Coming October 25: PeerSpot Awards will be announced! Learn more

Loadbalancer.org OverviewUNIXBusinessApplication

Loadbalancer.org is #9 ranked solution in top Application Delivery Controllers. PeerSpot users give Loadbalancer.org an average rating of 7.6 out of 10. Loadbalancer.org is most commonly compared to HAProxy: Loadbalancer.org vs HAProxy. Loadbalancer.org is popular among the large enterprise segment, accounting for 64% of users researching this solution on PeerSpot. The top industry researching this solution are professionals from a computer software company, accounting for 18% of all views.
Buyer's Guide

Download the Application Delivery Controllers (ADC) Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: September 2022

What is Loadbalancer.org?

Loadbalancer.org is a unique next-generation organization that offers tailored load balancers or application delivery controllers (ADCs) to numerous organizations across various industries.

Tailored load balancing is the new must-have in today’s complex marketplace. It is the best way for an organization to keep their applications running smoothly and to keep things simple; this is Loadbalancer.org's primary focus. The ADC appliance is tailor-made specifically to meet each individual organization's precise needs and criteria. This covers the needs of technology providers and of an organization's client base and end users. Automatically, the features that are most needed and used can be optimized, and the features that are less critical can be minimized so that resources can be conserved and the highest levels of efficiency and productivity can be maintained.

Loadbalancer.org provides robust, impenetrable solutions by offering numerous seamless original equipment manufacturer (OEM) integrations and partnerships.

Top Industries that use Loadbalancer.org:

  • Healthcare: Loadbalancer.org is widely considered the top load balancer provider in the healthcare IT industry. Loadbalancer.org sees that healthcare IT personnel can ensure their organizations are moving seamlessly toward interoperability and are able to easily scale to meet today’s continually growing data demands with no compromise in performance.
  • Storage solutions: Loadbalancer.org has significant offerings and partnerships with object-based storage providers to ensure they are always ready for today's ever-changing dynamic storage needs. The comprehensive integration offers high-performance scalable solutions which can provide always available next-gen storage solutions.
  • Security: Loadbalancer.org solutions provide an extra layer of security to protect against the latest risk and threats. Loadbalancer.org will provide a close integration to ensure the organization is always secure.
  • Print: Loadbalancer.org can work with organizations to ensure their print environments keep working smoothly and is the only organization that fully supports Microsoft Print load balancing. Loadbalancer.org minimizes the complexities of print environments to ensure that all systems are consistently available.

Loadbalancer.org is certified as an OEM provider for all of Microsoft's most popular key applications and solutions. Loadbalancer.org has created and developed streamlined deployments to facilitate improved scalability, performance, and uptime. They offer a tailored GUI to make every process super easy. Loadbalancer.org offers several flexible licensing plans to ensure cost-effectiveness, improved margins, revenue opportunities, and optimized TCO. The numerous robust solutions Loadbalancer.org offers can ensure that any enterprise organization is able to satisfy the growing demands of today’s dynamic marketplace while maintaining an excellent user experience.

Reviews from Real Users

“Loadbalancer.org is less complex than Citrix. In some cases, our customers do not have an engineer on staff who can support this device. These customers have a large number of Linux engineers but don't have the money. We suggested using Loadbalancer.org and other open-source tools. Many customers are of different sizes and have different budgets. Loadbalancer.org has everything that is needed.” - Artem M., System Engineer at CROC

“We use Loadbalancer for balancing loads in our main application. Loadbalancer is easy to use. It performs well, with low latency.” - Walid M., Network and Security Engineer at a logistics company

Loadbalancer.org Customers

Vodafone, NASA, Mercedes, NBC, Siemens, AT&T, Barclays, Zurich, Penn State University, Fiserv, Canon, Toyota, University of Cambridge, US Army, US Navy, Ocean Spray, ASOS, Pfizer, BBC, Bacardi, Monsoon, River Island, U.S Air Force, King's College London, NHS, Ricoh, Philips, Santander, TATA Communications, Ericcson, Ross Video, Evertz, TalkTalk TV, Giacom, Rapid Host.

