NetScaler Reviews

SSL offloading, load balancing, HTTP analysis and manipulation (HTTP rewrites, inserts, redirects) for web applications. Load balancing other ERP applications and Exchange.

We have a lot of custom web applications that sometimes require custom header insertions.  Some of these apps are externally accessible. In our current network design, we were using a routable address for every external resource that we presented. Via the Content Switching, we are using one routable IP for various systems, preserving our number of allocated public addresses.

HTTP analysis and action. We have a lot of custom web applications that sometimes require custom header insertions. Some of these custom apps are external and, via the Content Switching, we can use one IP and leverage various back-end web app servers.

For the most part, I don’t have complaints about the system and its solution. One of my prior gripes was that documentation and knowledge base articles were disjointed and/or were not complete. Citrix has done a great job over the last two and a half years of enhancing their support material.

I would give the product a nine out of 10. The product is solid and truly is a Swiss army knife. However, getting to use some of the advanced tools, even with the assistance of Citrix support, can be challenging.

• Load balancing
• Application gateway
• SSL offloading

It helped many internal websites to expose online use with single star certificates.

Load Balancing and SSL offloading are key features.

The GUI should be improved.

We use the NetScaler ADC in three primary use cases. The first is to provide load balancing services for our internal applications. The second is for Global Server Load Balancing (GSLB) to provide data center resiliency and failover of our externally accessible services, as well as proximity-based access. The third is for the Unified Gateway to securely provide external access to some of our key applications. We deploy VPX appliances running in our VMware environment.

The GSLB feature allows us to move services between data centers. We can do this in either a planned or unplanned manner. We have experienced service provider outages at our primary data center and GSLB will kick in to automatically modify DNS records to point to a secondary data center (active/passive). We also make use of GeoIP information to point clients to the closest data center for accessing applications.

The features I find most useful are 

• Load Balancing
• GSLB
• Unified Gateway.

I love being able to terminate connections to the boxes and look at all of the packet headers to determine which way I want to send the traffic next. GSLB provides amazing ability to do active/active or active/passive deployment of services. Unified Gateway allows me to provide secure external access to applications for suppliers and customers while requiring Multi-Factor Authentication.

The main areas for improvement would be around documentation and support. If a feature can be used in two or three ways, show that feature being used in all of those ways. Documentation seems to only cover the primary use case and leaves you to either run through trial and error or consult the user community. In terms of support, I have never actually had them solve any of my issues. I have always solved them myself and then provided the resolution to support.

I would rate the NetScaler a nine out of 10. It is a fantastic platform to work with and the features/functionality are top-notch. The only ding would be for the documentation, but the user community is fantastic.

The NetScaler is used for front-end enterprise applications as well as Citrix deployments. We generally see deployments for secure remote access. In some cases, global load balancing is used in multi-data center deployments.

The NetScaler appliance has provided a lot of customers with greater high availability for their enterprise applications within a single site and across multiple locations. The largest, and potentially main reason to use Netscaler over the competition, is in Citrix environments. There is complete integration through the stack, and it has features which make it simple to securely provide access to enterprise data and applications.

The NetScaler Gateway has been extremely valuable for many reasons. We make use of the load balancing capabilities, including SSL offload and GSLB for high availability. The MAS integration for HDX Insight has provided teams with significant visibility into network performance of the user's connection.

Citrix has made steady improvements over the years. Personally, reducing the overhead required for AppFlow data collection, specifically for HDX Insight, would be a huge improvement.

The primary use for using it is the wholesale application and VDIs.

I have been working the cost factors, while the performance and application are good, the factory cost brought back to you is not. Therefore, we are currently comparing the product with Microsoft RemoteApp.

The most valuable feature would be the Citrix permanent server.

It is cost-effective, if you consider the permanent server. Also, the management is easy with no downtimes. 

There are some features which are missing.

