.

Even for probably a network which is moderately sized, a couple of admins would do the job in terms of maintenance. They could deploy and just hold it. If you have a lot of changes to make every now and then they can handle it. That part would completely depend upon the operations that are carried out.

The product is fairly expensive. It's not a cheap option. Clients need to be ready to pay.

There's an annual license with Arista. Though the unit of calculation is monthly, the license has to be procured on an annual basis. It's an annual license, and again, it's pricy.

I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten. The only negative that applies to them is the price.

I would recommend Arista for enterprises considering their price point, however, I would not recommend it for the SME/SMB market. Although it's a wonderful product, the price is something that an SME or SMB cannot afford.

We are manufacturers for certain storage platforms and we have our own storage software for enabling GPU clustering. We work more in the video segment. We have our own solutions that we put on that particular cluster which enable a remote workspace management portal for people who are into content. We don't generally provide solutions for micro-level storage customers that are dealing with your retail data or the like. We specialize in macro-computing, video analytics, audio/video editing solutions, editing over the cloud, and remote editing of spaces. It's a very specialized platform.

We set up a private cloud architecture for customers. There are certain customers who are large-scale photo editors, video editors — companies like BBC — that are in the content business. They don't want their content to be on multi-user platforms. They want to have control of their platforms. We have a solution where they can have a YouTube-like experience, but it's totally private. We have very bespoke solutions for media-related mining.

Arista is a nice platform. It's an extremely reliable platform for the network switches we use.

We have never seen a project where people have complained that it's not working. Never.

We have found their networks to be very high-end, low-latency, and we have never had a problem scaling up.

Generally, Arista's technical support is prompt. There can be delays but they're not bad. When we go back to them, they get the job done. They are very good at support.

Overall, Arista is a good team to work with. They are very straightforward.

Arista is very expensive. Not everybody is in a position to spend $70,000 to $80,000 for one switch.

For our customers that have a budget of $4,000 to $5,000 for one switch fabric, we generally recommend NETGEAR. That is also a very good switch. If somebody wants something cheaper than that, we recommend they go for something else.

For a market like India, Africa, and Asia, people always think twice because Arista is expensive compared to the competition. Of course, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. There are no other products that you can directly compare with Arista. It's the difference between getting a V12 engine and a generic engine. You need to be able to afford a V12. Arista is not for everybody.

We have deployed many enterprise platform switches, depending on the customer's capacity to buy a given platform. We have tested the Huawei switches. For certain protocols and traffic, and especially for video transmissions, Huawei has a good platform. But it's not like Arista, which has the highest one. Cisco has a bit of delay and a lag. From a robustness perspective, you pay a premium for Arista but you get the most from it.

We don't recommend Cisco because Cisco is a very different ballgame altogether. It's more into infrastructure networking data management. Cisco is made for something very different. When you are talking about IoT, Cisco meets expectations.

I would recommend Arista for certain applications, for microbiological and molecular calculations; for supercomputing. If you are looking for an ultra-low latency network, this is the only solution. There is nothing else that is similar.

It has low-latency, stability, and scalability because it is modular. If you have the budget, go for it.

It basically is the switching room platform for both of our data centers. We've got two private data centers in California.

We are fully upgraded, so we are running the latest version of this solution.

It is very stable. It has good hardware and very stable code. It provides good value for its price.

They are a very lean type of organization, so they are very responsive, and they are able to focus more on their platform versus having multiple products out there.

Its price can be better. 

We deployed Arista in 2019 to replace our Cisco devices.

It is very stable.

Its scalability is really good. All of our data centers, systems, storage, and applications are using it. It is being used for everything that we host on-prem. All of our users are essentially using it.

They've been really good. I actually enjoy them a lot more than Cisco. I would rate them a nine or ten out of ten. They solve issues. I've opened five cases, and I haven't had a poor experience with any of the cases.

We were using Cisco devices. What we really liked about Arista is that they have embraced a more open multi-vendor approach. Cisco is more towards a closed proprietary. After deploying Arista, we saw quite a few congestion issues that we were having with Cisco being resolved.

It was fairly easy.

It is pretty pricey for a networking platform. It is on par with Cisco.

I would recommend this solution. We've been happy with it. I don't really have too many complaints about it. They are pretty good about releasing new features. They keep adding new features on their centrally managed platform, which is CloudVision. 

I would rate Arista Networks Platform a nine out of ten.