Archived Loadbalancer.org Reviews (more than two years old)

Filter by:
Filter Reviews
Industry
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Company Size
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Job Level
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Rating
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Considered
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Order by:
Loading...
  • Date
  • Highest Rating
  • Lowest Rating
  • Review Length
Search:
Showingreviews based on the current filters. Reset all filters
Pandiyan Regunathan - PeerSpot reviewer
Assistant Manager at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Helps us to route the traffic to the available servers and protects the clusters
Pros and Cons
  • "It helps us to route the traffic to the available servers. If we didn't have Loadbalancer we would fail to set the end-user and it would cause a failure in the cluster."
  • "There are many features you can set in the backend of Loadbalancer. They should simplify the configuration. The administrator should be able to configure it more simply. How it is now, you can only configure it if you have a lot of experience."

What is most valuable?

It helps us to route the traffic to the available servers. If we didn't have Loadbalancer we would fail to set the end-user and it would cause a failure in the cluster. We protect the cluster with Loadbalancer. It checks all of the nodes in the backend, in the fabric. If you enable the monitor it will set an alarm in the server. When a user gets an application, this alarm alerts the user.

What needs improvement?

The configuration of Azure is a lot more simple than with Loadbalancer. It was very simple to configure it. There are many features you can set in the backend of Loadbalancer. They should simplify the configuration. The administrator should be able to configure it more simply. How it is now, you can only configure it if you have a lot of experience. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using Loadbalancer for six months. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

So far we haven't had any bugs or glitches with Loadbalancer. 

Buyer's Guide
Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)
September 2022
Find out what your peers are saying about Loadbalancer.org, F5, HAProxy and others in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC). Updated: September 2022.
636,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.

How are customer service and support?

I haven't needed to contacted technical support yet. 

How was the initial setup?

The deployment took two to three hours. I did the deployment myself. 

What other advice do I have?

I would recommend this solution. It's a market leader. The admin should know the product well before configuring it. They need experience. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten. Not a ten out of ten because of the complex configuration. 

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Integrator
PeerSpot user
Patrick Louis-Jean - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Manager at a recruiting/HR firm with 51-200 employees
Real User
SSL Layer 7 load balancing helps us run our line-of-business software
Pros and Cons
  • "The SSL Layer 7 load balancing is valuable."
  • "Originally we had some stability issues with it, so they replaced it with a new box and it's fine."

What is our primary use case?

Load-balancing a web application server. It's a requirement for the application which we're using, which is why we bought the hardware. It does its job. We don't touch it.

How has it helped my organization?

We couldn't use our line-of-business software without it. It sits in front of it and it just does its job. It's an unsung hero, I'm afraid. It just does what it does. It plods along everyday, and when it breaks, it gets fixed really quickly.

What is most valuable?

The SSL Layer 7 load balancing.

What needs improvement?

Obviously the simple ones like price. Make it cheaper, make it faster. Other than that, it's a spot-on product. It doesn't have any issues; no wishes or wants with it at all.

For how long have I used the solution?

Three to five years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

Originally we had some stability issues with it, so they replaced it with a new box and it's fine.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It's basically as scalable as you want it to be. We're not using it at any great scale so unfortunately I can't really comment too much on it, but it's pretty scalable.

How is customer service and technical support?

The support is amazing. The product itself is pretty simple to be honest. It's the support which is the differentiator for the product. The company has an excellent support team, 24-hour support. It's excellent, second to none.

How was the initial setup?

Straightforward. I plugged it in and the guys did the rest. Just plug it in, give it an IP address, give it access, and it's done.

What was our ROI?

The appliances have not really had a measurable effect on our operating costs.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Pricing is great. I couldn't really complain about it. It's all good. They're not the cheapest, not the most expensive, but I think value-wise, they're 100%. 

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We evaluated a few beforehand, however Loadbalancer.org was the one which was recommended to us by our software providers. They just told us it was the best one for us, so that's why we chose it.

We evaluated KEMP, F5, and Windows Integrated Load Balancer.

What other advice do I have?

For what it is and what it does, it's not a very glamorous piece of kit. It's a load balancer, it takes the connection and decides where to put it, to another server or somewhere else. It's the speed at which it can do it and the fact that when it does go wrong - and obviously things do happen - how quickly and how well the company resolves it. Those are the two things which make us stick with and recommend it to anyone else. 

