For stability, I rate this solution a ten out of ten.

The solution provides good quality stability and I rate it a nine out of ten. 

The overall stability is great. In the 11 years that I've worked with it, I've had to replace three devices because of an issue with the actual hardware or software. And in my line of business, that's beyond awesome. We have replaced more backbone devices in that time, in one data center, than Arbor devices.

On a scale of one to five, with one being not stable at all and five being very stable, I would give Arbor a five for stability. 

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

It's quite stable. Similar to Check Point, there is no problem with stability in the new version. I'd rate it a nine out of ten in terms of stability.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten. Some bug issues are related to any of the technologies in the market.

The stability of Arbor DDoS is excellent, whether it is hardware or software stability. Whatever rules are set up inside, it's excellently developed and it excellently manages your good and malicious traffic.

The entire deployment of the hardware that we have done so far is quite stable and robust. As of now, the dependency is more on the hardware itself, which comes along with the Arbor solution. 

The solution is stable. 

It is quite stable.

Arbor DDoS is stable and robust, as seen during testing phase and with feedback from the field.

According to the operational team, there are few tickets open on the Netscout/Arbor site, but I don't have a precise figure, as I'm only involved in testing phase.

It's very stable. Things do happen and we have had to open support tickets, but that touchpoint with Arbor is very low. There is not a lot of trouble that comes up with it. 

We don't necessarily need to update the firmware versions all the time, although they are available. Sometimes we have stayed with a  version that we were on because it was stable and it was secure. I've dealt with other vendors before where there are constant problems and their solution is, "Well, there's a new firmware version. Upgrade." We don't have those kinds of problems with Arbor.

The product is very stable.

The product is stable. I rate its stability a ten out of ten.

Its stability is really good.

The deployment is okay, stable. But when you are manipulating the countermeasures, that is the difficult part. You have to be very careful, and you have to be sure that these countermeasures will kick in when needed, that they're going to work.

We have to customize the countermeasures for each customer. That is a real challenge. We should be reviewing them every month. They might be changing their services, they might be using different ports. We have to keep asking our customers, "Okay what are you running now? What are you using now? Which port are you running now?" so that we know what to expect. We need to know which traffic would be legit and which traffic is illegitimate so that we can block the illegitimate traffic without mistakes. We don't want to block the real traffic. There is a feature in Arbor called auto-learning. We can run that and it will help us. But at the end of the day, it's for us to decide what to allow.

You cannot rely on auto because, for example, if you're running auto-learning, and the services have been running on 80, and all of a sudden it switches to 443, it will keep on blocking. You have to expect what's coming. You cannot rely on auto. Human involvement is always necessary.

The initial implementation phase was a bit tricky but after that, it worked like a charm.

It is a stable solution. It could be more stable depending on the upgrade of the software. I rate the stability an eight out of ten.

It is quite stable. There are no major important bugs, though maybe some small ones. 

There are around five people who maintain it 24 hours a day.

The solution is very stable. In the time we have been using the solution we have not had any incidents.

The stability is okay and we have not encountered problems with the solution. 

The solution is really stable. It is the most stable device in our topology. 

Arbor DDoS is highly stable.

It's a very well-developed tool. I'm quite impressed. I'm happy with its performance. Stability-wise, it's a good tool. Support is also very impressive.

It's more stable than its competitors. We haven't had any stability issues with it.

The stability is very good. We have never faced an issue with it.

As long as you don't touch it, it's very stable. But if you try to configure new features or some new deployment, sometimes that can be a problem. A few weeks ago we had an appliance that went down. 

It's a stable solution. We haven't had any issues up until now, except for one or two times. On those occasions, we found attacks were getting through but then we realized we needed to update the signature database. Since then, it has been working fine. It is blocking as it should.

There haven't been any bugs.

In the two years I have been using the product, I haven't encountered any stability issues. The solution is pretty robust and stable.

Arbor DDoS is very stable.

The stability of Arbor DDoS is good. It's not that complex as a product and stability is not an issue.

It's pretty stable. Every now and then you'll hit a bug, but it's pretty stable.

Both the devices were very stable at the operation.

The product is very stable. 

No issues.

We did not have stability issues.

The tool is quite stable. Our customers have used the tool for three to five years without rebooting.

The product is very stable.

Stability is perfectly good. I have not seen an issue in years.

No. Since day one, the product works without any issues.