IBM WebSphere Application Server Reviews

We are working on a project where the client hosts their own environments. The application we are developing is primarily an app server diagnostic tool. Our clients can choose whatever server they want to use. Some of our clients have used WebSphere quite extensively in the past.

We are not using a lot of the features that these app containers provide. WebSphere, to be honest, is very cumbersome and complex due to its extensive functionality, which makes it difficult to use. 

However, the integration between IBM tools and applications is very well executed, and the support from IBM is quite good, providing a solid support structure.

I use the solution as a dependent tool for IBM's Information Server. It supports IBM Infosphere Application Server as a web server. I handle the Application Server, which has multiple servers configured for this application due to its additional features, such as the ability to configure multiple servers. Mainly, my work is related to administration support. I manage the WebSphere admin console, focusing on security issues and memory problems. For instance, if there are any Java heap memory issues from the application side, I am responsible for tweaking or tuning the heap size to address those concerns.

I would say that the clustering, achieved by using the deployment manager, is valuable. There is a load balancing feature that uses different nodes, handled by the deployment manager. Additionally, this functionality helps with the load balancing of applications.

I currently support projects within my company that use IBM WebSphere Application Server, IBM MQ (message queue), and Jenkins pipelines.

We used WebSphere for enterprise application deployment. We used the WebSphere Admin Console for deployment. We would deploy EARs and WARs through the console. If there are issues accessing the admin console, I would occasionally use command-line tools for troubleshooting.

WebSphere improved our cloud application management. One benefit is how WebSphere handles connectivity between applications and databases. 

For example, if we have a web application connecting to a backend database, we might encounter connectivity issues during periods of peak usage. WebSphere, acting as an intermediary, can manage potential disconnects. 

It tells the application, "You don't need to worry about connectivity; I'll take care of it." This significantly improves reliability, particularly during peak times.

The administrative console provides a GUI interface, so it's convenient for administrative tasks. Most of our administration work is done directly through the admin console.

My membership management involves CRM for membership management facilitated by WebSphere. The platform I use is WebSphere, however, most customers develop their own CRM and membership management systems.

WebSphere primarily functions in the front area as an application, while most business jobs are conducted on databases. The web application server is mainly for viewing and inquiry purposes. It is very light to handle, providing significant benefits for customer business platforms.

We deploy the solution both on-premise and Azure, AWS, and IBM cloud.

We use a solution for our e-commerce application. We have an application deployed on AWS Cloud, for a client, which has a large B2B customer base in Australia. Therefore, we use WebSphere Application Server for the e-commerce website.

IBM WebSphere Application Server is one of the best servers due to its stability and paid license. I have never encountered any issues when installing and deploying applications, as it never goes down.

Currently, there are two versions of WebSphere Application Server: the old version, known as WebSphere Application ND, and the newer version, Liberty, which is Docker-based. I have experience with both and have never encountered any issues. I believe that WebSphere Application Server is a great feature.

We use the solution for core banking. Oracle will be the back end. 

The security could be better.

We use on-premise model, primarily for hosting a case management system.

We have about 3,000 users concurrently using this application. This application has achieved more than 99.9% up time which has resulted in increased productivity and efficiency.

The only reason why we're currently using WebSphere is that the integration of the authentication with Azure is very quick. WebSphere has something that can immediately connect with Azure Active Directory.

IBM WebSphere Application Server hasn't changed much. It's still a heavyweight for any company compared to what you get. Unless your code base is deeply linked with it, I don't think it's a great idea to go with this solution.

The current trend is toward modularity and containerization, and given the product's requirements, containerization will be difficult. There is a memory requirement as well.

With the enterprise version, there are features we don't need, but if we did, they are available with the Apache package.

You can easily find people who know Tomcat, but you find very few people who deeply know WebSphere. There is a steep learning curve as well.

There is hindrance to testing, that is, IBM WebSphere Application Server will take 30 seconds to start, whereas Tomcat will take 2 seconds without any applications. That's a big problem.

The installation is very complex. The licensing cost also is 1,000 of euros for a 30-year table.

The product has so many problems and needs so many patches. It does not take the standard Java Development Kit; you need IBM 1 even though Java is supposed to be portable. I think there is barely any use case for IBM WebSphere Application Server.