Most people, if they need a load balancer, they know that they need a load balancer. It's not something which you can just say, "Oh yeah, I was talking to the guy in the pub, and he said, 'Oh you really need to get one of these.'" It's quite a very specific requirement to have one. But if anyone does need one, absolutely, it's bang on.

Give it a go. They're great.

Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
PeerSpot user
Buyer's Guide
Application Delivery Controllers (ADC)
September 2022
Find out what your peers are saying about Loadbalancer.org, F5, HAProxy and others in Application Delivery Controllers (ADC). Updated: September 2022.
636,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
it_user756618 - PeerSpot reviewer
Owner at a tech services company with self employed
User
One of the best technical support teams that I have worked with, and it is 24/7

What is our primary use case?

The Loadbalancer.org appliance sits directly behind our firewall, terminates all of our SSL/HTTP traffic and then directs it to the backend servers depending on the requested service.

How has it helped my organization?

This has allowed us to use multiple NATD back end web servers with one single public IP Address and different domain names whilst keeping our services up and running.

What is most valuable?

SSL Termination with Server Name Indicator option to a Layer 7 back end web farm which allows the client IP address to still be passed.

What needs improvement?

HTTP API would be really helpful, but they do have a command line api which is used over a SSH connection

For how long have I used the solution?

One to three years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

We have not, as of yet, had any issues with the stability of the units.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We have not had any problems with scalability.

How are customer service and technical support?

Customer Service:

The customer service and tech team are basically the same within Loadbalancer.org.

Technical Support:

The technical support at Loadbalancer.org is possibly one of the best that I have had to deal with and it is 24/7, too. They do not always know the answer right away, but you can be sure that they will support you through to a working solution.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

HAProxy, we needed a maintenance and the support agreement as we were outgrowing our in-house knowledge.

How was the initial setup?

The basic setup of the unit was straightforward. Once services are up and running, you can then change some of the advanced settings, which are not shown to start with.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The cost of the hardware units was talked over with the sales team, who then helped to ensure that we had the correct unit size and support cost at the start of the project. We have since upgraded our license and this was just the difference between the original and the new license.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We also looked at Kemp. Before this, we were using an in-house version of HAProxy, but ended up needing support.

What other advice do I have?

The Loadbalancer.org product has helped reduce our tech teams time on manual maintenance of our load balancer and the development of the product is ever evolving.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Chris Dow - PeerSpot reviewer
Systems Programmer at a energy/utilities company with 501-1,000 employees
Real User
Their pricing scheme is easy and inexpensive
Pros and Cons
  • "We now get notifications when pool members go down, and we eliminate our downtime by not sending traffic to downed pool members.​"
  • "​I would like a notification when a new version of the software is available. They told me to sign up for their newsletter, but I have not received any notification for a newer software version.​"

What is our primary use case?

We load balance our customer billing and information system, as well as our Exchange services with it.

How has it helped my organization?

We had a requirement for these applications to be load balanced. Without a dedicated load balancer, we would have had to use a Round Robin DNS, which does not have any health checking, notifications, etc. We now get notifications when pool members go down, and we eliminate our downtime by not sending traffic to downed pool members.

What is most valuable?

A load balancer is a load balancer, in terms of functionality. I need the interface to be easy to use for my team members who have not spent hours working on it, so I am not the only person who can operate it.

What needs improvement?

I would like a notification when a new version of the software is available. They told me to sign up for their newsletter, but I have not received any notification for a newer software version.

For how long have I used the solution?

Less than one year.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

No stability issues.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Not yet.

How are customer service and technical support?

Their technical support is one of the best experiences that I have ever had. We have even had a need for custom health checks, and they have really risen to the challenge.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We have used F5 in the past. They are incredibly fantastic, but they are so expensive. We went with LoadBalancer.org because we did not need the bells and whistles of F5. Also, we did not want to pay the premium price.

How was the initial setup?

For someone who has never set up load balancers before, I can attest that if you familiarize yourself with the concepts of load balancing (and their documentation lays out these concepts very well), you can set up one of these in a matter of an hour. It really is an easy process.

What was our ROI?

