IBM WebSphere Application Server Reviews

I was part of an application where I integrated IBM WebSphere Application Server with Node.js and Blue Prism. I did a lot of REST applications because at my core, I'm a developer. Currently, I'm an architect as a title, but I remain a geek and developer since that's how I started.

At Royal Bank, the overwhelming environments are clustered with IBM HTTP Server in front. The clusters have not just two IBM WebSphere Application Server engines; some have four or six engines with IBM HTTP Server in front.

Oracle announced that 2030 will be the last year when they would deliver Java SDK 1.8. The entire IBM WebSphere Application Server is based on Java 1.8. The future direction remains unclear as I haven't found any official papers from IBM stating their plans.

I use it in tandem with IBM WebSphere Application Server, where the data is taken based on events. People are moving more to Kafka, which is open source and performs similar functions as IBM MQ. When having a cluster, it's beneficial because clustering means having high availability.

IBM WebSphere Application Server is the ultimate product. There is nothing superior to IBM WebSphere Application Server. There are other options such as Tomcat, JBoss, and Oracle's solution, but IBM WebSphere Application Server stands above them all. I particularly appreciate IBM WebSphere Application Server in AIX because it's very powerful. AIX is an exceptionally powerful engine. There isn't any Unix better than AIX. I have worked with AIX since my time at IBM in Europe, and at Royal Bank we have a vast array of AIX machines with IBM WebSphere Application Server installed on many of them. I have also worked with IBM WebSphere Application Server in Windows, which performs excellently as well.

From an administrative and development perspective, it's transparent whether IBM WebSphere Application Server runs on AIX or Windows.

I integrated IBM WebSphere Application Server with Node.js and Blue Prism. I created numerous REST applications as I'm fundamentally a developer. Though my title is architect now, I remain a passionate developer at heart.

IBM WebSphere Application Server is currently at version 9.0.5.23. In recent months, they released fix 23, as they periodically release fixes. Previously, they frequently increased versions, but now they maintain 9.0.5 with different releases. It's based on Java J2EE 7 and Java SDK 1.8.

Oracle announced that 2030 will be the last year when Java SDK 1.8 will be supported. Oracle currently deploys Java 2.x in parallel, with the latest being version 25. The future of IBM WebSphere Application Server remains uncertain since it's based on Java 1.8 and Java 7. I haven't found any white papers or official documentation from IBM outlining their trajectory post-2030.

I have worked with IBM WebSphere Application Server since my time at IBM in Romania and Vienna in Eastern Europe. It became second nature after getting familiar with it initially.

I exclusively use IBM WebSphere Application Server and Rational. I have extensive experience with these products, having worked with them since 1994. My knowledge comes from practical experience rather than theoretical understanding.

It's unmatched in performance and capabilities.

The support is excellent. I have only needed to contact IBM support two or three times throughout my career as I usually resolve issues independently. There was only one instance when I required MQ support, and the service was exceptional.

Positive

At Royal Bank, which is a major IBM customer with mainframes and numerous IBM products, they have a specific agreement regarding pricing. The pricing structure for large enterprise customers differs significantly from individual purchases, similar to bulk purchasing versus individual retail pricing.

As a developer, one can use third-party Eclipse tools or IBM Rational developer tools. I have used Rational since its inception and currently use the latest version, which is IBM Rational Application Development version 9.7.0.6.

IBM WebSphere Application Server is the ultimate product, standing above all alternatives. I particularly appreciate IBM WebSphere Application Server in AIX due to its power. AIX is an exceptionally powerful engine, and I believe it's the superior Unix option. At Royal Bank, we maintain numerous AIX machines running IBM WebSphere Application Server for J2EE applications. IBM WebSphere Application Server performs excellently on Windows as well.

I have experience with IBM MQ Server, though not as extensively as with IBM WebSphere Application Server. I have worked with IBM WebSphere Application Server across various environments, including mainframes and z/OS. While I'm not particularly comfortable with z/OS, I prefer AIX. The only other IBM product I have significant experience with is IBM MQ, both on AIX and Windows.

I rate IBM WebSphere Application Server 10 out of 10.

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.

