I rate the product's stability a ten out of ten. 

The product is stable.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

I rate the platform's stability a nine out of ten.

Stability-wise, the solution is good. There is not much downtime. I don't see any issues with it.

From a technical point of view, FileNet is very stable.

It is pretty stable.

It is very stable. It's mission critical. We run it 24/7, 365.

Stability’s been great, knock on wood. It's been very solid. It’s funny; we had an outage the same day I provided this review, but it was not caused by FileNet. It was caused by an infrastructure change over the previous weekend. FileNet has been very, very, very stable.

We do have certain concerns about stability, especially with large volume, even within that, around web service APIs. That is something we'll try to prove out in a lower environment. Outages have become a regular thing, especially with our C-MART on-demand APIs, not so much with the FileNet. We are having some memory leak issues. We are working with IBM on that, but we are looking for alternatives to see how we could mitigate those.

It is very stable. We have had no outages. We've had planned outages, as far as upgrading. That's another benefit; we've found upgrades to be quite simple, quite easy. Even now, with the latest versions, we can do that without taking the system completely down. That's partly because of WebSphere, which allows us to upgrade on the fly. That is important to us.

Every new software has bugs, but the FileNet software suite has been around for ages, so it's stable, it works.

FileNet is stable. A lot of our customers are actually on older versions, so we've been upgrading their systems recently. The current version is really stable because it has been rewritten. Since IBM acquired this product — FileNet is not an original IBM product — they have rewritten certain engines in it. The more they release new versions, the more the product is stable, especially in the "five-dot" series. They are really stable. We are encouraging customers to upgrade to the latest version. That is what is happening now.

I don't remember any stability issues recently. Maybe a long time ago, with certain limitations, there were a couple of issues. But we don't have them now. There is a resolution for everything in the current versions.

The stability is getting better. It had a few issues for a while. Our old solution had problems at the beginning and those issues got better, then we move to a new solution. While the new one still has problems, they are getting better.

Stability is really good. Earlier, we used to have a lot of issues with the stability, especially with the updates for the new products. The new additions made now are so stable. It is a very good for operating systems. They have simplified it using products in different situations.

Stability is pretty good, because we've evolved over a period of time. Initially, we used to have it at a different data center. Currently, we've evolved into a place where we feel much more comfortable, in regards to the stability of the system.

It's very stable.

The stability of the solution is good.

I have never really heard of problems with the stability because the database. IBM Db2 is never a problem. I cannot say anything about Oracle or other databases. We have avoided implementing with a non-IBM database where we can. When we do, there is no problem with stability.

In the larger installations, we use primarily TSM as the object store, and therefore we do not have problems with overrunning file space and those kinds of issues. The only thing we have seen is that when a customer's system administrator installs a new Java version on the server where FileNet is running, sometimes it can cause a big mess. FileNet doesn't come up.

We have been working with it for a long time. It's one of the older versions. Both it and the new version are probably very stable.

We generally don't have any issues with the stability of the system. That could be because we are too small. In Israel we have small companies and they don't have very complicated systems, like in the United States or Europe. We have medium-size customers, compared to companies around the world. We don't have 500 users at a customer's site so these are not huge systems. And they're usually in the same geographical area. It's not like there is a site in New York and another one in Chicago or Philadelphia.

It's extremely stable. The only time it ever had a problem was if we lost power to the servers. It never really went down.

I feel it's very stable. I've never had any real challenges with it.

We've been using it now for about four years. When we first went to it, we were having some issues, communication across the network issues, but we have had very few issues with it. 

Now, they are pretty good.

In previous versions of Connections 3.0, 4.5, and 5.0, I had a lot of stability issues. It gets a little muddy, because when I would open PMRs, sometimes they would be on the connections interface on front and sometimes they would be on the back. One of my challenges seemed to be that there seemed to be a lot of disconnect between the two teams. It is empirical evidence, but it seems to me  that the Connections developers leveraged the FileNet capabilities and the right hand did not know what the left hand was doing. There seemed to be a lot of disconnect between the two teams. I would bounce back and forth between the two teams for weeks or months just trying to get support on performance and stability issues. With the most recent upgrade that we did a year ago, these issues pretty much stopped. 

The stability has been good.

It's been great; very stable; very few issues.

It is very, very stable, like 99.9%.

The solution is very stable.

It is very stable because FileNet is mostly compatible with Unix, Solaris, and also IBM Unix (AIX). It's also compatible with Windows but the Unix system is really robust. When I was working with FileNet for a telecom company, it never went down. The uptime was five-nines.

It's very stable. We haven't had any issues as far as stability is concerned. It's highly-available, so it's definitely stable as compared to other products.

It is very stable. We hardly have any downtime or any major issues.

The stability is second to none. We have consistently, year after year after year, been able to maintain an uptime of, I don't know how many nines it goes down to, but you can do the math; I have under one hour of unscheduled downtime per year.

The stability and usability go together. The backend and the front-end are separate but they work together. Still, we can handle them separately, from a technical point of view.

The product is very stable. We don't have much of a problem as far as the stability of the technology and the product go.

At its core, it's stable. In its basic implementation, it's stable.

I am not aware of any recent issues. It is very stable for now.

It's very stable; no downtime, especially in the daytime because there were some. Think about if you are in a branch, you're an officer, and there's a queue; they're waiting; and the system is down. That was happening beforehand, but now, it is available five-nines percentage, almost no downtime. Response times are very fast, and we are keeping track of the number of operations the clients have done, and those numbers have significantly increased.