Since the load balancer appliances are comparatively inexpensive, I imagine they have given us ROI. We paid significantly less for these than we would have for their competitors. However, since the systems we load balance were new systems, it is hard to measure the ROI. 

It filled a requirement for our project, and it did so at lesser cost than their competitors.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

It is inexpensive, and even their “unlimited” version, the VA MAX is still far cheaper than competitors. I love that they do not price on some arbitrary throughput rating where you are guessing at what the load balancer is going to handle. These guys make their pricing scheme really easy.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We proceeded a long way down the road with F5, then decided to go a different direction shortly before the production environment was built.

What other advice do I have?

For load balancers, these guys are perfect. If you need a lot more bells and whistles, you may need a more expensive product. Tell the sales guys at Loadbalancer.org your needs, but do your research. Set up a trial device. Make sure you do not need a more full-featured product. Loadbalancer.org is improving their product all the time, but know what you are getting into.

Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
PeerSpot user
Team Lead Healthcare IT
Real User
The load balancers have an easy installation and a relatively simple, easy user interface to use
Pros and Cons
  • "With basic network knowledge, our required system functionality can be configured and maintained.​"
  • "The load balancers have an easy installation and a relatively simple, easy user interface to use."
  • "Possibly a more graphical overview page (with colors) to give a two second overview to see if everything is working fine."
  • "​The automatic refresh of the System Overview webpage: It sometimes has an extra webpage reload (after a change) before you see it is executed. This can be confusing."

What is our primary use case?

We are a supplier of medical healthcare IT solutions with a focus on radiology departments. We use it to create a redundant solution with automatic failover.

We use the hardware and the software version of the Loadbalancer.org product line.

What is most valuable?

The load balancers have an easy installation and a relatively simple, easy user interface to use, which is valuable because it is not the core business of our engineers to configure network devices. With basic network knowledge, our required system functionality can be configured and maintained.

What needs improvement?

The automatic refresh of the System Overview webpage: It sometimes has an extra webpage reload (after a change) before you see it is executed. This can be confusing.

Also, possibly a more graphical overview page (with colors) to give a two second overview to see if everything is working fine.

For how long have I used the solution?

More than five years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

Not so far. It seems to be very stable. In the past, we had issues with the Secure Digital (SD) cards which got corrupted and prevented the system to restart. I think this is better with the new line.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

No scalability issues.

How are customer service and technical support?

Their technical support is very supportive and knowledgeable.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

No previous solution was used.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was straightforward.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I do not know if my company evaluated other solutions.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
it_user830994 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior ICT Support Officer at a government with 5,001-10,000 employees
User
Just works, providing high-availability and load balancing when there is an outage
Pros and Cons
    • "They're mostly designed to balance a particular type of traffic. I wanted to load balance DNS, and they just don't do it the way that we wanted to. So they're not used as DNS load balancers."

    What is our primary use case?

    Web filtering and load balancing.

    How has it helped my organization?

    They balance a lot better than the last set that we had. The previous load balancers made some bad decisions with allocating the load, and they would basically overload one of the single nodes behind. These, from loadbalancer.org, tend to balance it on a much better basis. The two factors, or the two features, you want in a load balancer, mostly, are high-availability and balancing the load. The last ones and these ones are both high-availability, but these ones balance a lot better than the last ones did.

    What is most valuable?

    The most important feature is the fact it was recommended by the supplier. The previous load balancers weren't a very good match for what we were trying to do.

    They work. It just keeps going. The vendor will set them up, and they've just been trouble-free. They've just worked. They just keep going. That's what the principal purpose of the load balancer is, to work around and be available when there's any outages with the cluster behind. They just keep going, which is exactly what we want them for.

    What needs improvement?

    They're mostly designed to balance a particular type of traffic. I wanted to load balance DNS, and they just don't do it the way that we wanted to. So they're not used as DNS load balancers, whereas the previous ones were.

    In terms of balancing other traffic, that they don't already balance, that would be a useful thing. I actually logged a call with their support, because I needed to try and work out how we were going to do it. That's when they came back and told me, "No, we don't actually do that." But it's something they're planning to do in the future.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    One to three years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    They've been rock solid. They're stable, we definitely use them within their capabilities. They are very good on that.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    No issues with scalability, not at all. They are very capable. We only use a tiny fraction of what they're capable of doing. 

