We monitor stability all the time and find that the solution is quite stable. 

It is a very stable product. There have been a few times where we have had to call support and have something fixed. It has happened, but it's very rare.

We do have an ongoing issue with capacity. If one of our resources is working on it, nobody else can do anything. If a particular report is being run on the server, nothing else seems to work. We haven't done anything about it as of yet. Maybe some of my team members have opened tickets to Tufin for it.

It is very stable.

This solution is solid, as far as I can tell.

It seems stable. We've had problems always with the same box, which is our SecureTrack primary. We are probably on our seventh one. The last one, Tufin took it to their site. They shook it out, tested it, and beat it up, then gave it back to us. Since we were already on the standby box, we just had it up there running. It was in the HA cluster. As soon as somebody did some switch work, it failed over. Within a couple of hours of being on that box, it crapped out. 

The stability is pretty good. We have run into repeat issues with Palo Alto Panorama, where it doesn't seem to play nice if we change the vice group names in Palo Alto or if one of the Palo Alto servers is down, but it is in Panorama, because we're pulling everything through Panorama. Sometimes, it'll freak out and cause everything else to stay and be unable to get configed. Then, our Palo Alto products will sort of cease, usually a good majority of them, which is not ideal.

I have seen some issues with the stability. One of the things that we noticed was when R18 was released about one or two years back, it couldn't discover the newer versions of firewalls, then we had to upgrade it. After the upgrade we ran into some other issues. However, it looks like with the patches it is getting there.

Tufin is stable. We did not have any large issues.

The Tufin products seem very long-term oriented. The ability to be customized seems good. It seems like there is a good roadmap for what features need to be added.

We did a USP upload earlier this week into SecureTrack, and the upload process was okay. Some of the definitions around the columns and the formatting could be more clearly defined.

The solution is stable. It doesn't have bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It is reliable.

This solution is very stable. Once we got to a certain release, somewhere in version R18, it was stable. Before that, it would slow down after about a week or two of running and would cause us to have to restart the system.

I rate the stability of Tufin an eight out of ten.

Tufin is very stable. There have been no major outages. 

Sometimes there is an SSL correction between Tufin and the management server. Sometimes it gets broken but I don't why. Apart from that, it is very stable.

Tufin is very stable, and I would say that there are no major outages. Sometimes the connection between Tufin and the management servers gets broken, and I don't know the reason, but apart from that, it is very stable.

The stability of this solution is fine. We don't have any issues with it, at least as far as I know.

It is a very stable product. 

Tufin is stable.

The stability is very good, especially now that they are developing a lighter weight operating system on top of the OS with 2.0 coming out this year. 

The current version is slow. I deal with a lot of large environments, which is mostly what Tufin has. It is slow because it is a database, Tomcat Server, and web server. Reports are slow. If you're generating manually on the fly, you can set them to run at night, then it's not a big deal.

This solution is stable. We don't have any issues with it, but it's a resource hog.

Until now, we have not had any problems in terms of stability.

My impression of the stability is positive. We haven't had any issues. We even went through an upgrade about a month ago and it was a smooth process.

So far, the stability of the solution has been good.

I haven't run into very many issues with stability. HA is the only weak point that I've seen. In the past, a lot of the HA upgrades had to be done separately. Recently, I had an HA upgrade that failed during the process, and we had to restore from a backup.

None, so far with TufinOS 2.10 or SecureTrack R15-3. Postgres database (v9.0) should probably be updated to a newer version for improved performance and stability enhancements.

From the Palo Alto platform, I remember hearing that Tufin required an update, so that would've been the only flash issue.

Stability is sometimes good, and sometimes not so good. 

There is an issue with all of our Palo Alto devices, where if one gets disconnected in Panorama, they all show as disconnected or with errors or wrong arguments, which is very generic. They are supposed to have a fix for it now, but we haven't implemented it yet, because they are not releasing it until eleventh of this month.

In every instance that I've ever worked with it, it was stable.

We have found that this solution is quite stable. We do have some RFPs in to increase performance capabilities, but from our perspective, it's quite stable. If this were not true then our largest companies would not be buying the product.

It's never failed or completely gone down. It's one of those set-it-and-forget-it tools.

We had one bug - a year or so ago - and Tufin had an update that addressed the issue. The long implementation time was on our side. No other problems.

The solution is stable.

