Loading
Distributing traffic across multiple servers or links, with health checking and automatic removal of failed nodes.
Load balancing does two jobs, and people usually buy it for the less important one. Capacity is the obvious benefit. Availability is the valuable one — a balancer that health-checks properly takes a failed server out of rotation before your users notice.
We design the balancing method to the application. Session-based applications need persistence; stateless APIs don't and shouldn't pay for it. Getting that wrong produces intermittent logouts that are very hard to diagnose later.
Applies to servers and to internet links — multiple circuits balanced with per-flow distribution and automatic failover.
Publishing exclusions is deliberate. Nobody in this market does it, and it's the fastest way to avoid a variation conversation later.
If yours isn't here, ask — we'd rather answer it before you buy than after.
Yes, per-flow. Note that a single download won't exceed one link's speed — balancing distributes sessions, it doesn't bond capacity. If you need true bonding, that's SD-WAN.
Often not. HAProxy or NGINX on properly sized virtual machines handles most workloads well. We recommend hardware when TLS offload volume or throughput genuinely justifies it.
Free site survey first. You keep the findings whether or not you buy.
