Pulse Virtual Traffic Manager Review

It's a load balancer for our front end application. We use the on-prem deployment model. 

The most valuable aspect of this solution is that it is simple to deploy. The deployment took us ten minutes. We only require two staff members for the deployment. 

It's all automated and it's a very stable product.

In terms of what needs improvement, the price could be lowered. We've tried to deploy more of them but our purchasing department has said that they're way too expensive and they would prefer to use something else. We sort of stopped deploying them because of that. There are additional costs to the standard licensing. There are bandwidth prices.

The feature set is quite good. We've been told to stop using them because of the price. If they can do something to address that I believe it would be better. On the latest version they've got a community edition, which is quite a good bandwidth, but in essence, it's to address the entry-level price. When you get to 10 gig bandwidth, it's way too expensive.

It is quite stable. We haven't had any fall over. The only one problem we had was that the Terraform provider. If you put the wrong IP address into the Terraform via the API, then it crashes the node.

It is scalable. We have several teams, but the actual users of the load balancer would be the internet.

We don't have plans to increase usage because it's too expensive. My corporation prefers to use F5.

We were using Brocade before Pulse Secure, and then before that, we were using Riverbed and before that, we were using Azure.

I really like this solution. I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

My advice to someone implementing this solution would be to use a Terraform to deploy to make it as automatic as possible.