Kemp LoadMaster Reviews

I use Kemp LoadMaster as a load balancer for my web applications.

All web servers (all technologies) are available through the Kemp LoadMaster so all users use the transparent load balancer. 

Kemp Loadmaster is more efficient than the HA Proxy that we used a long time ago.

It is an easy-to-use, user-friendly interface, and you can set up a new VIP in a couple of minutes.                              

Ease to use is the most valuable feature.   

It would be very helpful to get all the http/https session logs by default in the log monitor without activating debugging mode like an apache web sever natively does

I have been using LoadMaster for about five years. 

It is quite stable. No weird issues.

It is scalable. 

I can add one or more appliances to the existing ones.

Technical support is reactive.

We haven't really needed to contact the support except for license renewal.

I switched because Kemp LoadMAster is more efficient, stable and scalable than the other solution.

The initial setup is not very complex. It was a normal setup with a partner.

We implemented it with a partner.

A partner strongly suggested this product so there was no need to evaluate other options.

We currently use multiple Kemp appliances to load-balance the delivery of email to our CAS\Mailbox environment.

Previously, we had multiple CAS servers and Mailbox servers and Kemp was handling that environment greatly. We also used it to migrate to a Single CAS with multiple DAGs. The process was very simple on the Kemp side.

We also are using it to assist us with uptime due to any possible maintenance windows we have and/or any troubleshooting with the server environment. Kemp allows us to reboot servers and not affect mail delivery, as it will still deliver to a different node.

LoadMaster has greatly helped us with the uptime of our email services. If one server is having issues, it will still deliver to another server.

Using this product also made it easier to handle migrations to newer Exchange services because the product was the main point of communication, which meant that changes on the device affected everything. This made things simpler for us.

Not spending hours on troubleshooting issues, Kemp support resolved issues quickly.

The load-balancing is the biggest feature, of course. It just works. If one CAS goes down, Kemp will still deliver to the other server. It is the same with multiple mailbox servers. If one goes down then mail can still be delivered, due to the fact that Kemp is handling the communications.

Updates are easy to apply and don't cause downtime as long as you have two load-balancers. 

The product also allows us to limit certain services on the Exchange server. Allows more control and Access Control Lists (ACLs) for internal and or external access. Instead of making changes in IIS on a server, you can have Kemp control it.

Obviously, there are a lot of moving parts and fields\settings on Kemp LoadMaster. Not all the settings are easily understandable. It would be helpful if there were a way to incorporate tooltips on the fields so that we don't have to dig through documentation.

I don't expect the software to assist in migrations, but it would be a plus if they had more documentation on Exchange migrations with Kemp and specific changes that need to be made. However, support is very knowledgeable and assisted us.

I would like to see an increase in the knowledge base on technical issues or common troubles.

We have been using Kemp LoadMaster for one year.

We have used the product for multiple years and haven't had any issues or outages from it, so downtime was never an issue.

This product is highly scalable.

Technical support is A+. They were great in our migration process and even went to assist us with questions that we had on Exchange.

We did not use another similar solution prior to Kemp LoadMaster.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The vendor, Kemp, assisted us and they are very knowledgeable.

It has paid for itself after multiple years. 

Any decent product will cost money and if you want great support and a great product, then you will want to spend the money on it.

We did not evaluate other products before choosing this one.

Our use case included product testing on how to configure the load balancing products.

My primary use case is to deploy the load balancer. We provide the deployment professional service to the end-user. Due to Singapore's government policy, government sectors do not allow the connection of the internet. Therefore, we will be the hands and legs of the Kemp professional service. We will seek advice from the Kemp professional service team before and after every time we onsite to the customer's site.

As a partner of Kemp Technologies, we're using the load balancers as a demo and testing environment. This helps us in providing product issue support for load balancers.    

Other than that, the demo is also conducted during product introduction, pre-sales stage.  

Next, we also conduct feature testing on Kemp's load balancing products.   

Functional testing is done on our environment before we implement to a customer's environment. Other than that, we can also try to simulate the customer's issues when we were handling support cases.  

The most valuable feature that I found is the load balancing feature, it is the core function of the product.   

The load balancer is stable and met the customer's expectations. So far, there have not been any issues reported on the basic load balancing functions.  

Besides that, there is also a load balancing mode that fits into the customer's requirements. This also gives more choice for the customer to change their load balancing mode in the future due to the yearly improvement of the audit requirement.   