    How are customer service and technical support?

    It's absolutely outstanding. They have a web chat feature, which I've used a number of times. And they've always been very responsive and very knowledgeable. They've sorted things out on the spot.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    We did have a previous solution. We switched because of the supplier's recommendation, which we don't regret. Not at all. These are much better. The other ones weren't doing the job very well.

    How was the initial setup?

    The "original, original" setup was very complex, and in the it end didn't work. We run a Smoothwall cluster behind the load balancers, which is for web filtering. The original design that was implemented didn't work the way that it was meant to, because of interactions with the firewall. We did things differently to the way they normally do things, and that actually broke their design. 

    So we basically had to roll it back to a simplified setup. But that wasn't any fault of the load balancer, or any fault of the Smoothwall. It's just the way that the whole project was done. We didn't tell them exactly what we wanted, and they went on what they thought it was going to be, and that just didn't match.

    So the setup is notably complex. We did need their support for the original setup as well.

    What was our ROI?

    In terms of saving money, they haven't really made a difference to our operating costs. It's not a cost-saving device.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    I have no idea, because I don't have anything to do with pricing. It was basically, "We need these, we need these," and then that's what happened. We got them. I had nothing to do with the negotiation on the price.

    Basically you've got load balancers in the front and then you've got a number of machines that sit behind it that actually do the work. The load balancers just allocate out the work. So the people that manage the system behind the load balancers, this is their preferred solution. They managed to get us them for a very good price.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    We had load balancers from before, that were just kicking around, so we used the ones that we had before, and they weren't a very good match. Then the supplier said, "Use these instead," and that's what we did. They were afforded somehow, (I have no idea how that money was found, or how much they cost or anything like that). But we switched over to what they said and haven't looked back.

    What other advice do I have?

    Plan your specifications and features carefully. It's about doing proper planning to make sure that they will actually fit your requirements.

    The owner of the company writes a very extensive and detailed blog. I would suggest any other potential customers read it, that they read the owner's blog, to understand what the company is focused on and where their priorities lie. Beyond just the product marketing and materials, you can actually see where the owner of the company wants them to be going, and what they're doing. And that might help focus you on whether it's the right product for what you're trying to achieve.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user828336 - PeerSpot reviewer
    IT Operations Manager at a healthcare company with 1,001-5,000 employees
    Real User
    Reliability and high availability; allows us to seamlessly failover or do maintenance
    Pros and Cons
    • "We have about 30,000 connections going through at any one time and it's fine, it doesn't seem to sweat. It doesn't get overloaded."

      What is our primary use case?

      Load balancing Exchange, print servers, our call desk software, and SharePoint.

      How has it helped my organization?

      It means that if one of our mail-servers falls over, it's a much more seamless process. Or if we need to do maintenance on one of them, we can take it out of the Loadbalancer in a controlled fashion so that users don't notice that there's been a problem, or that maintenance is going on. They continue business as usual. It's made end-users' experience much better.

      What is most valuable?

      • Reliability 
      • High availability

      What needs improvement?

      At the moment, I can't think of anything. For what we use it for, it does everything we need it to. It does it well and it doesn't have any trouble, so I can't think of anything that I would change. 

      For how long have I used the solution?

      More than five years.

      What do I think about the stability of the solution?

      No issues with stability. The only time we ever take it offline is when we do firmware upgrades on it, but that's in a controlled fashion. In seven years, we've not had any unexpected downtime at all.

      When you do a manual failover, no one seems to notice it. It's a seamless thing, which obviously helps.

      What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

      We have about 30,000 connections going through at any one time and it's fine, it doesn't seem to sweat. It doesn't get overloaded.

      How are customer service and technical support?

      With this company, it's the best that I've experienced. They actually phone you back.

      Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

      This is the first one that we bought, and it's the one we stuck with.

      How was the initial setup?

      It's not complex. They provide very helpful guides on their websites for the things that we load-balance. We just followed the guides which were accurate and easy to follow. They're pretty good from that perspective.

      What was our ROI?

      While it's increased our uptime, we don't really justify cost as time - if that makes sense - so it's difficult to quantify.

