What advice do you have for others considering IBM WebSphere Application Server?

After the initial setup phase, one may need to make some improvements in the performance to correct configurations. There is also a need to take care of the updates and patches or anything else to keep the version updated. Even the normal maintenance is okay. I think just a few times, there was a need to create a ticket to tackle a problem. I would recommend the product to others. I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

IBM WebSphere uses a processor-based licensing model. In contrast, Oracle WebLogic employs a different licensing approach, often charging based on the number of cores or processors used. Regarding Oracle databases, the cost for the enterprise edition is higher than that of the standard edition, reflecting additional features and security capabilities. Oracle is renowned for its robust security measures and service levels. Unlike Microsoft SQL Server, Oracle databases offer features such as stable-level load restoration. Additionally, WebSphere is known for its excellent performance on Linux, which reduces the need for frequent server restarts, unlike Windows servers, which may require more restarts due to higher resource utilization. It achieves a high availability percentage, often around 98-99 percent. However, occasional outages may occur due to deep memory or other unexpected issues. Deployment processes can also present challenges, such as delays in transferring bar files between nodes, requiring revoking and re-deploying efforts. These issues occasionally impact the availability of submarket components, such as ATM services or other critical services. Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

I would recommend it because of its stable performance, scalability, and strong security features. Overall, on a scale from one to ten, with one being the worst and ten being the best, I would rate this solution an eight.

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

I rate IBM WebSphere Application Server an eight out of ten.

We are pleased with the effectiveness of the solution. I would rate it eight out of ten.

I give the solution an eight out of ten. The compatibility and stability of the IBM WebSphere Application Server make it capable of supporting all applications. Additionally, the solution's features, applications, user interface, and support are all beneficial. When vulnerabilities arise, IBM provides quick fixes and support. I work for a consulting company that has multiple clients. Most of our enterprise users prefer to use the WebSphere Application Server due to its stability, support, enhancements, and prompt support. This is why people tend to like IBM products.

I think IBM WebSphere Application Server is a dead solution and will probably fade out. So, I would not recommend it to anyone. On a scale from one to ten with one being the worst and ten being the best, I'd rate this solution at one.

I would give WebSphere Application Server a rating of nine out of ten.

I would definitely recommend this solution to users, but there is always room for improvement.

Its best platform, in my opinion, is AIX on Power. Unfortunately, AIX on Power is being phased out. However, if you have a Power VM/AIX shop and are committed to Power and AIX, WAS is the app server of choice. If you're considering ESXi or a hyper-converged solution, WAS works just as well on those platforms, the more cloud platforms. For the space that it plays best in, I would rate IBM WebSphere Application Server a nine out of ten.

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.

We are also customers of the product. In our organization we use the WebSphere Network Deployment edition. We use this product in our core, internet and mobile banking, which means it is used by 20 bank tellers and eight million customers. I rate IBM WebSphere Application Server as an eight out of ten.

I recommend this solution to others. I rate BM WebSphere Application Server an eight out of ten.

I would advise others to have a very strong partner who understands IBM WebSphere very well. They should be mindful of the architecture that they're going to put in place for the IBM solution. You should ensure that load balancing and the architecture of the implementation are right. Otherwise, there could be issues. Having a stronger partner for handling implementation makes life a lot easier and more meaningful. I would rate IBM WebSphere Application Server an eight out of 10.

The solution that we have now, one of the challenges we have is with the WebSphere portal. The WebSphere application and WebSphere content management software are no longer IBM products. IBM would have sold it off to ETL back in 2018 or 2019. Maintaining that as a full end to end IBM solution has become very difficult. They basically have a hands-off approach now. Anybody who's using this needs to be aware of what is available to them by way of manufacturer support and then other support. The licensing entitlements for the product need to be very carefully understood. There are limitations to the hardware configuration that goes together with the implementation. The other thing is that we've recognized that there are few resources that have the experience and capability of monitoring this system. If you are going to deploy it, you should ensure that you either have strong and continued backline support with your vendors or third party managers or that your in-house team is well skilled in order to monitor and maintain everything and administer the system. If you can get to a point where the build, implementation, and commissioning could be done in house, that will give you a lot more visibility to all the different elements of the solution and how they integrate and interoperate so that it makes the management on troubleshooting a lot easier. I'm biased due to my previous experiences. My experiences are really more influenced by the build and not necessarily the product as a standalone product. I would rate the solution at a three out of ten.

We're just users. We don't have a business relationship with IBM. I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. I'd rate it higher if they offered more customization capabilities and was more responsive.

If you need a small system that needs to be exposed on the web for simple transations, or if you are considering a cloud environment you should consider a different solution. I would rate it an eight out of ten because for complex system development, it is the best solution at this moment.

IBM WebSphere Application Server works well and fulfills all of the requirements that are demanded of it, so it is a product that I recommend. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. It has a sensitive implementation. If you do a wrong step, it will destroy the whole thing and you will need to start from scratch.

The solution is deployed in the UX operating system. Although the solution is good, open-source options keep getting better and better, so I'd recommend others to look into that. This solution is expensive. So is Oracle. I find open-source more innovative and they often have a good community around them that offers helpful support. I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. I'd rate it higher, but there are basic features that have minimum capabilities that can be very dissatisfying. Apart from that, they provide good support, offer a good clustering model that's reliable, and it's properly tested with certified code.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Use an expert WAS Admin to set up the deployment scripts and automating as much as possible. Implement DevOps concepts by working in conjunction with administrators and developers I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.