The Universal Controller is very capable, very stable. We really haven't had any problems, stability-wise, with the Controllers. We've been very happy with the resiliency of this solution. We really don't have problems with Stonebranch. Once we get agents in place and configured, they're stable. Our Stonebranch Universal Controller runs. It is very stable. 

Occasionally, we have an agent that doesn't come back up after OS patching. That doesn't happen very often. But everything is getting patched on a monthly cycle on the analytics side when the repos come out and get pushed out from satellite. But that issue is so infrequent that we don't make a whole lot of noise about. That's probably the most common issue, though: After patching, every once in a while we have an agent that will hang on the way back up. It's really just a restart of the agent and it comes back up. But that might be one thing that could be improved.

Stonebranch Universal Automation Center is stable. Since we went live we have not seen any problems. If it is configured incorrectly it can be unstable, but if it is configured well it has high availability.

The stability is good. I'd rate it eight out of ten. 

The stability of the agents is wonderful; the Controller, again, needs a little beef.

The stability has been pretty good. It's been the best out of all the solutions that I've had to deal with.

Stonebranch is stable, and the high-availability mode works well.

In terms of resiliency, we run the high-availability, so I have two controllers, one in passive and one primary-active. We switch every month for patching, and the passive one takes over without an issue. 

With our database patching, we can see when that stops and when the controller goes into a pause. But less than 15 seconds later, we're back up and running again. There are no job failures associated. It takes off right away. In the patching world, we've seen a significant improvement.

Its quite stable and all applications hosted on Stonebranch server runs without any issue.

It's rock-solid.

The resiliency is very good. It is very solid. If the server shuts down, it will do its best to try and make up what it can, depending on how you have configured it. But it does a really good job of trying to recover gracefully. 

For example, a while back we had a Unix server go down and it was going down because of a bad connection with something that was hosted on another box. Stonebranch was aware of the problems that we were having even finishing. Once we got all the problems cleared, instead of it trying to continue running all 800 jobs that had been started but never finished, it only tried to rerun the last job, which I thought was a really nice solution. We didn't have 800 instances of the same job trying to be rerun.

No issues.

It's reasonably stable and there are no complaints.

The solution is very resilient. You have multiple agents and you have High Availability, so we're able to do maintenance to one server without affecting its availability.

It's been rock-solid for us.

I see it as a stable tool so far.

solution in general stable however last OMS updates are blurring out this opinion.

In some of the earlier releases (5 and prior). Nothing in newer releases.

The product is very stable. When problems occurred, they were due to the environment and not the product itself.

Stability of UAC is good. When problems do arise, they can be quickly solved most times, so downtime is minimal. We are running a high-availability environment.

Yes, it happens from time to time that UAC is not available, we work with the Stonebranch support team when it happens, it's not 100% bulletproof. 

Sometimes it fails.

No issues with the stability of UAC, it has really never been a problem for us.

It runs very stable.

Stable.

The stability of the solution is very reasonable. It's reliable. We haven't found that there are bugs or glitches. We haven't dealt with it crashing or freezing. It's been good.