      What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

      We've got an unlimited license, which doesn't costs that much compared to other vendors, and we don't have to buy it again. The other thing they did was they gave us a free virtual appliance, so we paid for two and got three.

      Buy what you need, or a little bit more than you need. Like I said, we've not had any trouble with them, we've bought the unlimited appliance and we're just using it, and we've not hit any limits.

      Which other solutions did I evaluate?

      We evaluated a couple of others and then decided to go with Loadbalancer. We evaluated KEMP, Zen, and F5.

      What other advice do I have?

      I would say, go for it. It has proved to be a pretty reliable system, it hasn't let us down. Try to break it.

      We've never had any trouble with it. And when I've had to speak to support about firmware upgrades and things like that, they either do it for you or they give you guides and it just works. It's probably few and far between, with regards to things that actually do what it says on the tin. There's a lot of stuff out there at the moment that says it does everything but it doesn't. This is one of the few that actually does it.

      Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
      PeerSpot user
      it_user828333 - PeerSpot reviewer
      Business Development Manager at a government with 1,001-5,000 employees
      Real User
      Makes sure our web-filtering system is distributed, gives us access to the end-servers
      Pros and Cons
      • "Most important for us that it makes sure that the load is distributed and that we always have access to the end servers."

        What is our primary use case?

        We provide a web-filtering system for 200 schools, and Loadbalancer.org makes sure that it balances across all of the web-filtering service that we've got, to provide good quality service.

        How has it helped my organization?

        It was part of a project that we did where we used to outsource all of the web-filtering to a third party. We weren't very happy with it. We wanted to bring everything in-house, control the system ourselves. This is an absolute key component to being able to allow us to do that. It's enabled us to have much better service to offer at a cheaper price, and much more resilient.

        What is most valuable?

        Most important for us that it makes sure that the load is distributed and that we always have access to the end-servers that they're connected to. We need that to make sure that we have a consistent, high level of service that the schools can rely on.

        For how long have I used the solution?

        One to three years.

        What do I think about the stability of the solution?

        We've had a couple of minor issues in the two years they've been running, a couple of very small glitches. 

        What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

        No we haven't had any scalability issues. We've installed them, installed the devices from day one, and they've worked absolutely fine.

        How are customer service and technical support?

        In those cases where we had small glitches, whenever we contacted the support team, they've been absolutely fantastic.

        Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

        We weren't really using anything ourselves because we were doing it through a third-party contract previously, but we switched to Loadbalancer.org at the recommendation of our web-filtering partners.

        How was the initial setup?

        It was actually our partner who set them up for us, so we didn't have anything to do with it directly. But in our case, yes, it was straightforward.

        What was our ROI?

        The appliances have had a measurable effect on our operating costs. I wouldn't be able to put a finger on it as such, but yes, they've definitely helped.

        What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

        I'd say it is very good value.

        Which other solutions did I evaluate?

        To be honest, our filtering partners said that they had done that work previously themselves, they had tried and tested, and they recommended Loadbalancer.org. So we just went with their recommendation. We, ourselves, didn't evaluate anything else, but I know that they have. They'd be in a much better place than us to do those evaluations.

        What other advice do I have?

        I would rate it a nine out of 10. We have had one or two small crashes on them, nothing major, but I guess that would be the only thing stopping it from being a 10.

        I would say that, from the experience that we've had, the devices, operation, and the support from the technical support teams, that I can't fault it. I can't fault the systems. I'd happily recommend them.

        It's just worked. It's been a good system. We were advised to purchase it and it was good advice. I'd say that it's been absolutely 100% brilliant for us, and I wouldn't think twice about recommending them.

        Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
        PeerSpot user
        System Integrator
        Real User
        Ease of use enables junior team members to participate in managing load balancing needs
        Pros and Cons
        • "The user interface precludes need to be well versed with Linux IPVS command line. This make it easy for junior team members to participate in managing load balancing needs."
        • "It would be great if there was a way to gain access to the graphing data, to create custom reports. If we had a way to use the graphing data, we could use it to present certain information to our client, such as the uptime status for their service."

        What is our primary use case?

        Load balance http and https requests, our customer service.

        How has it helped my organization?

        It has relieved the load on our team so we can focus on other aspects of the operation.

