JBoss Reviews

We used JBoss as our application server on the recommendation of the lead developer. JBoss's compatibility with Java EE, modularity, and support for clustering met the diverse needs of our applications. The management console and developer-friendly features simplify configuration and maintenance. JBoss provided a reliable and efficient runtime environment for our Java-based applications.

The most valuable thing about JBoss is how easy it is to install and manage it on-premise, making the process simple. The application setup is neat and easy to follow. Although we used to manually check log files, integrating a monitoring tool later on improved efficiency. Overall, JBoss is user-friendly and adapts well to changing monitoring requirements.

The version of JBoss we used, which was quite old (version 4), lacked a user-friendly web console or portal for easy server management. It would be beneficial to have a console for configuration to simplify the administrator's tasks. In terms of monitoring, the old version was somewhat limited in flexibility, lacking the ability to easily adjust configurations.

I used JBoss for a previous project at my company.

JBoss stability depends on the administrator's familiarity with adjusting Java's memory settings. If you're not familiar with it, the application might not be very stable. But once you understand how to allocate the necessary memory, JBoss runs reliably.

JBoss is scalable. It supports configuring both load-balanced and clustered architectures, enabling scalability for the applications it hosts. Approximately 5,000 people used it at our company.

It takes less than an hour to deploy JBoss. Deploying it was a bit manual. We downloaded JAR files from the JBoss community edition website, ran a script on Linux, and manually copied and configured the Java application using the provided templates. It worked, but the process could have been smoother, especially compared to modern containerized deployment methods. Three lead engineers were responsible for setting up and maintaining the application servers.

We didn't pay for a license because we used the JBoss community edition, which is free.

I would recommend JBoss to others. Overall, I would rate it as a nine out of ten.

I use the solution in my company since we have developed an application that runs on the application server, JBoss, and another application server, such as Oracle WebLogic Server or WebSphere. In my company, we developed an application for the bank, and we deployed it under JBoss, WebSphere, or Oracle WebLogic Server.

The most valuable feature of the solution for me stems from the fact that our company can develop applications on JBoss, and we didn't see anything like it compared to WebLogic and WebSphere. The facility to install and handle JBoss is much lighter than the other application servers.

My company had faced some issues where our questions were not answered, and we did not receive proper solutions the way we wanted. The technical support of the product can be improved. Response time for support could be a bit better.

The price of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required. The product could be made cheaper.

I have been using JBoss for eight years. My company has a partnership with Red Hat.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

My company did not face any issues related to scalability. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

My company works with banks of both small and big sizes.

I rate the technical support a seven out of ten.

Neutral

In comparison with the other products I have used in the past, I like JBoss's simplicity, lightness, and cost. Considering what my company used to use both solutions for, JBoss was better than WebLogic.

The product's initial setup phase is easy.

For the product's deployment and maintenance, our company has a system engineer who maintains both our instances associated with JBoss and supports the bank engineers.

The product offers a good return on investment.

I rate the product price as eight on a scale, where one means it is a very cheap solution, and ten points mean that it is a very expensive tool.

In terms of how JBoss supports enterprise Java standards and positively impacts our company's project, I can say that we use it, and we didn't have any issues. In our company, we have been able to do a posting of the application on the other application servers.

My company has not faced issues with the integration of the product with other software tools or infrastructures.

The product fits our company's requirements.

I recommend the product to others.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

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.

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.

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.

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.

We primarily use the solution for business processes and mostly from the level of approval, within the organization.

The product integrates well with Java applications.

The software is basically decently placed, commercially as well as for production.

The solution is quite stable. 

It's perfect for the needed usage of the customer.

We haven't come across any missing features. 

The initial setup is a bit complex. 

I'd like the product to move more towards the cloud.

The frequent updates, and the life cycle, should be a little longer. They keep on changing versions and versions should have a longer life.

Even if the client buys an extended life cycle, they should support the customers who are loyal customers and extend all their possible support to the client when a customer is buying a subscription as well as extended life cycle support. The OEM should want to give additional extended support to the customer because.

I've been using the solution for five or six years. 

The stability is very good. There are no issues with bugs or glitches. the performance is good. 

The solution is scalable. It's not locked to any specific server, so the licenses are flexible.

Technical support is okay. The support comes from the GSS, the global support center of Red Hat. The problem is that support is always via email. They do not give support via telephone. Email support takes a bit of a time, however, they do give you some sort of solution. There is no typical SLA.

The solution is a little complex in terms of implementation. It is not a straightforward thing, as there is integration with multiple things which makes it not a straightforward implementation.

In terms of maintenance, it all depends upon the case and the departments. For one implementation unit, you need at least one person.

Licensing is flexible. It comes in a subscription model, so it doesn't actually lock to a specific server. That's one of the good things. Licensing costs vary from company to company. It depends on the requirements and size. Definitely, it is better than the proprietary cost. Everything is included under the license. there are extra fees. 

I don't remember the version we're using, however, it'll be the latest version at that time of implementation. These are on an in-house data center.

It's pretty easy to implement from the Java perspective, however, equally challenging to integrate with other applications or different databases. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

JBoss is a product that we implement for our clients. It is used as an application server and a web server. 

The most valuable feature is the UI.

This is a lightweight server.

The support should be bundled with the Red Hat OS support because as it is now, these are two separate costs. Having the support combined with Red Hat support would be an improvement.

We have been using JBoss for a couple of years.

We have not had any problems with the stability.

This is a scalable product.

Our application support team will contact JBoss support if they have an issue, but so far they have not needed to. We have not seen any major or critical problems.

We also have Oracle WebLogic in the company and some of the developers prefer to use JBoss. Three or four of our applications use JBoss and the remaining ones, which is most of them, use WebLogic.

In terms of memory, it is better than Oracle WebLogic.

Our in-house team is responsible for deployment and maintenance. We have one person from the infrastructure team to help install and tune it. A second person performs day-to-day troubleshooting on it.

Once we deliver and deploy the server, there is another team to support the application.

This price of JBoss is cheaper than similar solutions like Oracle WebLogic. We pay for a maintenance license, but it is not expensive.

JBoss is what we settled on when we were searching for alternatives to WebLogic.

My advice is that for anybody who is searching for a lightweight application or web server, JBoss is one of the options that I recommend. We plan to continue using it.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.