The solution is basically used for load balancing. We do build for load balancing as well. We have several load balancers in the physical and cloud space. We started using it for GTM and also use it for some iRules scripting and to modify the SDP draft.
It was way cheaper than F5, so that was the reason to move from F5 to Radware. In terms of value for money, maybe it's better. F5 is very good. However, it was really expensive. This solution is also quite good, yet costs much less.
It's quite a nice solution. It's like F5. They are very good products and are very easy to use. They're very powerful, you can do a lot of things with the scripting, and also even in the interface and the graphic interface, you can configure other things without going to the scripting, to the rules.
The initial setup is easy and it was quick to deploy.
The solution has been very stable.
Maybe there are a couple of things that didn't work very well. You kind of have the same build and different build for load balancers. It can create some issues. We faced issues where we needed to have some kind of the same balance in different environments. That happened with F5. However, in Radware, you can do it when we move to production and we need to change the balance there. Different environments should be able to have some balance to be completely isolated. That's something that they could really improve to make it really, really isolated.
We’d like the solution to include more security features in the standard license.
We just acquired Radware in the last few months. IT’s been about eight months.
The solution is stable. In the last eight months since we migrated, we’ve had no big issues. Everything is working fine. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn’t crash or freeze.
The scalability is about licensing. You require more bandwidth and more throughput. To scale, it’s about acquiring more licensing. That’s about it.
For example, if you have a license of 30GBs of traffic and may need to support up to maybe 80GBs. You need to increase the license. You can kind of use it on demand, however. If you can change the license every three years, and you can see that your throughput is going to increase a lot, you can scale up.
We have about ten people on the solution currently. We do have plans to potentially increase usage in the future.
Technical support was okay. We opened a couple of tickets, it was okay. They were fast and they fixed the issues.
Positive
We just migrated to Radware from F5 APM. It’s quite new. It's really, really powerful. However, they are very good load balancers.
The setup is relatively straightforward. To do clustering is very easy. It's way easier than F5, I would say.
The deployment was quite fast. The problem was that migrating from F5 took a lot because we had to add the Windows in place and handle the service impact. That said, deploying is fast. If you are in the integration field and you don't have to migrate, it's pretty fast.
How many people you need to maintain the solution depends on the size. However, you might need four or five people.
There was a mix of personnel helping with the setup. I was doing it mostly myself. However, I had the help of professional services from Radware.
For the amount of traffic that we use, it's as good as F5 and way cheaper.
The pricing is much more reasonable than, for example, F5, our old solution.
I’m not sure how much the solution costs. However, my understanding is that it is moderately priced. I’d rate it a three out of five in terms of affordability. It’s not cheaper. However, it is less expensive than F5.
We checked in with Citrix as well. It was also good. In the end, we went to Radware.
We’re just a customer.
We’re using one of the most recent versions of the solution.
It's a very good product, however, if it would work for your company would depend on your needs. It depends on the amount of traffic.
I’d rate the solution an eight out of ten.
For production purposes, we use HAProxy, which is a web application.
Our primary use case is load balancing.
We are not fully utilizing it. We are only responsible for load balancing. The most used and valuable is load balancing.
I can't speak to all of the HAProxy features because we don't use them all, but load balancing is very good.
Although HAProxy is essentially open-source, many features are not available.
While troubleshooting, we are having some difficulties. There are no issues when it is running; it is stable and very good; however, if there is a troubleshooting issue or an incident occurs, we will have issues because this is open-source.
We are only experiencing problems at that time. Otherwise, everything is fine.
Because we need to search for a document or some troubleshooting information. That could be beneficial to us.
To resolve the troubleshooting issues, additional documentation and troubleshooting are required.
The product is satisfactory. However, additional documentation, additional technical documents, and troubleshooting steps are the types of things that can only make this solution better. Also, more clarity on where the package is hitting and where it is stopping is needed.
I have been using HAProxy for four or five years.
HAProxy is generally stable. We had only two days of problems in the last five years, this was an extremely rare occurrence. We are back to being stable.
We have publicly permitted our web application for this, and approximately 5,000 users are using it.
It is used every day because it is our production-related order-lease domain or something along those lines. We are also using this as a dealer, with approximately 5,000 users per day.
Normal users. We will publish it on one of the websites that provide the production information. We provide the order and invoice the order to the product. These are the types of details. This is our dealership's publisher for an automotive dealership.
It is essentially the dealership's publisher.
HAProxy is scalable. There are plans to expand to the Japan team. They may suggest a paid tool.
I would rate their technical support a three out of five. Additional documents and troubleshooting should be made available on the internet.
There is no direct support. We use open-source software and do not rely on their support. We rely on our knowledge, and we are studying the implementation.
Previously, we were using F5. F5 is a very good product.
It's a great product that is also very stable and scalable, but it is very expensive in terms of price.
We switched to HAProxy because it is open-source.
We are also working with Zscaler and FortiGate.
The initial setup is easy.
I would rate the initial setup a three out of five.
We completed the installation in-house and did not use a third party.
HAProxy is free open-source software.
