Fortinet FortiADC-VM Application Delivery Controller (PAYG, 5Gbps)

Our clients are using Fortinet FortiADC  primarily for load balancing, which serves as the application server load balancer. We have worked with one or two cases of Fortinet FortiADC . For application load balancer solutions, we prefer either A10, which is a leader product present in Gartner leader and Forrester leader, or Radware. We worked with a customer who was in the Fortinet environment, so we suggested Fortinet FortiADC, which helps integrate with FortiWeb, a WAF  solution.

For integration purposes, we implemented Fortinet FortiADC, and they had around four applications and 20 servers. We were able to do the load balancing based on the round robin method in that ADC , which was the use case objective of having the ADC  solution. It was placed behind the WAF  solution, so SSL offloading and transitions were taken care of in the SLB part, specifically Fortinet FortiADC.

Regarding SSL offloading, we had the same use case since they need the certificate for external communications, but for internal communications, they had a separate certificate. We just offloaded the SSL in WAF, and we do the SSL transition in the Fortinet FortiADC part.

When speaking about load balancing, this refers to GSLB, which stands for Global Server Load Balancing. The use case was to balance the loads in a hospital environment with one main application and other side applications supporting doctors, the database for their medical equipment, and related systems. The main application was an online consulting application. The task of Fortinet FortiADC was to load balance the number of hits based on the round robin algorithm and manage the balances between the four or five servers allocated to the application.

In terms of analytics and reporting capability, when integrated, we integrated with FortiAnalyzer. As a standalone solution, it doesn't show much impact, but when integrated with FortiAnalyzer, it has much more significance.

Some customers need custom management for handling their applications across the servers. Instead of having a predefined solution, if we had space for custom-based algorithms to load balance the traffic, it would be better. We have faced such cases with A10, where we can leverage many custom scripts and do much more. Even though A10 primarily focuses on SMBs, they have also ventured into the enterprise market. Fortinet has been a pioneer for enterprise solutions, such as firewalls, SASE , ZTNA , and SD-WAN solutions, and they are in a leader quadrant. Therefore, they should have more options.

From a pricing perspective, it is expensive.

Fortinet FortiADC has been a stable product until now; however, lately we are facing some small issues. It cannot be classified as unstable since they have good support. Overall, it has been good; in the past it was very good, and now it is still performing well.

Even though it is on-premise, there might be some limitations with scalability. Fortinet FortiADC has both virtual and physical appliance options. For those opting for a SaaS or cloud solution, there is scalability and flexibility. Additionally, FortiGSLB  cloud integrations provide maximum service availability and some flexible licensing options. Apart from the physical on-premise model, everything else regarding scalability and functionality is excellent.

Technical support from Fortinet is satisfactory. It varies depending on the engineer assigned; in most cases, we resolve issues on the first attempt. There have been one or two rare instances where they fail to provide complete support, but it's not solely their fault; overall, the support is good.

On a scale from one to ten, the support deserves an eight.

When comparing Fortinet to other competitors such as SentinelOne, Trend Micro, and Trellix, Fortinet provides a comprehensive platform that goes beyond just solutions; it creates an end-to-end security platform. You can have mail security, web security, and firewall perimeter security. In contrast, Trellix and Trend Micro mostly focus on endpoint security levels and occasionally offer secure web gateway or mail security solutions. Rarely do they cover as much as Fortinet. SentinelOne focuses heavily on the attacking path regarding endpoint security and identity security. Their roadmap is extending to data DLP , data security, and cloud security. They have begun working on cloud security and their product is promising. Ultimately, Fortinet constructs every solution needed for each defense layer, making it comparatively better than Trellix, Trend Micro, or SentinelOne.

The installation of Fortinet FortiADC rates around six or seven out of ten in terms of difficulty.

Our clients typically have the solution on-premise. I would rate Fortinet FortiADC a seven out of ten overall as a product.

Mostly, I use FortiADC  for web applications. For example, we have multiple trading websites where we need to load payments for many clients accessing from outside.

I use server load balancing and employ layer seven features, which provide more granular traffic shaping and detailed logs.

Additionally, I use load balancing technology like Round Robin  or low weight to maintain session-based connections. This ensures that clients can connect to their applications without interruption. In contrast, using standalone solutions can lead to network conditions that disrupt user connectivity and necessitate additional components before deploying FortiADC .

Primarily, I use this setup for trading platforms.

I will queue all the details clearly on the ticket, including the diagram, log files, and everything else. Once a case is assigned, they ask the same questions again without checking the submitted details. Instead of getting notifications, I start sharing articles I already know, which are supposed to fix issues and help in troubleshooting. Still, I often have to contact FortiADC support again.

After a week, once my remote system is assigned, their support is very good. However, if I need design help, they do not assist; they say it is a design issue they cannot support, and I must approach the system integrator. For troubleshooting, they are very effective once connected to remote support.

I have used it for almost three years, deploying it for a few clients.

The service is helpful yet not excellent. It is good, just not very good.

If I consider traffic shaping and latency, FortiADC does not add any more latency within our internal network. Monitoring the application is very helpful. The alert system is efficient, sending alerts within a fraction of a second if any power issues arise.

In comparison, Kemp support is not at the same level. If any hardware fails, Fortinet ensures a next business day delivery, whereas Kemp often asks many questions and does not support as effectively. I have encountered many issues with Kemp compared to FortiADC.

This solution is quite expensive compared to Kemp.