        When we do load balancing, the customer does not know that this particular node is down because the load balancing hides it from them. So, from a customer point of view, they have what I would call an unbreakable service. The service is continuous. Now, on our end, because of the load balancer, we can actually hide it from them, move to another server and bring the bad server offline. So it does improve our SLA with the customer.

        What is most valuable?

        Ease of use and support.

        The user interface precludes need to be well versed with Linux IPVS command line. This make it easy for junior team members to participate in managing load balancing needs. 

        The support especially helps us with quick remote fixes. With a remote fix, I can view the fix in real time and yet ease security concerns for my supervisor. We had a few issues and they responded immediately. They came in remotely and fixed them. Everything is really good from the customer service point of view, which is what we expected it to be.

        What needs improvement?

        It would be great if there was a way to gain access to the graphing data, to create custom reports. If we had a way to use the graphing data, to somehow extract the data and chart it for this appliance, we could use it to present certain information to our client, such as the uptime status for their service.

        Right now, there's no way for us to extract the data. So from that point of view, we can see it on the user interface but we cannot extract out the chart or the data.

        For how long have I used the solution?

        Less than one year.

        What do I think about the stability of the solution?

        No issues with stability. There were a few issues in the past, probably due to configurations. The support guy came in remotely and helped us to fix it. It's stable, it's in production nonstop.

        What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

        So far no issues with scalability. It was easy to upgrade the license for unlimited clusters and servers.

        When we bought the product, we got a lower tier version that had a limitation on the clusters. Then we upgraded to unlimited clusters due to our needs and it has been good. We have not made the limit of the unlimited clusters yet.

        How are customer service and technical support?

        Super. They are good. They know what they are doing. They're responsive.

        Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

        I used Linux IPVS in a previous job. It is not user friendly. It required much more hands-on knowledge. You need your command line, you need to fix things. With the Loadbalancer.org solution, on top of the command line they have a fancy GUI that makes it more user-friendly.

        How was the initial setup?

        Straightforward. It's just a hardware setup. You just click on a few buttons in the GUI and everything is fine.

        What was our ROI?

        I really don't know for sure, as we previously used Round Robin DNS. I think it is likely immeasurable, as the business revenue depends a lot on the load balancer. We cannot live without it.

        What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

        You can start with the base appliance R20 first and upgrade to the MAX version if necessary.

        Their pricing is good. We are looking at it from a customer point of view. Customer downtime costs us money. So the pricing is is fair. They have good service and I recommend the company.

        Which other solutions did I evaluate?

        What other advice do I have?

        Implement major changes during the appropriate support hours so you can get support if things don't work out correctly.

        Start out with the limited, restricted option first. Because to upgrade to the unlimited option, you just call customer service and get your license changed. That would help some small businesses. So if they evaluate, and they find that they need more, they just update their license and they get unlimited clusters. So that way they are saving, if they want to be cautious.

        Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
        PeerSpot user
        it_user826311 - PeerSpot reviewer
        IT Support at a government with 10,001+ employees
        Real User
        Stable, easy to set up, gives us live failover for a crucial intranet site
        Pros and Cons
        • "It does what it’s supposed to do which is balancing an important intranet site we are using, so if one server dies, the second becomes active straight away."
        • "If I have to say something, I suppose they could add an automated configuration backup to an FTP location (or something similar) so you don’t have to manually do it. I don’t see this as a problem, of course, as the configuration rarely changes and we only need one backup, but maybe for other users that feature would be handy."

        What is our primary use case?

        To have live failover for an intranet site we are using, and to monitor live user connections.

        How has it helped my organization?

        It does what it’s supposed to do which is balancing an important intranet site we are using, so if one server dies, the second becomes active straight away. The site is 24/7, so it’s crucial for us to always have it up and running.

        What needs improvement?

        It’s really difficult to say as we use it, as I mentioned, just to have the failover for our websites. We rarely access the interface; maybe to do a backup from time to time, or when we have connectivity issues to check if people are connecting.

        If I have to say something, I suppose they could add an automated configuration backup to an FTP location (or something similar) so you don’t have to manually do it. I don’t see this as a problem, of course, as the configuration rarely changes and we only need one backup, but maybe for other users this feature would be handy.

        For how long have I used the solution?

        One to three years.

