Initially, there were challenges. It has a heavy client. The rendering of the application itself and the usage of certain features was unclear and we had to ask them how to use them. Improvements to the documentation were made over a period of time. So, right now, other than the fact that it doesn’t work for a few applications, it’s pretty much stable right now. It is maturing. Pretty much it's stable enough right now where we don't have to worry about stability.

It is stable.

It has been very stable for us. We have been pretty happy with its use.

It is pretty stable. The service is available 24/7.

We have had no issues with stability. It's been absolutely rock. It really has. When we scaled it, it's done everything we asked of it. We know the limitations: it doesn't always have the built in protocol handlers out-of-the-box, and you can't expect it to do every single one. We've had support from CA to build them. They came and helped us write some. As long as they're aware, they'll reach out and help us out. That's really great.

The performance one - we want to start hitting it a lot more frequently. We've used it for some of the performance testing, and even the development worked pretty well for us. Even with all the training environment things we've done, I don't think we've really bumped up against a usage issue yet and had to put another instance out or whatever else we had to do to opt the number of times a hit could come in. There have been some issues with Service Virtualization, but I would have to can ask the team for more specific details

As far as the stability, I've used CA Service Virtualization now for eight years, so it's been pretty stable.

Stability is pretty good so far. We have used it across our organization in different teams. So the next step for us is to bring it to performance testing.

The product has been stable and patches have been provided on a regular basis.

Service Virtualization is pretty stable.

No, the product is very reliable.

I have noticed performance issues such as the virtual server requires a restart after using it for a certain amount of time, to make sure it responds better.

It's really good. We use it to support performance testing as well. That can scale up to tens of thousands of users concurrently.

Good. We haven't had any issues. This is beneficial because we had CA resources on site so they have been able to help us and the product dev team to be able to solve issues quickly.

Stability’s pretty good so far. We have been using it for the last three years, so it's pretty good.

It is stable. We are using it in the Windows environment, so most of the time it's stable.

It is very stable. We've been using it for quite some time.

We're a little too early on to be able to comment on that yet.

It's not stable.

It is a very stable product given that by the time we got into it. We were in version 9.x, but it looks like about 10 years has elapsed between the time the product came out and where it is now. That ought to provide it some sense of stability, and also some guidance as to what the company needs to do to make it a stable product. 

So far, with the last few projects, it is quite stable.

There have been no issues with the stability.

What we have done is put redundant systems in, so it is stable. We are on-premise, so we are not using the cloud version of Service Virtualization. 

It is as available as we can make it in our E2 environments.

In terms of stability, I have to restart it every day. We set it on job and we just restart it every day. Otherwise, it seems to go down.

It does what it says it's going to do. It's a very stable platform. The initial installation and coming in and bringing it into your organization, it can be a little disruptive, but once you create some real strategies around how to deploy the solution in your platform, the gains far out weight what the delays would have been or the challenges would have been in getting it up and going.

No issues encountered.

It is very stable.

So far, it has stood up really well; no issues at all with stability.

We haven’t noticed any stability issues.

We've had no issues with the stability of the solution, had no problems at all in the six months we've had it deployed.

Although the initial products were highly unstable, there is still room for improvement in versions 7.5/8/10.

It’s not stable as of yet, as it needs a lot of infrastructure.

It has awesome stability, and we haven’t had any problems. Once you get it up and running, it stays up and running. The only thing that happened was that the enterprise dashboard hung up, but rebooting fixed the problem. This has only happened on super rare occasions, only two or three times.

This is a very mature and very stable product, although error prevention could be added into the product, for the sake of improving user-friendliness.

It's very stable. It's very reliable.

The solution is very stable. We have not had any issues.

We have not had any issues with stability. I think things have been working fine for us so far.

We did not encounter any issues with stability.

There were no issues with the stability.

No issues with stability.

As mentioned in the room for improvement section.

Stability issues do arise if there is not enough system memory.

I have not yet encountered any stability issues. I mean, I don't think you will, if you have right configuration.

The product is yet to become stable. I have seen instances when the tests have not been repeatable in LISA when scripting is done in Java. After removing and adding a character to the code, the test starts working again. Sometimes restarting it gets it working. Also, there are caching issues in LISA and it picks up the old values of the variables/parameters/properties in the tests even though the values have been updated and saved in the test before commencing the run. Thus, people prefer using more stable solutions like JMeter and SoapUI.

There were no issues with the stability.

It's highly stable.

When creating services with database steps, if the DB goes down the services will end and once the DB is up the services will be still be in an ended state, and a manual start will be required.

 I haven't seen any problems with stability. It looks pretty stable.

Stability so far has been good. There have been no issues. There was a learning curve, about a year or so. It took us some time. It's not a plug and play tool. There was a lot of customization that had to be done, but with all of that done I think it is quite stable now.

We didn't encounter any issues with stability.

I would say it's been mostly stable. We did have a problem related to a service one of our teams was running that was not working properly. But, we don’t yet know what the root cause was.

We experienced some minor issues, but they've been fixed in the current release.

It's been very stable. We haven't had any issues with it.

It is quite stable.

No issues in terms of stability.

When starting we had issue like LISA getting stuck while we were reading csv files doing performance testing.

To date, I have not encountered any stability issues.

It’s great. The only problem we have is that the UI is not good. The tool is fully implemented in Java, and you can’t move readouts between screens. We can live with it, but we need a really huge screen. And we can’t work with a laptop.

This is one of the reasons we try to get rid of the UI and, instead, to generate templates by script so we don’t have to use the UI. We switched from using the UI to automatic template generation, which is a kind of model-driven testing.

The solution required a lot of CPU memory, but using enough PC OZU fixed the problems.

Not really, sometimes we face minor issues with the registry server but that is more of an environment issue. Other than that we didn't encounter any issues with stability.

It's very stable. It's very robust. 

I have noticed that sometimes memory consumption can get high if you use the tool repeatedly. But, it's pretty manageable. It's come a long way. I've used it for multiple versions, and I'm on version 10 now, and I'm very happy with the stability. 

It is much better now with the newer version. We have had issues when they moved it to a newer platform of a base platform a couple of releases back. So, we had issues in the past, but I would say of the latest version, 10.1, that we are using, it is in a much better position. But there are still areas to improve and we are actually working with CA to give feedback, and they are continuously trying to improve the product.

We have stability issues when creating stubs for performance testing. It provides the internal native web server where the VSIs are hosted/deployed, which are not scalable at higher load. They should more flexible and able to use multiple application servers. Sometimes, the VSIs stop responding too.

Stability is getting better. When we first started with it, there were some bugs. We had some issues between our environment and the tool.

We did not encounter any major problems with stability.

There have been no issues with the stability.

It’s pretty good. It’s an Eclipse IDE app, so it’s a little old, and their Mac support isn’t as strong as it could be, but otherwise it’s pretty solid. Once you deploy the virtual services everything just kind of works.

I haven’t had any issues as it seems stable.

We once faced issues when we moved from 4.2 to 4.7 or 5. They completely changed the UI and their is very little support for backward compatibility.

Only if the proper system requirements are not followed.

We have had no stability issues.

Very few but they were not blocker

No, it is pretty stable. It can handle 400tps on our server.

I have not encountered any stability issues.

Stability is good.

I did not encounter any stability issues, as such.

We have not had any stability issues.

We have not had stability issues.

We didn't find any issues with stability either.

There were issues with the older versions, until v6.1.

No.