JBoss Reviews

JBoss is a middleware product. The customers use it to make connections between front-end applications and databases.

Red Hat provides the product and the support. We get good support from the support team. It is one of the benefits.

The product could be cheaper. The solution recently increased the prices.

I have been working with the product for 6 months to a year.

The tool is stable. The customers are buying the product.

The tool is scalable. We can install additional servers. We can extend our cluster horizontally.

The support is fast and reliable. It is very good. If we raise a support ticket, the support team will solve the problem somehow.

The deployment is not that complex. It is easy.

We pay a yearly subscription fee. There are no additional costs associated with the product.

I recommend the tool to others. Overall, I rate the solution an 8 out of 10.

I use JBoss for our websites and multiple products.

The greatest benefit of JBoss is that it was procured by IBM, thereby offering exceptional support for our banking operations.

The stability of the solution could improve with Microsoft Windows.

I have been using JBoss for approximately 10 years.

The stability of JBoss. However, if we are using Linux it is more stable than if we are using Microsoft Windows.

JBoss is capable of scaling, and it supports clustering for scalability. However, if clustering is not supported, we would need to use a load balancer to achieve scalability.

We have our own team that handles the support. I have not contacted the vendor for support.

We are using the web application server from IBM.

The setup of JBoss was straightforward.

We have a Red Hat professional partner who helps us with the implementation of the solution.

The number of people needed for the implementation depends on the build. If the setup is basic then one person can handle it.

The return on investment from JBoss depends on the specific solutions being used. In our case, based on the solutions we are running, I don't believe we are getting a good ROI. If we were running a large-scale solution such as a channel, then it would make sense. However, if we are using a small free solution, such as a back-office solution, and investing in expensive licenses, it may not be very cost-effective.

Despite the price increase after being acquired by IBM, JBoss still maintains its competitiveness. The package provided is more geared towards cloud-based deployments, whereas our setup is more traditional, which makes it slightly more expensive for us. As most vendors are transitioning towards cloud-centric solutions, companies like ours need to adapt accordingly.

The license from JBoss. There is a CAPX cost and an annual cost.

All the solutions we use are on-premise because we are a bank institution. However, we use some SaaS solutions but they are not connected to the on-premise systems.

I would recommend JBoss to others.

I rate JBoss a nine out of ten.

We use JBoss exclusively for API integration and do not use it for other purposes. Our focus is solely on providing services and configuring ACLs.

Certain works are being done very well with JBoss due to its peer configuration. The various styles of services offered by JBoss are very useful for our company and other companies as it becomes difficult for businesses to afford too many services running on different computers. In short, JBoss is a good product. We use several instances, such as Java instances, and also install numerous services within the solution.

Logging-related issues in JBoss require improvement. Also, another problem in the solution is that once the developer finishes coding, minor changes are often required when deploying Red Hat Fuse. Though the developer already knows these changes, there may be some dependency problems and the need to install JAAS. The other issue in JBoss is related to instances being stuck.

I have been working with the solution for four years.

For our company, JBoss is a stable tool. However, I won't be able to speak for other people.

JBoss is a scalable tool.

Regarding the setup of JBoss, it is a standalone setup, which is straightforward. So, we are not using a domain setup. The solution's deployment was done four years ago. Additionally, the solution's setup is done on Openshift, which is a cloud-based platform.

Since the solution is freeware, our customers don't need to pay any licensing fees. The only element that requires payment is RHEL.

We use Git as a version controller, with the help of which the developers do coding and then commit their changes for a game. We have been using Git for four years.

I recommend JBoss to people who want to start using the solution. It is not a complicated tool to use. We are deploying different services over different instances. So, we reduce the cost over the one server, which we use to provide more than 600 services. Overall, I rate this solution a ten out of ten.

JBoss is an on-premises solution we use in a banking setting.  It is used to manage servers and applications. There are two modes: domain and development. We can monitor and control all types of deployments in JBoss.

We have around 20,000 to 30,000 users on the same application and everything is going via the JBoss. We were using JBoss 1.0 when I first installed it, but they've probably included some more security patches in the latest version. 

We can deploy the applications on the JBoss server, so it is easy to manage. It's also easy to add new certificates to the config.

The documentation could be better. When we have questions, we need to check multiple websites. There isn't one place listing a set of common problems and how to fix them. 

I've been using JBoss since I joined the company three years ago. 

I haven't had any complaints in production, but in development and UAT, I've noticed that some of the applications are not deployed properly, and errors need to be fixed.

I used Tomcat when I worked for a cement manufacturer in India. They were a small-scale company, so we preferred Tomcat server. When I started working in finance, the bank suggested we go with JBoss. JBoss is easier to handle, and it can take on a much larger load compared to Tomcat.

Setting up JBoss is more complex relative to Tomcat. We need to follow the set of steps because it's not like we are installing a single system. Several separate systems need to be connected using the common prompt. There will be a common for that. After generating, we need to connect with the other ID with the main deployment controller.

There is one deployment controller, and we need to connect the separate server nodes using that. I use a trial-and-error process for the JBoss installations for the development. We follow the steps and document everything. After we do it once, it's not complex the second time because we know all the steps we need to follow. 

We don't use outside consultants. It's open source, so we do some R&D and a process of trial and error in the development environment. There is no help JBoss or a consultant. The banking team works with the development team to get it done.

I rate JBoss seven out of 10. I would recommend Tomcat for a small-scale use case. It's easy to maintain and deploy, and the UA interface is simple. JBoss is more appropriate for large industries. Though it is complex to maintain, JBoss is well balanced and can handle larger loads.