Some days, stability’s really good, especially with the product running with AIX and DB2. We have never had any bad experiences; it runs very well along with that operating system and that database.

It's been rock solid. Once you get it going and you get over the initial hump of the initial installation, it's solid.

It is stable.

From a business resiliency standpoint, it has worked out well for us.

We have seen an improvement from some older products to the P8 version now, from a stability standpoint

We have it load-balanced, so we don't really have outages. With HA it's very stable.

FileNet is stable because the web application server is a very powerful tool. The problem is that people don't always correctly configure this tool. If the people doing the configuration are not the right people, the client has problems. But the web application server is very stable when configured correctly.

It is stable.

Stability is fantastic. It's probably one of the more highly secure systems out there right now. Though, you have to have the right people to support, implement, integrate, and maintain it. No technology will work completely on its own. Even if it does, one day it might break (and that goes for any tech). 

It is stable. There were a few bugs. They should release the fixes for the bugs a little more quickly, maybe within a month instead of waiting six months. I think they do it quarterly now. If possible they should release small patches again.

These solutions are very good in terms of stability.

Usually, IBM products are stable, although some of them require some changes or some upgrades for minor bugs, but the overall quality of the solutions is OK.

FileNet has helped us a lot with the customer documentation information and I think the solution is very strong.

It is very stable and it does scale well. It does require a certain amount of discipline in setting the infrastructure up right and keeping up with the patches and releases. But it has been very stable for us and it has scaled well.

It is a good, stable system.

At this time, it has improved, but it wasn't that stable not that long ago. 

It is stable. We have no major issues.

I have found IBM File Manager to be stable.

It is stable, and it works.

It is highly stable.

It is actually very stable. As of right now, the only negative feedback I have is on the capture piece, the DataCap part. We have actually piloted that. It didn't quite work out. I’m kind of hesitant to use the DataCap technology because of the unreliability. However, I heard that the current version is actually more reliable.

One of the key reasons why we went with FileNet is how stable it was. We're very happy with the stability of it.

Stability’s been pretty good. We're maturing in terms of our monitoring and automation of FileNet services. When there are crashes, we're still responding to those pretty manually. That’s on our end and on IBM's end, a little bit of both.

The one area where we've had stability issues is when we're doing large-volume document ingestion. Part of this is related to the fact that we have regulatory requirements that require us to store documents on a WORM device, which stands for Write Once Read Many. There's just more overhead in doing that. There are times where we have flooded the system with documents, which has affected end-user experience. Those are the most high-impact stability issues that we've experienced, when a flood of documents comes into the system and Content Engine threads get buried.

There is definitely the potential for some improvements there. Although, we're at a point now, in our life cycle, that we're beyond a lot of those large-scale document migrations. For any newer customers that have that WORM requirement, it's definitely something that they need to take into consideration and have some defensive guards against flooding the system in that way.

You could consider it a scalability issue, I suppose. It might be a limitation of the way Content Engine is designed. There could be some more automated guards that are just built into the tool to turn off that ingestion if the system is starting to get flooded. We've instrumented some monitors to do exactly that on our side with custom coding. If IBM had a feature to protect against that, that's something that should definitely be looked at.

The performance is good.

We have one administrator for maintenance. It is relatively low maintenance.

We never had any stability issues.

I've never come across anything better for stability.

The key way that this product has improved the way that that our business functions is by its stability. Its ability to remain up despite other pressures, its consistency, and lack of downtime are really the greatest things that it brings.

There is difficulty in the upgrade path when new versions come due every other quarter.

Excellent. It's probably one of the most mature pieces of technology that IBM offers. 

We don't have any stability concerns for FileNet. IBM manages it on our site. IBM is our outsourcer. Stability’s OK on the site. We don't have major failures, or anything like that. We are considering a different approach for DR. But otherwise, it's okay.

While the stability is pretty good, there sometimes can be issues with the database connections. FileNet has too many outages because things are broken in the database.

I think it's quite stable, it's a very robust product and we haven't found any major problems or issues, so far.

It's very good.

We did have some issues with Web services. It was a version conflict, because two Web services were deployed, an old version and a new version, and both were accessible. So we had some problems with that but it wasn't a product failure.

It is an extremely stable platform, if it is built right. 

Stability is really good. We fairly recently upgraded a version of it and have not been having any problems. The resources seem to be really good with this version; it is a little easier to troubleshoot issues. We do not have many issues with the newer version.

For the most part, the solution is very stable. Once it is a fully-baked application, it is stable.

It's very good. It's very stable. It's just like anything else; it's built up on the foundations. As long as your foundations are strong and sturdy, the application's fine.

I haven't seen any problems. FileNet is stable software as long as it is installed correctly.

So far, so good, but we're also very new, in this implementation particularly.

We are in the early stages of implementation of this solution. We have not encountered any stability issues

It is very stable. The maintenance process has been greatly improved over the past few years. It seems like there is maturity now to the product which didn't exist even four or five years ago.

We did not have any stability issues.

It is stable as long as you create the right environment. We have had issues at times, but just because of configuration issues.

It is very stable and reliable.

The stability of the product is quite good. This is the only product I can think of which is very stable.

Stability is perfect.

No, for the last 20 years I haven't faced any big stability issue.

It's so stable.

We have not encountered any stability issues.