I have used load balancing on the TCP layer. I have not used the product for areas like HTTP and HTTPS. I have not used the product for web or API applications. I have only used the product for the TCP part.

HAProxy improved our company's applications' availability. I had a use case in my company where we had to connect to one of my voice servers from a back-end proxy for which I had used HAProxy. HAProxy helped me when I had to distribute the traffic between all the voice servers from a single application in my company.

HAProxy's most valuable feature for network traffic management stems from the functionalities attached to the area revolving around TCP load balancers since it has helped me achieve excellent results.

To those who plan to use the product, I would say that they need to consider including the HTTP proxy part product, similar to the offerings made by NGINX. The product's potential users can introduce a lot of modules, which can help HAProxy when compared with NGINX.

I did not face any challenges with the integration capabilities of the product. My organizational objectives were achievable with HAProxy.

Considering the tool's TCP part, I rate the overall tool a seven out of ten.

I would definitely recommend using the solution. Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

We're a very small company of 400 employees, so there are only two of us in VoIP engineering who maintain all the equipment, which includes phones, Metaswitch, and LoadBalancer.org. The solution is maintained by one person taking only one hour a day to monitor the logs and apply new rules.

The solution is a layer seven device that allows your traffic to flow through. So if you are running any type of web interface for your customers, put a WAF in front of it that will allow you to limit the traffic that goes to the backend.

It will primarily be determined by the budget, the size of their company's budget, or if you have the budget. I would always recommend the F5. Because it has more clarity and more features are available in the F5, if budget is an issue, go with HAProxy. It's a good product.

If you are not utilizing very basic things that you should be using for the HAProxy.

Depending on the balance If the balance is very minimal, they should use HAProxy, an open-source solution, but if the balance is larger, such as an enterprise, they should use F5 BIG-IP Local Traffic.

I would rate HAProxy an eight out of ten.

The advice I would give to others looking to implement HAProxy is to go with the on-prem version if you can. The cloud version is a bit different because a lot depends on HAProxy's compatibility with the cloud vendor itself. I would say to stick with the solution your cloud provider has put out.

On a scale of one to ten, with one being the worst and 10 being the best, I would give HAProxy a nine overall.

If you require a TCP and UDP protocol for load balancing, this is a very great solution.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

HAProxy is definitely a dependable choice. The only thing that needs some attention is the initial learning curve. When you get past that, it is a great tool to use. We are very happy with it. I would rate HA Proxy a nine out of ten.

Based on customer stability and varying use cases, I recommend choosing this solution. I would rate it nine out of ten.

I rate HAProxy a seven out of ten.

I would rate HAProxy nine out of 10. My biggest recommendation for any new HAProxy user is to read Load Balancing With HAProxy by Nick Ramirez. If you're thinking about using HAProxy and you want to get your feet wet, read this book and follow along with it. Determine whether you're trying to do an HAProxy for a web service or something else and concentrate specifically on those pieces. I read the whole book and enjoyed it, but you can focus on one thing if you need to. This book is short, and you can just read the whole thing to understand it.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten. It is good and famous. 

It's important to define your use case clearly so you can be sure the product corresponds to your needs.

I rate the solution seven out of 10. 

I have used it for over 10 years. I started using it as a Web application (Tomcat, Apache, JBoss) load-balancer when it had a few stable releases. When I first start using it, HAProxy was primarily used to load-balance HTTP requests. Since we are a B2B company that deals primarily with hotel inventory, IP authentication was a must. Therefore, our customers had single end-points to send and receive RESTful requests. To make this viable, we had to use a central server as a proxy to tunnel out the requests. We will continue to use HAProxy as our entry-point and exit-point of the system.

Use it for some small, non-critical systems first, get comfy with the stats, and then scale out. Codify your configuration and keep it as simple as the requirements allow.

• Use the best hardware you can (CPU and memory).
• Don't log files locally, if possible.
• Use multi process only if you have to, and don't utilize the first core.

We have currently deployed it for one product. For non-critical applications, it is a good choice. You can definitely go for it if you have cost concerns, your application is not very dynamic, or you are looking for a basic load balancing product. 

I would rate HAProxy a six out of 10.

Once the container is set up, the time it takes to deploy is typically under a minute. That is a full-blown solution with all the plugins and images that I'm planning on using. I'm pretty happy with it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

There are better tools, but the product does the job well. All my colleagues know the tool and have used it. I recommend the product to others. Companies that have complex environments must not choose HAProxy. Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

Play a lot with the VM version. The product is powerful but some features are a bit hidden (read the HAProxy docs).

I would rate this product a nine out of 10. I only took off one point because of the lack of a GUI, although in this case I would say that I prefer the CLI and configuration, which is primarily how we manage it. A GUI/web interface could be helpful for users who are not as experienced in the Linux shell.

Be sure you are familiar with the Linux command line and have networking knowledge. Specifically, VRRP is helpful to understand the high-availability aspect of it. The documentation is very helpful, so be sure to follow their given best practices and configuration tips.

I rate this solution six out of 10. 

I would rate HAProxy an eight out of ten.

Go for it. These systems are exceptional.

HAProxy is a very powerful solution with great performance, but it needs to be evaluated carefully according to the specific environment and requirements.

We are end-users and customers. We don't have a business relationship with the solution.

I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

The product is very simple and fast. It's a microchannel.

Try it and if you like it, you buy it.

It’s a reliable product with good technical support.

Use a split front-end and back-end instead of using the "listen" directive. Therefore, you are clear what you are setting up. 

Be aware of connections dropping during restarts, etc.

During the implementation, you have to plan ACLs and back-ends first. That allows you to prepare a cleaner config.

I rate HAProxy a 10 out of 10. It is fast, flexible, and rock solid.

I will always give HAProxy a 10 out of 10. We never have any downtime with it. The HAProxy team regularly updates the product. I would definitely recommend HAProxy. You must go with this product.

The SSL termination was a nice, useful addition.

Others should try it out for sure. It’s a great solution backed by a very smart set of technical folks.

Before using it, you need to understand your environment's sizing and check if HAProxy is able to handle the quantity of connections.

I would recommend HAProxy because it is free in the initial offer, which would work for low budget enterprises that don't have much to start with. 

I would rate HAProxy a seven out of ten.