It will primarily be determined by the budget, the size of their company's budget, or if you have the budget. I would always recommend the F5. Because it has more clarity and more features are available in the F5, if budget is an issue, go with HAProxy. It's a good product.
If you are not utilizing very basic things that you should be using for the HAProxy.
Depending on the balance If the balance is very minimal, they should use HAProxy, an open-source solution, but if the balance is larger, such as an enterprise, they should use F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic.
I would rate HAProxy an eight out of ten.
Our company uses the solution to publish services that are on Azure. There is more than one way to publish services.
You can use the Microsoft infrastructure for app services including small programming, configurations related to obligations, and publishing. Or you can publish manually by using VMs and attaching the WAF with the solution.
The solution does not include a security policy so you need to configure a WAF and attach it to the solution. There is an option in the Gateway to automatically go to the web.
The solution has built-in rules that reduce alerts and are easy to configure. You can enable any missing rules or create custom rules if needed.
The graphical interface needs improvement because it is not user friendly.
There isn't a standardized process for blocking IPs. IPs need to be blocked individually, whether one or one hundred. A normal scenario would be to copy and paste multiple IPs at the same time but the solution does not offer this option. Updating takes a long time and is up to the WAF. In most cases, we prepare scripts to handle these updates.
I have been using the solution for three years.
The stability is very high.
The solution scales automatically based on what you use.
We are a partner with Microsoft so we have full support under a special agreement. Our support experience is not the same as other users.
The support we receive is rated a ten out of ten.
Positive
The setup is straightforward. If you select the features you want in advance, it will be easy.
The service can be ready in less than one hour.
We implement the solution for customers with one resource for infrastructure and another for obligation or security.
The solution is seamless with little ongoing maintenance.
If you have some live metrics you can't follow, you can get the locks with some experience in the query language.
The pricing is based on how much you use the solution. This format is good because you don't have to pay for a yearly license that you rarely use.
We recommend solutions to our customers based on their needs and budgets. Our initial assessment considers the type of company, the application's use case, and what features are needed within the solution or from a third party.
Other products do not include all of the solution's features.
Most people are moving from the solution to Azure's Front Door.
I rate the solution a nine out of ten.
We are only using it for load balancing and application firewalls.
The feature that I have found most valuable is its load balancing.
Citrix ADC is actually not the most preferable product from our perspective but for the virtual desktop use it is very efficient. It's very integrated with the virtual desktop. It has a seamless integration and that is the most valuable part.
Since it has a significant integration with its virtualization, that has improved the usability access of the virtual desktops.
In terms of what could be improved, I would say the user interface because sometimes it can be complicated.
In the next release, I would like to see advanced language support for managing the traffic, rather than only the RegEx. That would be helpful.
I have been using Citrix ADC for about five years.
In terms of stability, it is not as good as F5.
It is not as scalable as F5.
There are three people using it, and they're all engineers.
It takes one staff member for the deployment and maintenance - also an engineer.
We have a static user base in our organization, but for our customer base its use is going to be expanded.
The technical support is not bad.
We are using most of the solutions together, so there is no switching between the products. We are currently using F5, too, and we always prefer that first. But it depends on the deployment and it depends on the needs. For deployments we choose Citrix.
The initial setup is straightforward. It took two hours.
Our strategy is just deploy and use it. It's a simple process for us.
We are the integrators.
If they are going to use it with the VDI, it is a very good product, but it has weaknesses in application firewall development. So if they are going to only do load balancing in an SMB solution, it is a good product. But if they're consulting as an enterprise product and in a very large scale deployment enterprise, Citrix is not a complete solution. But for an SMB product and a basic cloud balance, it is a good product.
On a scale of one to ten, I would give Citrix ADC a seven. It does what it does. It is a product for some simple tasks, but just not suitable for the complex tasks.
We use Loadbalancer.org to check Nova Network and also use it for F5. We use its load-balancing technology.
I found scalability in Loadbalancer.org valuable.
An area for improvement in Loadbalancer.org is that sometimes it works fine, but sometimes, it has issues. The setup for Loadbalancer.org is also complex, so that's another area for improvement.
I've been using Loadbalancer.org for thirty years.
Loadbalancer.org is a stable solution.
Loadbalancer.org is a scalable solution.
I haven't contacted the technical support team of Loadbalancer.org because it isn't necessary at the moment.
Loadbalancer.org has a complex setup. The time it takes to deploy depends on different technologies and the deployment teams. For example, it can take one day to deploy for some groups, while it could take two months for some. In my company, it took two months. Deployment time for Loadbalancer.org also depends on the competency of the deployment team and knowledge of load balancing.
The costs associated with Loadbalancer.org depends on the technology. For some, we need to pay, but others are open, so they're free.
The number of people using Loadbalancer.org depends on the company. One client has ten to one hundred users, while another has up to one million users.
There's a plan to increase the number of users for Loadbalancer.org, but that depends on the company.
Between one to ten managers, admins, and engineers take care of the deployment and maintenance of Loadbalancer.org, but it depends on the company.
I'd recommend Loadbalancer.org to anyone who wants to start using it.
My rating for Loadbalancer.org is eight out of ten.
