What is our primary use case?
I basically work for the solutioning only, so I've been migrating the F5 from the existing chassis to the new chassis for the last three years. Before that, I was a part of operations so I was working to support any incidents on F5.
How has it helped my organization?
We have multiple solutions we can deploy through the F5.
The basic load balancing is acting as a round-robin. Other features we can use are based on the application team's requirements. F5 is not only basically giving solutions based on the network background, but it's also compatible based on the application level. Therefore, whenever the application team has a specific requirement, we can tweak it and we can provide the solution over the LTM.
What is most valuable?
For load balancing, for related solutioning, it is user-friendly. We have a good knowledge base over the F5 knowledge base.
The stability is good.
The solution is scalable.
Technical support and documentation are excellent.
What needs improvement?
For right now, I don't have anything I would suggest in terms of improvements.
I worked mainly on the CLI. Working on the CLI on the operations level or on the configuration level is sometimes a bit complex to understand. You have to have a good background in Linux so that you can perform the necessary solutioning or operations through the CLI. Whenever we want to investigate something we need to use the CLI, however, the CLI level troubleshooting and the solutioning, it is a little bit complicated. We have a limitation when it comes to the GUI. That said, I have found that we can do much better analysis with troubleshooting over the CLI.
Scaling up is complex.
It's expensive.
We need to have good security features available. It's something I still need to explore more, however.
For how long have I used the solution?
I started using the solution six years ago.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
It is quite stable. I never faced any issues. I would rate it ten out of ten for the LTM. It's a very stable product.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
For scaling, there has to be a lot of planning when we need to scale up F5. It is a bit complex.
We cannot easily scale up the LTM. We cannot put an additional box into the production without any downtime with the user experience. So adding the box or scaling up has to be done with proper planning.
We have an extensive network of users across Office 365, SharePoint, custom applications, Skype for Business, et cetera.
Some customers who have been using the solution for the last six years are wanting to migrate or wanting to upgrade their chassis to the newer version. It is typically if they have a station-hungry application to deploy, like Teams, where this is quite a useful product. With F5, the transition is quite smooth.
How are customer service and support?
I don't do any operation-related stuff. I don't deal with them too much.
How would you rate customer service and support?
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
We also use many Cisco products.
I directly got the opportunity to work on the F5. I didn't work with any other vendor.
How was the initial setup?
I worked on projects that were both difficult and simple.
I remember I was working closely with the application team where they wanted to migrate their platform with zero downtime. They wanted to migrate the user data from one SharePoint to another SharePoint without any downtime. We used a specific i-rule. That i-rule checks the URLs and then it checks the decision as to whether to redirect the traffic to the specific node, which is the existing node, or in the new data center.
This was a kind of complex project. We had to troubleshoot when the users were getting the "page cannot be displayed" message. It was pointed out that it was an F5-related issue, however, later, when we check the per page of the node, which is behind EVIP, we tried to check the meeting URL on each node and we found that a specific node was giving the page cannot be displayed or 404 error. We learned we had to be careful about the migration of the application using the URL with zero downtime.
The main complexity was felt by the application team requirement. They wanted it in such a way that the user should not face any issues. The SharePoint migration should be from the existing infra to the new infra and should be transferred to the user. Due to that complexity, we have to work on the i-rule mainly, which was defining i-rules or providing solutions based on the URL part and it was a bit complex to do everything successfully.
That said, on a normal application, a standard application, we have a good i-rule available over the F5, which we can use. It is only complex for custom applications.
For the standard application, it was very quick to deploy. We can deploy it in a day. If it is a complex i-rule with multiple URLs to be analyzed, or which checks the background, then it has to be tested well before being put in production. It takes longer. It takes time, based on the scope of the project and where you need to deploy.
How much help you need with maintenance depends on the scope of this project. If there is 24/7 support required in the operation, so based on the, let's say, specific DC, if we have one cluster for a specific application and additional, or two pairs of clusters or three pairs of clusters, I would say you would need three full-timers required in a day for operation-related topics.
For solutioning, it typically depends on the scope of work, however, I would say a single full-timer can manage the solutioning.
What about the implementation team?
For complex issues we generally take a consultation from the F5, however, for the standard or medium standard application, we do it on our own. For the SharePoint migration using the complex i-rule, we took a consultation from F5.
What was our ROI?
We have seen an ROI. I would rate it five out of five in terms of the returns we've seen.
If you have LTM specifically, you can deploy multiple applications using one cluster and it will definitely be beneficial.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
I'm not aware of the licensing costs. My understanding is that it is expensive. I'd rate it a four out of five in terms of the rather expensive cost.
We do pay for extra support.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
I'm still one step behind the pre-sales in my current organization. I don't deal with any evaluations of other solutions.
What other advice do I have?
I'm a customer and end-user.
Currently, it's on-premises, however, we are targeting the cloud.
Sometimes we have to definitely look for external support, which is very good. They provide good support and good documentation. Once you have their help, with a good document, you can get some idea of what to do and how you can further customize the solution for other needs. For the very complex options, it's a good idea to have F5 support included at the beginning just to not waste time.
I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
On-premises
