Juniper QFabric Reviews

You use QFabric to efficiently connect numerous access points across multiple sites using virtual chassis configurations, allowing consolidation of outside interfaces.

The most valuable feature of QFabric for network performance is its stability, which ensures reliable operation and consistent performance.

Improvements could be made to QFabric's lifecycle management, particularly in maintaining stable versions and extending product support. The rapid release cycle and short life span compared to competitors like Cisco can be challenging for users.

I have been using Juniper QFabric for almost four years.

I would rate the stability of the solution as a ten out of ten.

The solution is quite scalable. I would rate the scalability as a six out of ten.

My experience with support teams in Bangalore and San Francisco was poor, with a significant delay in resolving critical issues, which led to frustration and eventual migration to Cisco equipment. I would rate it as a one out of ten.

Negative

The deployment of QFabric requires effort and skill, especially for engineers accustomed to configuring Cisco devices. Installation time varies based on expertise, taking longer without prior knowledge. Maintenance is not easy and depends on project requirements. Troubleshooting lacks user-friendly tools compared to alternatives like Cisco.

Juniper QFabric is not overly expensive. Licensing is required for certain features like vRRP, but setting up a virtual chassis does not necessitate a separate license.

QFabric may be more complex to configure compared to similar solutions from Cisco or other vendors.

QFabric simplified our data center network architecture by reducing configuration complexity compared to Cisco devices. It required fewer CLI commands, making configuration quicker and easier, especially for scalable deployments.

QFabric improved scalability in our data center by simplifying the addition of new switches to existing configurations. The process was straightforward to manage.

Implementing QFabric can affect overall IT infrastructure costs differently based on configuration needs. For small businesses with stable configurations, costs remain unchanged. However, for scalability and expansion, additional configuration and time may increase costs.

My advice for those using Juniper is to ensure staff are well-trained and certified in Juniper technologies, such as JNCIA, JNCIS, JNCIP, or JNCIE. With these skills, you can effectively manage and troubleshoot Juniper solutions, minimizing potential issues and maximizing performance.

Overall, I would rate Juniper QFabric as a seven out of ten.

QFabric is the core switch. We also have two Brocade switches for the Fibre level.

The product works fine. It is an excellent product. There are different element systems and different options for each generation of the tool. We maintain the data center and analyze issues. I have no negative experience. The tool performs well. The vendor maintains the product well.

The stability needs to be improved.

I have been using the solution for ten years.

I rate the stability of the tool an eight out of ten. The stability needs to be improved.

The tool’s scalability is fine. We have 1500 users. The usage might increase in the future.

We get support from a local vendor.

The tool is easy to set up. There is a source switch and a distribution switch. We take backups of the distribution switches.

Palo Alto also has good tools. We are evaluating Palo Alto.

Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

It is primarily used in data center environments to achieve efficient and reliable networking. It consolidates network infrastructure and reduces complexity, making it ideal for data centers with multiple racks. It provides seamless connectivity between all the racks, ensuring redundancy and high-performance data transfer.

The most valuable feature is the Genos OS, Juniper's operating system. It is easy to deploy and is similar to other Juniper product lines like firewalls and switches, making it familiar to users. QFabric supports redundancy and includes all of the enterprise and service provider features that customers would want in data center or service provider network. 

It is still a work in progress and is currently in beta status, While it offers some improvements, there are limitations such as a lack of GUI for managing the fabric. However, there is existing support for onboarding and configuring QFabric devices using templates. The graphical UI is expected to improve over time. Another area for improvement is the lack of support for MDN OpenFlow, an open standard for switches. Having support for all OpenFlow versions would be beneficial.

I have been working with it for around four years.

It is stable and reliable, with effective power failure contingency plans in place. Its redundancy and reliability make it a trustworthy and dependable solution for network infrastructure. I would rate it ten out of ten.

The scalability abilities are highly regarded with a rating of ten out of ten, due to the support for various architecture and connectivity options. It caters to enterprises with their own data centers and application servers, offering excellent software-defined interconnectivity between servers and storage. Its versatility makes it well-suited for a wide range of networking requirements.

While the support process is well-defined and instructions are clear, there may be instances where an expert engineer is not readily available or knowledgeable for assistance. In such cases, aligning support with a different individual can be a challenge. I would rate it nine out of ten.

Positive

It is preconfigured, which simplifies the setup for users resulting in a straightforward login process.

The price is relatively high, but it offers an advantage over its competitors by providing better performance and functionality. I would rate it three out of ten.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten.

It facilitates troubleshooting because the user gets an insight into the networking domain and can easily identify where the networking problem lies.