WebSphere is very cumbersome and not user-friendly. It used to have its own JVM, which presented challenges such as different architecture and memory leaks. The setup is static, and scalability is not competitive compared to cloud-native services.

We have been working with it for probably ten years.

Compared to cloud setups and cloud-native services, it lacks scalability. Most of the time, it's a static setup, so scalability is about adding another server instead of integrating into the system, which is not competitive with cloud-native services.

The customer service is quite good. They are responsive, and clients appreciate their solid support structure.

Neutral

Installing it is not hard, but setting it up for your use case and environment requirements becomes tricky due to nuances in the settings.

WebSphere is very expensive. It's one of the most expensive app servers on the market, and you need to be a big client to afford it.

WebSphere is a good choice if the system still leverages a monolithic architecture. However, I recommend JBoss for more flexibility. For new projects focusing on scalability, flexibility, and security, it's better to use a more lightweight container than WebSphere or JBoss. 

I rate the overall solution a five out of ten.

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 believe that the system is already good. However, for improvement or enhancement, it is user-friendly, but it could offer better choices on the front end for different aspects or options. Sometimes, I have to search extensively for features, as there are no upfront tabs. There is a lack of visible, easy, user-friendly, and straightforward options for the number of features.

I would say that I have used it for almost close to ten years.

We are on version 7.5.

I would rate the scalability of this solution as eight out of ten.

I would note that the response time is something IBM's support team needs to improve.

In the modern technology world, there are a lot of open-source solutions competing. I have used other web servers like Tomcat or NGINX. NGINX is a simple, lightweight web server. Most of the DevOps in our life cycle are adapting it. I would mention Tomcat and NGINX, although I do not have extensive knowledge about other competing web servers. This is within my knowledge.

I would say that the initial setup is neither simple nor complex.

Pricing is not within my department, but there is generally some talk. I do not want to comment, but it is said that the licensing cost for IBM's product is on the higher side. That's what I have been hearing, but I do not want to further comment on that.

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.

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.

I find the server okay, however, using the Maker instance, the Moving instance, and the Change instance is a little bit complicated without WebSphere knowledge.

The first IBM WebSphere version I encountered was version five. It's been maybe 20 years since I started using it.

I find it very stable because the IBM I, which is the OS platform, is iOS. The iOS platform is very stable.

For the IBM AppSpheer version, we installed IBM I Server, and it has a WebSphere version, which includes express, base, and some enterprise versions. The ICD delivers the server to the customer side for the express and base versions. Those versions cancelled the session clustering, which is a load-balancing service. 

If session clustering is needed, it must be the ND version, which means a Metro Enterprise version. The configuration for the session clustering service platform is just by WebSphere base and Express version.

I find IBM support to be very nice. However, I must say that the IBM Korea technical support team is becoming slim. The engineers available are not enough.

I would say it's a 50/50 situation. One must understand the need to comprehend the WebSphere platform.

In Korea, when you buy IBM iOS, the WebSphere base version is included with iOS. That means no additional cost.

The web application server is crucial. I recommend WebL as a P-05, which is very affordable. If you buy the iOS, the WebSphere version is bundled. 

You can use database servers like Oracle or DB2. However, the web application server is essential for customer and employee use. It is very stable, safe, and secure. I recommend it for the customer side. That said, if the customer is using high-level software groups such as P20 or P30, it becomes very expensive. 

I rate the overall solution ten out of ten.

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

The security could be better.

I have been using IBM WebSphere Application Server for over six years. We are using the latest version.

I rate the solution’s stability a seven to eight out of ten.

We are currently using WebSphere Application Server with active clustering, managed by five different network levels. We have around sixteen nodes of WebSphere in use, and node communication is effectively handled. Occasionally, IBM acknowledges some minor issues such as memory problems, which require further investigation for resolution. However, these issues do not significantly affect our operational logic. If any issues arise, we can typically resolve them more easily compared to SSPM.

I rate the solution’s scalability an eight to nine out of ten.

