We could enhance the security aspects of the load balancer. For instance, when data passes through the load balancer, it could potentially include sensitive files or trade-related data. It would be beneficial to have additional features that help identify and protect against any unauthorized access or file leakage.
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.
The solution can be improved with the development of a SIP engine because it is difficult to manage SBCs. All SBCs are really tough to write rules for. If we could put this in front of an SBC to have the right rules to possibly block the traffic, that would be very helpful. The solution can also improve the relationship between Loadbalancer.org and Metaswitch, or now, Microsoft because Metaswitch was purchased by Microsoft. They both position themselves as certified but don't always talk to each other. I wish there would be closer integration between the solution and the vendors when either release new upgrades to their product line. Often we find issues on either end post upgrades.
Senior Network and Security Specialist at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 5
2022-07-06T15:05:15Z
Jul 6, 2022
I can’t think of any new features the solution really needs. The solution can be a bit pricey. The solution is designed more toward larger organizations and, therefore would be a bit expensive for smaller companies.
IT manager at a university with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
2020-12-03T15:07:14Z
Dec 3, 2020
It doesn't have the bonding capability feature. I would like to see the bonding capability feature included and it should be easier to upgrade. The capacity that we currently have is 2G. If we could upgrade it using the same device, we could upgrade it twice without changing the hardware, that would be easier for us. It should be scalable without changing the hardware.
Assistant Manager at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
2020-04-19T07:40:00Z
Apr 19, 2020
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.
IT Manager at a recruiting/HR firm with 51-200 employees
Real User
2018-02-28T07:44:00Z
Feb 28, 2018
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.
Loadbalancer.org is a versatile solution that offers load balancing for small businesses, multiple instances of applications, web application firewall, publishing Windows and SQL applications, and security for telephone service systems. It is easy to use, cost-effective, and performs well with low latency.
The connection maintenance and security features are valuable, including managing logs on WAFs, identifying break-in attempts writing rules to block them and using HAProxy to control...
Compared to the physical products, the solution's throughput is a little less.
We could enhance the security aspects of the load balancer. For instance, when data passes through the load balancer, it could potentially include sensitive files or trade-related data. It would be beneficial to have additional features that help identify and protect against any unauthorized access or file leakage.
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.
The solution can be improved with the development of a SIP engine because it is difficult to manage SBCs. All SBCs are really tough to write rules for. If we could put this in front of an SBC to have the right rules to possibly block the traffic, that would be very helpful. The solution can also improve the relationship between Loadbalancer.org and Metaswitch, or now, Microsoft because Metaswitch was purchased by Microsoft. They both position themselves as certified but don't always talk to each other. I wish there would be closer integration between the solution and the vendors when either release new upgrades to their product line. Often we find issues on either end post upgrades.
The configuration is somewhat complicated. Someone who does not know the solution may find this challenging.
I can’t think of any new features the solution really needs. The solution can be a bit pricey. The solution is designed more toward larger organizations and, therefore would be a bit expensive for smaller companies.
I'd like to see scalability improved; it can be costly.
The price could be reduced. Loadbalancer.org's complexity could be reduced.
It doesn't have the bonding capability feature. I would like to see the bonding capability feature included and it should be easier to upgrade. The capacity that we currently have is 2G. If we could upgrade it using the same device, we could upgrade it twice without changing the hardware, that would be easier for us. It should be scalable without changing the hardware.
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.
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.