Loadbalancer.org pros and cons

The features I find valuable in this solution are the ease of managing the logs on the WAFs, the ease to identify break-in attempts into the network, the front-end firewall, and a more specific firewall.

It's pretty much a Swiss Army knife for managing all the load balancing techniques.

The performance is good.

The connection that this solution helps our servers maintain has been most useful.

I found scalability in Loadbalancer.org valuable.

Loadbalancer.org is less complex than Citrix.

Loadbalancer is easy to use. It performs well, with low latency.

The support we have received from Loadbalancer.org has been good.

I like the different ways to balance the chart.

You can run into an issue when one engineer passes the case over to another engineer after their shift and they don't know what the first engineer worked on up to that point.

The solution can be a bit pricey.

I'd like to see scalability improved; it can be costly.

The configuration is somewhat complicated. Someone who does not know the solution may find this challenging.

The configuration is somewhat complicated. Someone who does not know the solution may find this challenging.

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.

Loadbalancer.org's complexity could be reduced.

I would like it if Loadbalancer had the ability to make rules for specific shared bots.

The interface from Loadbalancer.org should be improved.

Loadbalancer is expensive. At Globo, it is probably the most expensive tool we use. Annually, we are paying more than $1 million.