Kemp load balancing is an alternative, however, customers still prefer FortiADC.

I would rate FortiADC eight out of ten. I did not explore FortiADC's link balancing features; my focus has been primarily on server wellbeing, not on link balancing. This is a feature I need to explore.

The primary use case involves load balancing, which can be integrated with various platforms such as FortiGate  and FortiMail . Administrators choose FortiADC  as a load-balancing platform due to its integration capabilities with end-user technologies.

It supports the creation of virtual IPs and configuration of server nodes, applying algorithms like route roaming, which depends on the administrator's choice.

FortiADC  provides load-balancing capabilities needed for integration with other Fortinet platforms. It allows for the creation of virtual IPs and applying various algorithms for traffic management.

Although it offers fewer algorithms than competing platforms like F5, its capability to manage load balancing makes it valuable. The security features depend on the environment, relying on firewalls like FortiGate .

When the FortiADC is part of a platform with components like FortiManager and FortiGate, automation and pushing configuration are very inconvenient. The limitation of managing all components and the differing versions pose challenges. Migration to the cloud could solve these limitations, allowing for easier upgrades.

The solution has been used for just one year.

The platform is very stable. The support system is reliable when issues like automation or configuration arise.

It is scalable for some versions, however, as components reach their end of support, upgrades are necessary to maintain scalability.

Customer service is excellent. The support team is knowledgeable and efficiently assists with automation and configuration problems. They provide timely responses and thorough explanations for user queries.

A comparison was made with F5's local traffic management. Although F5 has more algorithms, FortiADC follows similar load balancing procedures. The platform's choice seems influenced by specialization in security across different devices.

The process seems to be straightforward if one has basic skills and understands the prerequisites in the support database.

F5's LTM was evaluated, which offers more specialized traffic management capabilities compared to FortiADC's diverse devices for different functionalities.

I rate Fortinet FortiADC an eight. While it effectively integrates load balancing within the Fortinet ecosystem, F5 is rated higher due to its specific capabilities in traffic management. However, FortiADC aligns with Fortinet's specialization in security.

We are expanding our internal network with more virtual servers, and each needs to be defined on the Fortinet gateway. The FortiADC  facilitates communication for servers meant for public access and supports load balancing. My main tasks involve defining new servers and importing SSL certificates.

Initially, I was intimidated by FortiADC . That said, it has a good user manual, allowing management even with basic knowledge. It helps with defining server load balancing tasks and managing SSL certificates, ensuring the communication flow through the Fortinet gateway.

Though FortiADC is useful, I'd appreciate more user-friendly features and in-depth insights into network activity, like detailed logs and AI-driven feedback for optimization. While there's logging, I'm cautious about large log sizes.

We've been using FortiADC for about five or six years.

FortiADC is very stable. We don't face issues or need to worry about unexpected shutdowns or bugs. Its reliability benefits our operations significantly.

I rate the scalability of FortiADC as a seven or eight. While it's fairly adaptable, feedback on whether our setup is optimized would be beneficial.

We communicate with the technical support team from the company that sold us FortiADC. They have been helpful, with the representative demonstrating strong instincts in problem-solving.

We previously used Coyote Equalizer, which became outdated. We needed to implement TLS 1.2, but it only supported TLS 1.0. Fortinet acquired Coyote, leading us to choose FortiADC.

The initial setup and deployment were not done by me. The company that sold it did the initial setup.

As a government organization, reliability and security are crucial. FortiADC is an essential investment, providing these vital elements.

I'm unsure about pricing comparisons, but it seems affordable. Six out of ten might reflect its cost-effectiveness.

It's likely no other vendors were evaluated, as Fortinet acquired Coyote, so the transition to FortiADC made sense.

Find a reliable partner for technical support to ensure peace of mind. Without proper support, addressing problems can be challenging. I rate FortiADC a nine out of ten.

I use Fortinet ADC solution for SSL offloading, certificate management, and load balancing.

The solution enhances performance by efficiently balancing the load across multiple backend servers. It ensures client experiences remain unaffected even if a server starts or encounters issues. Additionally, it manages SSL offloading, relieving our servers from handling certificates.

One of the product's areas of improvement includes reducing the number of components requiring additional licenses, such as antivirus and IDS, which are already covered by our firewall. These additional licenses are redundant for our needs.

The platform has been very stable for the past five years, requiring no maintenance from anyone. There have been no hardware or software issues.

The solution supports numerous virtual servers, approximately a hundred.

I have relied on documentation and online resources for troubleshooting. Our support license is valid for two more years.

Before implementing Fortinet ADC, we used an application delivery system from a company acquired by Broadcom. Due to its discontinuation, we could not upgrade this system, preventing firmware updates necessary for new certificates.

The previous solution required extensive command-line configuration, while the Fortinet ADC offers a more user-friendly web interface with various configuration options, simplifying the setup process.

I carefully reviewed the documentation and configured the product, avoiding default settings. While the setup was complex, thorough preparation facilitated a smooth deployment. It took approximately a year to complete it.

The return on investment is moderate.

Our basic license excludes features such as antivirus and IDS. Due to license limitations, some functionalities are not configured.

I evaluated another platform but found it a single-device system lacking fault tolerance. It was also more expensive and did not perform as effectively, so I chose Fortinet ADC.

The product's advanced capability improves network efficiency and performance by concurrently managing thousands of client connections and optimizing overall network traffic.

I recommend it to others and rate it a seven out of ten. It performs very well for the functions it provides.