LoadBalancer Enterprise Reviews

In our experience, Loadbalancer.org is best suited for small businesses looking to balance their website. They don't require HA, DR, or anything else.

Loadbalancer.org is less complex than Citrix. In some cases, our customers do not have an engineer on staff who can support this device.

These customers have a large number of Linux engineers but don't have the money. We suggested using Loadbalancer.org and other open-source tools. Many customers are of different sizes and have different budgets.

Loadbalancer.org has everything that is needed.

The price could be reduced. 

Loadbalancer.org's complexity could be reduced.

I last used Loadbalancer.org three years ago, but I deploy this solution for our clients.

I am also working with F5, Kemp, Barracuda, Cisco, and NGINX.

The last time that I used Barracuda was three to five years ago.

We used F5 Big-IP with some customers and deployed it to others.

It is easy to deploy Loadbalancer.org.

Loadbalancer.org is an open-source solution, with additional costs, however, in some cases, the price remains the same. It is dependent on the customer and what discounts F5 has given.

Loadbalancer.org is based on open-source products, but it requires money for support and other activities.

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're working on a project where our customers use HJ. We utilize their load balancer to evenly distribute the data load between multiple servers, ensuring that one server doesn't become overloaded.

Since I'm relatively new to the load-balancing scene, my current focus is primarily on data load-balancing.        

If all the data traffic is directed to a single server, it can become overwhelmed. Load balancing helps us distribute both incoming and outgoing data loads evenly among the servers, preventing overload on a single server.

We could enhance the security aspects of the load balancer. For instance, when data passes through the load balancer, it could potentially include sensitive files or trade-related data. It would be beneficial to have additional features that help identify and protect against any unauthorized access or file leakage.

I have been using it for past two months.

It is scalable and I would rate it an eight out of ten.

We're not currently using it because I've been testing it for about a month, and so far, everything seems fine.

The choice of environment depends and specific needs and requirements. The setup process for the testing phase typically takes me around 30 minutes to an hour. It involves installing the tool and entering necessary information like SSL details. The staffing requirement depends on the project's size, with a small-scale solution typically requiring only one person to manage. I would rate it seven out of ten.

So far, I would rate it around a five 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.

We use this solution when publishing Windows based applications and other custom based SQL applications. We are in the progress of migrating the on-premises data center to the cloud and continue to use Loadbalancer for this.

Loadbalancer has improved our organization. When we enable load balance between the two servers and we experience an issue in trying to connect to a specific URL, we can reduce the impact using this solution. One of the servers will be supporting the users so there will be no downtime and no impact on productivity. This is one of the main reasons that we use Loadbalancer.

The connection that this solution helps our servers maintain has been most useful. 

The configuration is somewhat complicated. Someone who does not know the solution may find this challenging. 

I have been using Loadbalancer for six years.

This is a stable product. When we experience bottlenecks, they provide vulnerable mitigation support and patches.

This is a scalable solution. 

We receive technical support from a vendor if it is under their scope. If the person in our team has some more experience, they can easily troubleshoot the issue. I would rate this technical support a four and a half out of five. 

The initial setup is complex. First you need the SSL certificate for the URL. Once you have obtained this, you have to install a scaler before starting to configure your Loadbalancer. It will take around one or two hours.

This solution was implemented in-house. 

This solutions costs $5 per user per month. Web also needed to pay for a platform license that cost 26,000 Indian rupees.

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.

I work for a value-added reseller.

Loadbalancer.org is used when an application has multiple instances. 

There are also cases where you have a production and a disaster recovery scenario, and the customer wants the users to be able to switch from the production servers to the disaster recovery servers with as little downtime as possible.

The performance is good.

I'd like to see scalability improved; it can be costly.

We have been selling Loadbalancer.org for four or five years.

We provide both Cloud and on-premise versions. It was mostly on-premises at first, then, more recently, there have been cloud options.

Loadbalancer.org has been stable for the most part. Whenever there are issues, they are able to check and resolve, check the logs and understand what's going on, resolve or escalate to the OEM, and possibly require a bug fix.

Loadbalancer.org is a scalable solution.

Here in Nigeria, where I am currently in, it is scalable, but there are times when cost considerations must be made. That is something that has an effect on scalability for us. The customer wants to expand and do more, but the cost is very high. They may not be able to scale as much as they would like to.

We have four clients who use this solution.

Technical support is okay. It could always be better, but I have not had any major issues with this solution.

We are in the partner space, and not the end user space. We are partners with Citrix and VMware, and we use their products for application virtualization and load balancers.

Obviously, you need to be skilled. It's quick, and straightforward if you're skilled and knowledgeable about the solution. If you lack the necessary knowledge, hire someone from the OEM space or another consultant with expertise in that solution to assist you in implementing it.

The time it takes to deploy is determined by the customer's scope and scenario. Sometimes the surroundings are straightforward, and other times it's a little more complicated, but it could be anywhere from four to twelve weeks.

Licensing fees are paid annually.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

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.

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.

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. 

We are using this solution for internet management. We have approximately eight incoming ISP lines. All of the ISP lines go to the load balancer.

We use it for normal internet access.

It doesn't have the bonding capability feature.

I would like to see the bonding capability feature included and it should be easier to upgrade. The capacity that we currently have is 2G. 

If we could upgrade it using the same device, we could upgrade it twice without changing the hardware, that would be easier for us.

It should be scalable without changing the hardware.

We have been using this solution for approximately six years.

We are using the same version that we have been using for the last six years.

For now, it's stable.

Currently, it is not scalable. We have already reached our limit.

We were supposed to increase our capacity to four gigs, but now we are one gig. To upgrade, we would have to go with all new hardware.

We have approximately 2,000 users in our organization.

So far, we have not had any problems.

Previously, we did not use another solution. Loadbalancer.org is the only one that I have used.

The installation was completed through our vendors.

The installation was easy, not very difficult. It is easy to install.

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.

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. 

Load-balancing a web application server. It's a requirement for the application which we're using, which is why we bought the hardware. It does its job. We don't touch it.

We couldn't use our line-of-business software without it. It sits in front of it and it just does its job. It's an unsung hero, I'm afraid. It just does what it does. It plods along everyday, and when it breaks, it gets fixed really quickly.

The SSL Layer 7 load balancing.

Obviously the simple ones like price. Make it cheaper, make it faster. Other than that, it's a spot-on product. It doesn't have any issues; no wishes or wants with it at all.

Originally we had some stability issues with it, so they replaced it with a new box and it's fine.

It's basically as scalable as you want it to be. We're not using it at any great scale so unfortunately I can't really comment too much on it, but it's pretty scalable.

The support is amazing. The product itself is pretty simple to be honest. It's the support which is the differentiator for the product. The company has an excellent support team, 24-hour support. It's excellent, second to none.

Straightforward. I plugged it in and the guys did the rest. Just plug it in, give it an IP address, give it access, and it's done.

The appliances have not really had a measurable effect on our operating costs.

Pricing is great. I couldn't really complain about it. It's all good. They're not the cheapest, not the most expensive, but I think value-wise, they're 100%. 

We evaluated a few beforehand, however Loadbalancer.org was the one which was recommended to us by our software providers. They just told us it was the best one for us, so that's why we chose it.

We evaluated KEMP, F5, and Windows Integrated Load Balancer.

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.