LoadBalancer Enterprise Reviews

To have live failover for an intranet site we are using, and to monitor live user connections.

It does what it’s supposed to do which is balancing an important intranet site we are using, so if one server dies, the second becomes active straight away. The site is 24/7, so it’s crucial for us to always have it up and running.

It’s really difficult to say as we use it, as I mentioned, just to have the failover for our websites. We rarely access the interface; maybe to do a backup from time to time, or when we have connectivity issues to check if people are connecting.

If I have to say something, I suppose they could add an automated configuration backup to an FTP location (or something similar) so you don’t have to manually do it. I don’t see this as a problem, of course, as the configuration rarely changes and we only need one backup, but maybe for other users this feature would be handy.

Nothing at all.

No problems so far.

I used it once for an activation-key issue we had, and they helped me straight away, so 10 out of 10.

No previous solution.

Really user friendly, so no problem here.

The appliances have not had a measurable effect on our operating costs (payback on investment).

I think it’s very affordable, nothing more to add.

My advice to others considering this product is that they will experience a very good, stable product which is very easy to set up.

It actually makes our whole network more reliable, because of its load balancing capabilities. And not only load balancing, but also redundancy. That's what we use it for.

We can more easily set up a test environment, because you can easily configure your forms. It makes it more flexible for us to convert our test environment to a production environment, without having to change DNSs on the outside. You just configure the forms on the inside. So without changing the actual endpoint for the end user, we can create completely different networks in the background. So that's really flexible for us.

First of all it's the reliability, what you create by load balancing, because you have more endpoints. That's for our web services that we provide. This is the only feature for us, and it's important because it makes our network more reliable.

We are only using the basic features, and for us it's good. We're not yet using the SSL certificate offloading because we are still using an older software version. But I already know that in the new versions they have, it's built in. That would be a feature that I would like. But that's already there in the newer versions. As I said, we're still using an older one and it still works fine for us. 

No issues with stability. I had some questions, especially at the start, but their great service team was there for us. But no instabilities.

If I'm correct, we have the Enterprise version and it's very scalable. You can make endless endpoints and there are no restrictions in the version we have. So it's very much scalable.

Great, really. I give them a 10 out of 10. Their tech team provides really great support. Very knowledgeable engineers are there for you. They are very responsive and they come with good solutions. Their goal is really to help you, and they know it's one of the cores in your network because it creates the reliability. So that's why it's also one of the key points, that always needs to be working. They're supportive like that. They are very responsive.

We did have a previous solution once, but I don't remember the name because it was more than 10 years ago. We used a software solution on our own hardware, based in a Windows system, and it didn't work at all. After that we immediately decided on a more professional solution and this, Loadbalancer.org, is where we came to and we're still there.

As for our old solution, technically it was not working. The problem with the software solution - not theirs, a different company - the problem was that it worked fine for 100 users but it was not scalable at all. And then if the 110th user came in, the system totally crashed. It was not a good solution. We found out very quickly and, luckily, we found this solution.

It was very straightforward. You just create your virtual servers, you connect it to the physical servers and that's it. For me it was very straightforward. I like the way they think, how they made the interface.

I'm not really thinking of return of investment. For us it was important to make our network redundant and reliable. In that sense, yes there is a ROI, because you cannot run an organization without any redundancy. It needs to be reliable.

It's worth the cost. It's not cheap, but it's a good solution. If you're looking for a good solution, this is  a good solution. Is it cheap? No. Is it worth the money? Yes, I think it is.

Do it. 

I think they have very nice upgrade offers. When you start small, you can take the smaller version, and if your company is hopefully expanding, you can always choose an upgraded version. I remember they had nice offers. We never needed one because we immediately chose the Enterprise version but I can imagine that you would like to start small, and they have nice offers for that.

I would say it's a 10 out of 10, because it does exactly what it needs to do and that's what you want from a product.

Existing customers are trying to migrate from the physical F5 load balancer to the AVI load balancer because it is scalable and easily managed. The solution's analytics is also very good.

Compared to the physical products, the solution's throughput is a little less.

I have been using the solution for two years.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for stability.

The solution is highly scalable.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for scalability.

We previously used an inbuilt load balancer.

The solution’s initial setup is easy.

The solution’s deployment doesn’t take too long.

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.