I would like to give some advice on security improvement:

• First, is the password complexity's restriction. For example, there should be a password restriction policy on the password that only can be made up of a minimum of 12 alphanumeric characters with upper & lower cases.
• Second, is the password age restriction. For example, the password should be changed at least every 90 days.
• Third, the password history restriction needs improvement. For example, the password policy will restrict the user to always use a unique password combination. The password should not be reused for a minimum of three generations of passwords.
• Last but not the least, the default administrator account should be able to rename. This is to prevent a hacker to use brute force attack on the known default administrator ID.
  

I have been using this solution for more than one year.

We have fewer issues reported from the end-user. The support response is fast.

So far scalability has been good.

Technical support is good. So far every case is handled properly.

We did not previously use a different solution.

We implemented through the vendor team. They are very experienced.

The client required an infrastructure solution for the internal development team that was complaining regarding the performance and issues with the previous open-source solution. The usual infrastructure staging/development/production is available to the development team. Kemp LoadMaster serves as the internal load balancer for the application and web security layer with the Intrusion Prevention (IPS) and Web Application Firewall (WAF) that replace the opensource solution previously implemented.

Kemp LoadMaster has definitely reduced the complaints from the development team since its deployment. Even the administrators/support are pleased with the intuitive administrative portal and ease of usage. In terms of stability, the application is much more reliable and the security feature of Web Application Firewall (WAF) fully has the auditor requirement. With the virtual version of the Kemp LoadMaster, it was simply carving a virtual resource to spin up a virtual instance to test or put in use for another section.

The base feature of Kemp LoadMaster load balancing ticks all the boxes but the most valuable features would be the security features Intrusion Prevention (IPS) and Web Application Firewall (WAF). Both the features are not only reliable and stable but being an integrated solution makes troubleshooting and pinpointing the issue much easier than fumbling around on different devices/logs. The RESTful and PowerShell APIs are definitely come handy in this automation era and makes network development easy.

Overall, the Kemp LoadMaster has been an all-rounder great product and stable. The free trial and virtual edition make it a breeze for any potential customer to give it a spin before actually deciding to put it on the infrastructure or even talk to the CFO. Kemp could create a more structured lab oriented training program as part of its certification bundled with an online cloud lab that makes it easy for a client to learn and try out the Kemp LoadMaster immediately. The sales team would also benefit from this cloud lab service.

It has been roughly about a year plus since the solution was deployed for the client.

The Kemp LoadMaster perform extremely well and stable during the POC testing and actual going live with the users.

Very scalable product.

Technical support is smooth and responsive.

We previously used a different solution and we switched mainly due to cost restriction.

Straightforward setup.

The deployment was done through a vendor team.

There must be a balance between cost and features. Going opensource usually goes up in terms of learning/training cost.

We evaluated F5, HA proxy, NGINX.

The primary use case of this solution is for load balancing websites, load balancing Citrix solutions, and load balancing Microsoft Dynamics.

This solution has helped us in certain situations that we have had to find a way to work around.

I like the way this solution handles multiple SSLs in different domains while still load balancing. I find that to be a very interesting feature.

It should be more customizable and perhaps more like NetScaler in that regard. Although Kemp is very user-friendly, it lacks a more custom configuration.

I would like to see this solution more customizable in the next release.

I have been using this solution since May of 2019.

This solution is stable. It's pretty good.

This solution's scalability is pretty good.

We have about 200 users in finance, customer service, and IT.

We are using this solution every day and we have plans to increase our usage.

The support is great.

Previously, I had used Microsoft NLB. We switched because it was more difficult to configure and it had many issues.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was very intuitive and user-friendly. The application itself is built to be more user-friendly.

It took two days to deploy. It wasn't difficult and it involved checking the configuration and calling support. There was no different kind of strategy.

It only takes one person to deploy and maintain this solution. As the Networking Administrator, I am the person who is responsible.

We did not use an integrator, reseller, or consultant. Only the main support.

Licensing is yearly and I am going to guess that it is CAN $2000.00.

There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.

Check for the complete needs of your entire network system.

In order to configure things, you will have to first draw out your connections before you implement it.

This solution is good and it's reliable but there are things to improve.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is for load balancing traffic for solutions such as Exchange and Skype, as well as for web servers using HTTP and SMTP.

Another team is in charge of operating this solution.

We would like to see them improve the security by putting a well trusted and very efficient WAF inside the appliance. They currently use an open-source solution for this, but it would be great to include a more secure one because it would be a complete solution in terms of load balancing and security. We are currently researching WAF solutions to implement for our perimeter, so it is on the radar for our model.

The GUI is rather technical and complex, so it could be improved by making it simpler and more user-friendly. This is a very powerful solution that gives you an edge, but some of the features are hard to understand. For example, the configuration values are difficult. The templates help in this regard. Each value is explained in the documentation, but it still needs to be simpler.