IBM WebSphere Application Server provides L3-level support consistently. However, users often encounter similar issues. Downloading software can be confusing due to the multitude of links provided. It's unclear which software version to choose among the options available. In contrast, Naraco, WebLogic, and Pinpoint offer a straightforward download process with a single clear software option. With WebSphere, the variety of choices can lead to confusion. When I needed to download IBM DB2 11.5, I contacted IBM support, submitted a ticket, and requested the specific software link. Eventually, a support representative assisted me. For instance, Oracle Titan Server allows straightforward downloads of specific versions like Oracle 13. You select the operating system (Linux or Windows) and click download.

Positive

WebLogic is generally a better solution. In many cases, WebSphere consumes more RAM, memory, and CPU than WebLogic. Previously, we encountered occasional memory issues with WebSphere applications that we didn't face with WebLogic. Additionally, WebLogic tends to provide more specific error information, making pinpointing issues easier than WebSphere. Configuration and log files in WebLogic are more systematically organized and specific, unlike those in WebSphere, which are spread across different areas.

The initial setup is not complex. However, configuring it can be intricate compared to WebLogic. With WebSphere, setting up profiles and making configuration changes involves navigating various files and directories. In contrast, WebLogic tends to automate more of these processes, requiring less manual intervention for configuration. Therefore, configuring WebSphere may need more time and effort than WebLogic.

At the front-end level, we use web servers instead of the Application Server. These web servers handle interactions such as digital model transactions through the website and mobile banking. The Application Server operates across sixteen nodes and is managed by a small team. Deployment involves two to three people and is often conducted at night to minimize business impact.

The product is expensive.

I rate the product’s pricing a seven out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive.

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 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.

Network Deployment is the most useful feature for scalability. It has many features within the standard WebSphere Application Server edition.

WebSphere's security meets our application's needs. For security, we can integrate WebSphere with LDAP. Additionally, we can configure SSO certificates or third-party certificates for secure communication between our application and even the database. 

We can use SSL certificates to secure both frontend and backend connections. Combined with LDAP and SSL certificates, the security features are excellent.

Integration capabilities are good. That's a key strength of WebSphere. It integrates easily with various other software vendors, which is why many companies use it.

While WebSphere mostly supports IBM HTTP Server (IHS) as the web server plugin, I think it would be beneficial if it also supported Apache and NGINX web servers. That would give customers more flexibility in their choices. 

Additionally, improvements could be made in the database connectivity area, particularly for container deployments. IBM seems to prefer WebSphere Liberty Profile, the lightweight version, for containers. 

There's potential for improvement there, especially within Liberty Profile.

I have been using it for more than three years. 

IBM was my previous employer. I worked there for about seven years, four years as a contractor and three years as an IBM employee. I have extensive experience with IBM solutions.  Even though I am no longer an IBM employee, I continue to work with IBM solutions.

Stability is good. I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. 

Scalability is good. We use clustering, and I haven't faced any scalability issues so far. I'd rate it a nine out of ten.

Specifically for my project, which is situated in America, there are approximately 10,000 end users.

We don't interact with it directly on a daily basis. Our interaction usually happens before deployments. We have discussions, test in the development environment, and then proceed with the deployment. So, it might be a few times a week throughout the deployment cycle.

We were using Apache Tomcat for server maintenance and deployments.

But we made a switch to IBM WebSphere. It offers greater flexibility and has superior features like LDAP integration and database connectivity compared to Apache Tomcat. That's why we switched.

The initial setup is relatively easy to set up WebSphere Application Server. In our environment, it's mostly on-premises. We typically use silent installation via command line and a response file.

The deployment takes a few hours. The installation and setup itself don't take long. For active deployments, we automate the process using Jenkins pipelines and Ansible playbooks.

We generally work with consultants for deployments. 

The resources required for the deployment depend on the approach. For a manual installation and setup, two or three resources would be enough. 

If we use automated deployment, it requires minimal human intervention. Once the deployment starts, we just need to verify the installation's success.

The solution also requires any maintenance from our side. For example, there are maintenance practices we should follow to keep the WebSphere Application Server running smoothly.

We don't need dedicated 24/7 maintenance for WebSphere. Typically, the resources involved in the deployment handle the maintenance tasks as needed.

It's expensive. I'd rate the pricing nine out of ten, with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive.

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.

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.

The cost of the solution is high and has room for improvement.