Juniper QFabric has various advantages including scalability, simplicity, performance, and flexibility. It offers improved service technologies for data centers that prioritize low latency, automation, and high-density requirements. Juniper developers have experience with Linux systems, which can provide good support.

The pricing structure could be more budget-friendly.

I have used this solution for nine years.

It offers exceptional stability.

It provides good scalability capabilities.

Their support services are of high quality.

Positive

The initial setup was straightforward and easy.

Integration with other domains might take time and could be a potential challenge. However, the development of the infrastructure is simple. It requires only one person to deploy it.

The pricing is high and it is possible to find better pricing option solutions on the market, but the licensing model is quite flexible.

It is a reliable and well-supported solution that can be a good fit for specific business needs. I would rate it ten out of ten.

It is known for being agile, flexible, and cost-effective when working with various vendors.

It works too much on rebooting and there is some memory leakage.

I have been using Juniper QFabric for twenty years. 

All vendors are currently outsourcing their platforms overseas, which tends to lower the overall quality.

Positive

When they completed the deployment back in 2014, they encountered some challenges, particularly when using RJ45 and Power SFPs. This problem wasn't unique to Juniper switches but rather a common issue across various switch platforms. SFPs need to be programmed to work with specific devices. As a service provider, they preferred switches and SFPs to be more interchangeable, but that wasn't always the case. However, by 2014, it seemed like they had resolved this issue, and it's no longer a concern.

I would overall rate Juniper QFabric a nine out of ten.

The solution can be used for the enterprise switch when there are production needs or critical areas involved, such as financial institutions. 

It would be nice if Juniper provided the system integrator with training, similar to that of Cisco. This is very important. People the world over talk about Cisco. I worked for Juniper for approximately two-and-a-half years, from 2011 to 2013. If Juniper would follow the route of Cisco, I believe its market share would increase, as the switches are stable and scalability exists. Absent this, it faces a challenge when going up against such competitors as Cisco. Juniper's market system is driven down by the systems integrators and end users not having familiarity with the systems they use. 

As such, there is a need for more training documentation and integration with Cisco.

I have been using Juniper QFabric for around five or six years.

The solution is stable. 

The solution is definitely scalable. 

Technical support is definitely good. It's called the JTAC support, which is always good. No problems whatsoever. 

Installation is not a problem.

We have a couple of people responsible for the deployment. 

Cisco is similar to Juniper, which is very easy to manage and problem-free.

I have recommended the solution to the Bank of India and recommend it to everyone else. 

The solution can be deployed on-premises when it comes to large enterprises. 

The solution is problem-free. I like its stability, performance, everything really. 

Stability and security do not pose issues. Juniper is constantly working on new technologies. 

I have many customers. Out of 100,000, I would estimate that I have implemented for 50 to 60 percent of them. 

I rate Juniper Qfabric as an eight out of ten.

Juniper QFabric is a vendor solution for core switching and routing.

If you are having issues with congestion in your server backbone, or your network backbone, using a fabric solution helps you solve those issues by creating paths into the switching stack. QFabric works by having only two hops, which means you are only two hopes away from any node at one time because of the interconnected links.

The most valuable features of this solution are the fabric backplane having upwards of 160 GB of communication. It is a top-of-the-rack solution where you have your directors sitting in the main area and then you have your nodes expanded out to your multiple cabinets. It has a very good design and could be your server backbone.

Juniper is good with automation, they integrate well with other tools, such as Chef Puppet.

The CLI is as straightforward. I have had no issues with their CLI and they have a lot of information and settings that are exposed that need to be. 

Juniper has addressed a lot of areas that they needed to improve in the new fabric solutions that they released. They have a new fabric that uses the standard structure. QFabric is a smaller fabric and Juniper has adopted it to create an industry standard. When creating a new fabric they are able to expand beyond what QFabric's limitations were. I believe their limitations were 128 nodes but with the new solution, it has no end to the nodes you have.

I do not use GUI's very much for switch stacks. I am always in the CLI. However, I do know that Juniper in the past has lacked on their GUI's, but they have been working on it.

The CLI could be a little confusing if you are new to a switching stack, and especially a fabric switching stack. If you do not understand how it is all architected it could be difficult. It is definitely not for beginners. They did their best to keep it simple, such as creating templates but it is such a complicated system that requires very high-level knowledge on entry. You have to understand what you are doing to play with the configuration of QFabric.

I have been using the solution for approximately eight years.

The solution is highly stable. In the time I have been using the solution I have not had one major issue.

This solution could improve on the nodes available. However, they have increased this in a newer fabric solution.

The technical support is amazing. They are responsive and handle cases extremely well.
Probably one of the better technical assistants that I have worked with over the years.

