Mostly, I use FortiADC for web applications. For example, we have multiple trading websites where we need to load payments for many clients accessing from outside.
I use server load balancing and employ layer seven features, which provide more granular traffic shaping and detailed logs.
Additionally, I use load balancing technology like Round Robin or low weight to maintain session-based connections. This ensures that clients can connect to their applications without interruption. In contrast, using standalone solutions can lead to network conditions that disrupt user connectivity and necessitate additional components before deploying FortiADC.
Primarily, I use this setup for trading platforms.
I will queue all the details clearly on the ticket, including the diagram, log files, and everything else. Once a case is assigned, they ask the same questions again without checking the submitted details. Instead of getting notifications, I start sharing articles I already know, which are supposed to fix issues and help in troubleshooting. Still, I often have to contact FortiADC support again.
After a week, once my remote system is assigned, their support is very good. However, if I need design help, they do not assist; they say it is a design issue they cannot support, and I must approach the system integrator. For troubleshooting, they are very effective once connected to remote support.
I have used it for almost three years, deploying it for a few clients.
The service is helpful yet not excellent. It is good, just not very good.
If I consider traffic shaping and latency, FortiADC does not add any more latency within our internal network. Monitoring the application is very helpful. The alert system is efficient, sending alerts within a fraction of a second if any power issues arise.
In comparison, Kemp support is not at the same level. If any hardware fails, Fortinet ensures a next business day delivery, whereas Kemp often asks many questions and does not support as effectively. I have encountered many issues with Kemp compared to FortiADC.
This solution is quite expensive compared to Kemp.
Kemp load balancing is an alternative, however, customers still prefer FortiADC.
I would rate FortiADC eight out of ten. I did not explore FortiADC's link balancing features; my focus has been primarily on server wellbeing, not on link balancing. This is a feature I need to explore.