        What do I think about the stability of the solution?

        Nothing at all.

        What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

        No problems so far.

        How are customer service and technical support?

        I used it once for an activation-key issue we had, and they helped me straight away, so 10 out of 10.

        Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

        No previous solution.

        How was the initial setup?

        Really user friendly, so no problem here.

        What was our ROI?

        The appliances have not had a measurable effect on our operating costs (payback on investment).

        What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

        I think it’s very affordable, nothing more to add.

        What other advice do I have?

        My advice to others considering this product is that they will experience a very good, stable product which is very easy to set up.

        Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
        PeerSpot user
        it_user817080 - PeerSpot reviewer
        IT Manager at a tech vendor with 11-50 employees
        Real User
        Load balancing and redundancy make our network more reliable
        Pros and Cons
        • "We can more easily set up a test environment, because you can easily configure your forms. It makes it more flexible for us, to convert our test environment to a production environment, without having to change DNSs on the outside. You just configure the forms on the inside. So without changing the actual endpoint for the end user, we can create completely different networks in the background."

          What is our primary use case?

          It actually makes our whole network more reliable, because of its load balancing capabilities. And not only load balancing, but also redundancy. That's what we use it for.

          How has it helped my organization?

          We can more easily set up a test environment, because you can easily configure your forms. It makes it more flexible for us to convert our test environment to a production environment, without having to change DNSs on the outside. You just configure the forms on the inside. So without changing the actual endpoint for the end user, we can create completely different networks in the background. So that's really flexible for us.

          What is most valuable?

          First of all it's the reliability, what you create by load balancing, because you have more endpoints. That's for our web services that we provide. This is the only feature for us, and it's important because it makes our network more reliable.

          What needs improvement?

          We are only using the basic features, and for us it's good. We're not yet using the SSL certificate offloading because we are still using an older software version. But I already know that in the new versions they have, it's built in. That would be a feature that I would like. But that's already there in the newer versions. As I said, we're still using an older one and it still works fine for us. 

          For how long have I used the solution?

          More than five years.

          What do I think about the stability of the solution?

          No issues with stability. I had some questions, especially at the start, but their great service team was there for us. But no instabilities.

          What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

          If I'm correct, we have the Enterprise version and it's very scalable. You can make endless endpoints and there are no restrictions in the version we have. So it's very much scalable.

          How are customer service and technical support?

          Great, really. I give them a 10 out of 10. Their tech team provides really great support. Very knowledgeable engineers are there for you. They are very responsive and they come with good solutions. Their goal is really to help you, and they know it's one of the cores in your network because it creates the reliability. So that's why it's also one of the key points, that always needs to be working. They're supportive like that. They are very responsive.

          Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

          We did have a previous solution once, but I don't remember the name because it was more than 10 years ago. We used a software solution on our own hardware, based in a Windows system, and it didn't work at all. After that we immediately decided on a more professional solution and this, Loadbalancer.org, is where we came to and we're still there.

          As for our old solution, technically it was not working. The problem with the software solution - not theirs, a different company - the problem was that it worked fine for 100 users but it was not scalable at all. And then if the 110th user came in, the system totally crashed. It was not a good solution. We found out very quickly and, luckily, we found this solution.

          How was the initial setup?

          It was very straightforward. You just create your virtual servers, you connect it to the physical servers and that's it. For me it was very straightforward. I like the way they think, how they made the interface.

          What was our ROI?

          I'm not really thinking of return of investment. For us it was important to make our network redundant and reliable. In that sense, yes there is a ROI, because you cannot run an organization without any redundancy. It needs to be reliable.

          What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

          It's worth the cost. It's not cheap, but it's a good solution. If you're looking for a good solution, this is  a good solution. Is it cheap? No. Is it worth the money? Yes, I think it is.

          What other advice do I have?

          Do it. 

          I think they have very nice upgrade offers. When you start small, you can take the smaller version, and if your company is hopefully expanding, you can always choose an upgraded version. I remember they had nice offers. We never needed one because we immediately chose the Enterprise version but I can imagine that you would like to start small, and they have nice offers for that.

          I would say it's a 10 out of 10, because it does exactly what it needs to do and that's what you want from a product.

          Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
          PeerSpot user