The initial installation is complex. It can also depend on how in-depth your architecture is. For example, are you going to be in layer three or are you just doing layer two? Is it going to handle dynamic routing protocols? If you are staying on layer two, how are you going to handle the subnetting in general? Are you going to be doing broadcasts? It all comes down to the architecture of the network itself.

The price for Juniper QFabric could improve. There are subscription, maintenance, and add-on feature fees. It is not meant for small or medium organizations. If you are looking at a fabric solution, you are going to be working with SE engineers to be able to get the solution in place. If I wanted to purchase it myself, I would never do it, it would not make sense. The use case for what QFabric solves is more for enterprises and ISP companies.

When evaluating other solutions Juniper QFabric has more features, functionality, and a solid base.

For those wanting to implement this solution, I would advise them to definitely look at it carefully. Make sure that you understand what your needs are before you go and purchase and when you do work with a Juniper resource to be able to implement it effectively. There is a steep learning curve for this solution, but that is also true for other solutions, such as Cisco Nexus. You will not be able to pick up the knowledge to use this solution in a week.

I rate Juniper QFabric an eight out of ten.

I did one of the projects with a company that purchased the original micro-fabric design, which had two director nodes. It was for InterConneX, and I believe it had 16 link nodes. They had InterConneX between two main locations of their data centers. They used dark fiber with an MPLS network for the backbone, and then they used the QFabric interlinks to be able to basically send their data center layer to the fabric across those MPLS links. QFabric that I've been dealing with for one of my customers is on code 17.

The 40 gig backbone InterConneX was valuable for our use case. It is even faster now. QFabric has spine-leaf technology or topology, which basically makes every single hop only one hop away in terms of connecting from one device to another.

It is a pretty good and robust solution. It works pretty well in terms of scalability, and their technical support is amazing.

They are working on the virtualization of the actual fabric layer. They are moving away from the original spine-leaf design to a different infrastructure. Instead of having three tiers, which was the director of the interconnected nodes, they cut them back, and they still have that kind of structure. 

I have been using this solution since its inception in 2013. 

Stability has been pretty good. There were tripping points over the years, especially because they were among the first ones to introduce a full fabric infrastructure, but they have learned from that. The one that I have used with the 10K series was hands down. It was one of the better fabrics that I have ever used.

It works pretty well in terms of scalability. It goes through 128 nodes with 48 ports a piece. We're talking about 400,000. If you actually upgrade it to a full class infrastructure, instead of just QFabric, it can go up to almost indefinite nodes.

I've dealt with J-Tech a lot. J-Tech is amazing. They're quick on the ball. If you've got issues, they're quick to escalate. I've never really seen a major issue that they haven't been able to solve. Of course, there have been hardware issues every now and then, but this is not just for QFabric. This is across their entire infrastructure. 

It was rather complex when I built one up as a POC a while ago. In 2019, I played with the new design using the 10K series, and that one was much easier to set up. They have their own special setup that can detect what is connected. When you apply, you only apply to one controller, and the controller sends everything down the pipe, which is really nice.

In terms of price, the QFabric solution is going to be probably in the middle of the road for a fabric solution.

Make sure that you're aware of what you're going to be putting in. It can be tricky at times to understand the architecture, but once you do, it is going to ease your administration a lot because it is a virtual chassis or a virtual fabric. However, you might want to look into maybe only using it as the physical infrastructure of an SD-WAN layer. That way you've got your orchestration that goes on top of it. Typically, that's not what companies do currently, but I think it is a great solution for that physical layer.

I would rate Juniper QFabric about an eight out of ten. It is a pretty good and pretty robust solution.

We are editors in France. We use this solution to provide services to our clients.

It's user-friendly.

We are quite disappointed in Juniper switches. We have had several difficulties with upgrading the cluster Juniper. It is not very easy. We must have a disruptive upgrade to achieve the upgrade in its entity.

The disruptive upgrade was an issue for us.

We have been using Juniper for four years.

We are using the previous generation, model 4,600.

It is not a stable solution.

We have not tried to scale this product.

Technical support is good. They have been responsive.

We have only just started using Cisco Nexus.

It was a normal installation. We did not have any issues with the installation.

Licensing is on a three-year term.

The pricing is high. They are expensive.

I would recommend this solution to others. The new version with fewer switches is better, but it's expensive.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

Juniper QFabric can be used for networking in a data center.

The solution is easy to use and has good performance.

I have been using this solution for approximately one year.

The solution is stable.

Juniper QFabric is scalable.

The technical is responsive, knowledgeable, and customer-friendly.

The installation is not easy, you will need to have some technical knowledge.

We have five engineers that do the implementation and maintenance of the solution.

Juniper QFabric is a high-level solution but it could be less expensive.

I recommend this solution to others.

I rate Juniper QFabric a nine out of ten.