What I am looking for is something like OneDrive. We are facing an issue with OneDrive on the XenApp and XenDesktop. We can't use OneDrive with what we have. So, a fully, operational OneDrive support is what I am looking for.

Stability is good.

Scalability is good.

We like working with Citrix technical support.

I have been working with Citrix technology for the last 10 to 13 years. We have not switched solutions during this time. 

From a Citrix perspective, it was straightforward. From the application perspective, there are some tweaks that we need to do. So, we are working on those tweaks.

Currently, we are evaluating the cost prospective from the BDA cost prospective. We are evaluating Microsoft and Citrix as they are the leaders in this solution. If you compare Citrix and Microsoft RemoteApp, Citrix is the best compared to RemoteApp. RemoteApp is basically meant for a small business use case.

We are using Citrix XenApp and XenDesktop, but we are planning to now expand into the same product. 

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: 

• Cost
• Performance
• Stability
• Scalability
• High availability.

There are a lot of them: 

• Load balancing in communications 
• Global load balancing between data centers 
• The management 
• Easy integration with other Citrix products. 

In the management topic, there are three levels: 

1. 1st Level, most user-friendly, the GUI, in this level we can configures all the features and inclusive test the implementations. 
2. 2nd Level Console, very helpful for easy access to all settings and troubleshooting problems, deep level in settings. 
3. 3rd Level Shell, essential to troubleshooting. Direct access to all logging in the components.

Easy integration with Citrix Solution, NetScaler has wizards to help implementation of Citrix solutions, like XenApp/XenDesktop and Xenmobile.

In the organization, we have three systems based in Citrix technology, so there was logic to add a solution which give us security and a focal point of access. With Netscaler, we have a solution divided in two data centers, a secure and unique point of access, and balanced traffic between all the critical components in the Citrix solutions. For the last, we have a mature, solid, and secure component to complete the Citrix environment.

I think there is always room for improvement in this type of solutions. For example, I think the GUI should be easy to understand.

I have used this version about one year, but Netscaler for about three years.

No, this is a Citrix product. This means there are gobs of documentation, and the support given by CItrix, it's very good.

No. We have four virtual appliances working. If we need to increase, it's a simple process.

No, the whole solution is based in Citrix technology.

The system was easy, but the GSLB function was more difficult to configure and test.

It all depends on the features that will be used and the number of accesses. 

No.

It is important, almost crucial, to have some network knowledge. Have the technical design made, it is very simple to overcomplicate when using this product.

Content Redirection and SSO integration with Citrix XenApp/XenDesktop. The GUI was wonderful. Content Redirection based on application data is a wonderful feature which works absolutely fine with most of the web application, and it has good logics behind it to configure it, and secondly, Single sign-on with Citrix's own applications, like XenApp and XenDesktop.

I have given this solution to many customers of NetScaler. It helped many businesses to gain high availability for their particular web application tiers.

Scripting and writing expressions need to be improved by putting logic behind the rules and improve policies involving some of the scripting part, which is a tedious task to do.

Almost two to three years.

Not as such, their Support Team and R&D Team were not able to give a solution in one case.

No.

An eight out of 10.

I worked with KEMP and NetScaler.

No, it is complicated and there is limited expertise in market for deployment.

Costly product and complicated licensing.

I tried KEMP.

Check the solution provided by Citrix twice and get a PoC done.

Load balancing, cache redirection, content switching, all connected with traffic management.

We have removed all NLB clusters on web applications, increased HA for some applications and now we have possibilities such as rewrite and response with more flexible tools.

Maybe creating policies with simple regular expressions.

This is my second year.

I had some problems with HA node movements.

No, I had a small deployment with two nodes of NS.

Very quick every time, even with Severity 4, with successful results.

NGNX, but it was not my solution.

It was very easy, the NetScaler community is very big. The GUI is very user friendly and not cumbersome.

It's not for startups or SOHO.

We considered F5 Networks.

It's a good choice for ADC; no marketing.