The installation has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for 12 years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is very scalable. Every Application Server is scalable. Therefore, we will see that its architecture is the same as others.

If we compare the solution with JBoss, WebLogic, and Tomcat, we can see that they are different and the installation is more difficult than Tomcat. Tomcat is relatively straightforward, but with IBM WebSphere Application Server, we need to follow the steps provided by the product team at IBM. Therefore, the installation is more difficult. We have to configure each level and install the server within 30 minutes. The deployment manager and installation manager are included in the solution. We must install the installation manager, followed by the IBM JDK, and then the product itself.

The solution is quite expensive. Therefore, it is not suitable for small and medium businesses. The solution is more of an enterprise application. Large employers, such as those with a large customer base, TPS 100 to 200 plus, the banking sector, and the government sector, are better suited for this solution.

If an organization has fewer than 200 employees, it would not be suitable for them to use IBM WebSphere Application Server for their application, whether it is for internal or online use. IBM WebSphere Application Servers should only be considered if the organization has a concurrent load of 15,000 or more.

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 use the solution in my company for enterprise applications. We also implemented a virtual portal server based on the virtual application server, but it is a portal server version meant for customers, agents, and customer service.

For me, the most valuable feature of the product, I think, is the performance. The product offers good performance. I also think it is a very stable tool because no outside factors would affect it. Normally, the ports and servers were working very well. With its configurations, it could support more software integrations with different technologies. It was easy to configure. So I think it is a very good server for applications.

I think in some moments, the security was a little bit more complex to configure when it was delegated to other systems, making it an area where improvements are required.

I have been using IBM WebSphere Application Server for ten years. IBM WebSphere Application Server version 5.1 was the first version of the product that I used. My company is an end user of the tool.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten, considering the work or the performance that the server offers. You don't need to have a large number of nodes or resources assigned to the server in order to make it work properly.

I consider it to be built well because, whenever it was needed, new configurations were possible. The scalability worked as expected, and I have no complaints about it.

I think the scalability was okay when it was needed. We increased the configuration, and I saw that the tool's synchronization was good. I think it was not demanded a lot, but when we needed it, I think the configuration and the working process, along with the performance were okay. I think it was not a big problem to increase the use or to to configure and implement the tool.

The solution's technical support is good. Whenever needed, my company got support from IBM's technical team. I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

Previously, our company used to have a different tool from Oracle. My company switched to IBM from Oracle for better support, performance, UI, and stability.

I used another server just a few times because when I went up to the company, I learned we were moving to IBM. I have tried other servers, but they were open-source tools, so I cannot compare them with the IBM WebSphere Application Server.

The initial setup phase was very easy because it could be done directly out of the box, and most of the configurations were working fine. The read option for the application can be used whenever needed, especially when we need to make some configurations. The initial setup, I think, was easy to configure and get ready for developers and any environment, even with the production side. I think it is a good tool for me.

Any application can be deployed on the server in just a few minutes. If you need to make some configurations previously, well, or maybe if you can do configurations from the beginning, I feel the configurations could be easy. I think one hour is enough in order to deploy the application, considering the initial configuration. It is just we need to deploy a new application or a new version, for which it just takes a few minutes for the initial configuration, and the deployment can be done very quickly.

Only a couple of engineers were required to manage the initial setup and deployment processes. The engineer handled the tool. A specific person managed all the servers, so it was a team with a couple of people who had enough of the configurations and setup.

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 Application Server is easy to use. 

The solution consumes hardware. 

I have been working with the solution since 2011. 

The solution is stable. 

IBM WebSphere Application Server is scalable. You can add multiple nodes to the application server. 

The tool's deployment is complex. The deployment takes three to four hours to complete. 

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

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.

I've worked with this solution for 10 years.

From what I've seen in the past, there are many issues with it. So I wouldn't say that it's very stable.

I've heard that it is scalable, but the problem is that it takes up so much memory already. So, if you're going to scale, it will gobble up more memory.

Usually, the scalability is provided by the cloud rather than the web server by using load balances. You would need many instances of that, which means that you will need to multiply by hundreds of thousands dollars or pounds.

At present, we have engineers who use this solution.

The installation is very complex.

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

We are currently evaluating Tomcat.

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.