Prior to the solution, the only thing we had was a Juniper SRX240 firewall which is basically just a dumb device for NATing, either that lets you through or it doesn't. A lot of the traffic made it through to our backend, causing server crashes and attacks on the data center.

I am also working with F5, Kemp, Barracuda, Cisco, and NGINX.

The last time that I used Barracuda was three to five years ago.

We used F5 Big-IP with some customers and deployed it to others.

We are in the partner space, and not the end user space. We are partners with Citrix and VMware, and we use their products for application virtualization and load balancers.

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.

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.

We previously used an inbuilt load balancer.

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.

Previously, we did not use another solution. Loadbalancer.org is the only one that I have used.

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

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.

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.

No previous solution.

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

No previous solution was used.