The high availability is great. Implementing it is very easy. Sometimes we only have to copy the installation or the house installation and change some parameters inside the host. After that, we run the instance in the console manager, and from the console manager, we can create new servers. It's very easy to implement a high availability installation. For me, that is the most important feature. 

The solution is stable. 

Sometimes the console has a glitch. For example, we might send some commands to stop the servers and we get some logs or some errors from the console. After some minutes the services stop yet the console doesn't refresh the status. 

Sometimes I miss the JDBC resources full administration from GlassFish. In GlassFish, you define the pool and if you have three or more domains you can deploy to each domain. However, in JBoss, you have to define each pool in every configuration. Sometimes you have to do extra work to define this JDBC force and that is something that sometimes is very annoying.

For the last three or four years I have been working as an Application Server Administrator using JBoss.

The stability of the solution has been good. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable and the performance is good. 

The scalability is not always perfect, however, it's very good. For example, maybe sometimes we only have two instances as we don't know how to balance three instances. We have to know how it's working the load balancer of a session data when we lose one instance or one server, for example. Maybe we need to learn more about that. 

I'd like some better documentation to find information about how it's working the load balancer in the high availability. We know that the load balancer is using the name of each instance and, for example, if we are using numbers on the line of each server, we know that from server one that the configuration is supposed to be to server two, and from the server two to server three, or something like that.

With JBoss right now we don't know. Maybe this is due to the fact that we only have two servers. With these two servers, it's enough for working and giving very good services. While we don't need to know that right now, maybe in the future we have to learn more or will have to search the documentation about how we have to configure our web server balancer or implement that load balancer with Jboss.

Before the new JBoss, we were using WebLogic, however, we changed off of that to Jboss. Recently, for the cost of paying one support for WebLogic, it's the same price to get a new subscription to JBoss. We were using the standard version for WebLogic and that version doesn't give us high availability in the future. That's why we decided to move on to Jboss. It's using a standard subscription and we get high availability with JBoss for the same price as we would pay the support for the WebLogic Standard Edition.

The implementation process is very easy.

For deployment, we only need three people. You don't require a big team.

If one person is used to deploy in the morning and then the other person is deploying in the afternoon. The next person is for learning from these two persons, therefore, basically, it's three people you need, however, maybe you could do it with two.

We pay to license on a yearly basis.

We were spending something like $12,000 in the first year. This year it's something close to $16,000.

We don't have additional fees or anything like that. It's a standard subscription.

We are customers. We only consume this product. We don't distribute it or anything like that.

In the last three years, I've been implementing the JBoss application solution. I try to create a high availability implementation, however, sometimes I try to get all the stocks working. We have some dependence on the developers as sometimes they have to implement some special implementation in each class. Basically, we have a full tolerance and in a special application, we have the full high availability.

I use the on-premise deployment due to the fact that I'm working for a government institution. We have some policies for on-premise user data. If we get a new change in our policies, we are considering moving onto the cloud. That said, for us, the cloud is not cheap as we have a lot of data. Sometimes we have maps and a lot of images and that is very expensive due to the fact that on the cloud you have to pay for each legalized transfer. Sometime soon maybe we will implement a small project. We are not thinking about moving all the infrastructure.

We have something like 1,000 users, however, the most important system has something like 500 users. We have two principal systems. One is for the clients and the other one is for internal use. We have something like 500 users on each server.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. 

We use JBoss mainly for application deployments and application servers.

JBoss is not as reliable and stable as WebLogic.

I have been using JBoss for four years.

Once installed and deployed, the solution is stable and works fine in the production environment.

When we need to scale, we install different instances of JBoss. We don't rely on clustering or specific features in JBoss.

WebLogic is a more reliable and stable tool than JBoss.

The pricing of JBoss is more reasonable than that of WebLogic.

Customers use JBoss instead of WebLogic. Although WebLogic is more feature-rich, its licensing is very high compared to JBoss. I am satisfied with JBoss's management and monitoring capabilities. I would recommend JBoss to other users.

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

The use cases include online webshops and any organization doing online business can use JBoss.

It is fast. You can quickly migrate applications to JBoss and create things like webshops.

I have experience with this product. I've worked with JBoss before but without Red Hat. But now, it comes with Red Hat's JBoss.

I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. It is very scalable. 

We have contacted the technical support team now and then. 

The initial setup is straightforward and quick. You can deploy it standalone or with the Red Hat runtime, which bundles JBoss.

Licensing costs are always debatable. While there are free, open-source alternatives like Java EE and WildFly, they lack the support and reliability of a paid, certified product like JBoss. 

With JBoss, you get the peace of mind of premium support and avoid potential issues in production environments. 

So, for production environments, I recommend certified products with support. For testing, free, open-source options are fine.

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

We use the solution for the installation of the hardware and microservices.

The solution is robust and provides good support.

The solution's documentation could be better.

We have been using the solution for around sixteen years.

I rate the solution's stability a seven or eight. It needs improvement as we need to do the troubleshooting for some instances.

It is a scalable solution. It supports both vertical and horizontal scaling. I rate its scalability an eight or nine.

The solution's technical support is good. Although, it depends on the type of support contract one has purchased.

The solution's setup process is straightforward for me as I have prior experience using it. I rate the process an eight. It takes a day to complete a basic setup.

It is an open-source solution.

I rate the solution an eight. There are better solutions available, like WebLogic, with high scalability.