I would like to see Active Directory integration for authentication of the admin role, so the usernames are not on the local appliance.

This solution is very stable. If I had to rate it out of ten then I would give it nine-point-eight.

We have the virtual appliance rather than the hardware, so in our case, scalability is easy. It is just a matter of licensing. If you want to add more CPU and RAM then you just upgrade your license and give the virtual machine more resources.

For the hardware appliance, my understanding is that it can scale depending on the environment.

They even have software that can turn any bare metal server into a hardware appliance.

We have six deployments across six offices, and in total there are approximately four thousand users. We do have plans to increase usage as we consolidate some of the servers in our private cloud. This will mean that more users are hitting the same office.

The technical support is great. They are knowledgeable on the technical level, responsive, and give you the solution very quickly. The troubleshoot the issue until the problem is solved.

They communicate by email and by phone and can log in remotely. They send us updates about new versions. 

The initial setup of this solution is simple.

They have very good documentation available on their website. The have templated well-known applications to help with load-balancing, and these help you a lot. One example is that they have templates for Exchange.

The return that we get for the money that we pay is very high.

This cost of this solution is not high, and cheaper than their competitors.

The license varies according to the number of megabits. For example, a 200Meg license can handle two hundred megabits per second, concurrently. If you need more then you just upgrade the license.

This product does what is advertised.

In terms of the value you get for the amount of money you pay, this is the number one solution.

For anybody who is implementing this solution, there is nothing to worry about. This product is mature, the documentation is there, and the support is very good. My recommendation is to get the virtual appliance instead of the hardware because it is easy, and that's what we have experience with. You get the same features and it is easy to scale and add more resources.

I would also suggest taking a backup of the configuration just in case they misconfigure something later. It is a complex configuration and if something goes wrong when somebody is changing it, it will break the traffic. You should be very careful when making changes to the configuration.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We implement it for our customers and we have every different version available from Kemp. The primary use case is for load balancing for different applications, mostly Microsoft Exchange. We use the on-prem deployment model.

The security features are the most valuable features of this solution.

It works very well. It's a good product that has good support. 

It is very stable.

It's very scalable. There are solutions for small customers and very large customers available from Kemp. In terms of users, we have different customers. The largest customer has about 5,000 co-workers.

We are satisfied with technical support. 

The implementation is not complex. The deployment took one day. 

The price is fine for their solution and what they give back from the product.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. To make it a perfect ten out of ten it would need better connection logging. If there is an active connection, then there is better logging. It should also have better management monitoring tools. 

They have great technical documentation on their website. That would be my recommendation if someone needs to implement Kemp Technology products.

I have worked with Kemp products for at least 10 years, as a consultant. In most cases, they are used for load balancing Exchange environments, but also as reverse proxies for other workloads such as Skype for Business, ADFS, etc.

The customer environments vary greatly. In most scenarios, it’s up to 2,000 users but in some cases more than 30,000. My last case involving Kemp was an Exchange 2016 site-resilient solution with 12 servers for 35,000 mailboxes.

Kemp Loadmaster gives our customers an easy and cheap way of load-balancing their workloads and adding reverse proxy for added security. With Kemp 360 Central, they get a nice overview of their Kemp products and an easy way to upgrade firmware on all devices from a single interface.

Kemp products are extremely stable and meet most of my customers' needs for an ADC solution. My customers appreciate the attractive pricing, stability. and user-friendly interface. The more advanced features such as WAF are rarely required by our customers.

Their virtual products are easy to install and easy to configure.

There are plenty of features that are lacking in my opinion:

• The auth website of ESP is really lacking. It’s not responsive (mobile friendly) and the procedure of changing the website is difficult. We tend to avoid using pre-auth for that reason, and it's really a shame.
• Several elements of the GUI need work. For example, if you have many content switches, it’s difficult to find the ones you need. And where is the search feature?
• If you want logging for SMTP traffic, you have to enable ESP, which requires you to define allowed IP addresses. That’s irritating, to say the least.
• Using the GUI to view log files is tedious. A nice log parser would help.
• It lacks an officially supported, well-written SCOM Management Pack.

Kemp support is great. You always get qualified assistance and the support engineers are friendly and helpful. You can find loads of information on the support website, including deployment guides for almost any workload.

I rate it at eight out of 10. There are many features that are missing or poorly implemented and things that you simply cannot do. The product is very much “as is”, and people need to be aware of that. If you don’t want these limitations, there are other products on the market, but they are typically a bit more expensive. Kemp products are very good load-balancers but are lacking in features compared to its competitors.