We didn't have a lot of problems regarding the solution. It's a stable solution.

In order to have it running correctly, we had to dedicate a person to manage the solution. I work on it with Tufin and with some of our partners in the group. We have our Société Générale in the group. We have some other partners inside the group with Tufin in order to build this kind of model for the time to market objectives.

We didn't have a lot of problems concerning maintenance. We had two or three hardware problems that were solved remotely by support and for the upgrade and the OS upgrade because there are two kinds of upgrades to operate. The OSTs and the secure channel also have upgrades, which we did ourselves.

Tufin has a policy of publishing new versions of the Dell OS, so two versions a year. One is a final version, and the other one is a beta version. In a year, you get two or three updates. It's not very hard to follow the stream of changes in one year.

Tufin is a stable product. We're not having any issues. Sometimes we do have problems with the product, but it wasn't related to Tufin. Sometimes when we had an upgrade on the firewall product itself, we encountered some problems.

The stability is solid.

So far, the stability has been great. One of my colleagues just did an upgrade from the previous version to 19.1, which had a bit of database issues. Those have now been resolved.

So far we have had no issues. We're running it on a VM and there are no issues with the VM.

It is stable.

The stability is very, very good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. The performance is good.

We have had a couple issues with the VMs, but I think it was just because they were starving for resources. A recommendation on what the virtual appliances should have for resources would be appreciated.

The stability is okay.

It is very stable.

For the most part, stability is alright. It works well until we do an update and it breaks everything. But, it gets fixed, and it's good again until the next update. 

The stability is great. It has never gone down. The only problem is the slowness.

The stability is dependent on the devices. The part where we are having a problem now is the result of migrating to RAT which is using APIs which keep going down when our MDS has a heavy load.

I would rate the stability of this solution a nine out of ten.

I believe we had one reboot due to a code upgrade. This was only a single incident.

There have been no stability issues whatsoever. It’s rock solid.

I believe it is stable, well not every time, but 99.9% of the time.

The solution is very stable so far. Within our environment it doesn't cause major outages. There have been a few instances where we did run into issues but they were things that we could fix relatively easily, with less of an impact to the business.

The product is stable. Regardless of the software we are running, the current or the new one, it is stable.

We have not had any stability issues at all. Upgrading has been simple, no issues at all.

It's reaching the edge of stability since we're putting a very strong demand on it. The resources within it are starting to now be challenged. We haven't had any significant issues.

The stability has been good. I haven't experienced any bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. The stability has been reliable in terms of performance.

We have had no outages over the last six years, so this solution is very stable.

We haven't really overburdened it yet. What we have has been very stable. There have been no issues that I have seen.

Stability has been rock solid. We were joking about that last night. There was a good amount of time where we weren't running reoccurring backups on a couple of our older appliances. They ran into no problems, whatsoever, for hardware or software for years. So, we were sort of joking, "The product's so good that we don't even have to back ours up half the time." Thus, stability has been very good for us.

This is a pretty stable solution. I won't say that there are no issues, but it does what they say it's going to do.

So far, our impressions of stability are not very good. We have already had to RMA one of our boxes, and it was not being utilized very heavily. We've had different issues on some of our other devices, as well.

For us, this product has been very stable. We don't have any trouble with it.

I haven't found any issues with the stability. In the beginning, it was our problem, our mistake, because we configured the box with eight gigs of RAM. Then we checked and, obviously, we needed 16. After enlarging it to 16, there was no issue whatsoever. It was pretty responsive. Obviously, it was only one user, me, doing things, but I didn't find any issues performance-wise or stability-wise.

The stability is a pretty standard. It is working, and not like other products where it is breaking the system. It is pretty stable.

It's not a very stable product. It doesn't stay up as often as I would like. It crashes at very inopportune times that we just can't afford.

I wouldn't say we had stability issues.

When we initially had it, it was on a single box, so it was pretty slow. A lot of people had access and they ran reports after reports after reports, and it got stepped on a lot. Once we upgraded, we got HA Pair, and then we've got distributed log folders now, and it runs super smooth. Maybe three years ago I experienced some bugs where it would kick me out of policy query. I would be building a query, and it would just kick me out, or it didn't save the changes, or it just forgot that I was doing something, but I haven't had that happen in maybe two and a half years.

After a while, we found that we'd not really given it enough TLC for a couple of years. Therefore, we ended up in the situation where we had to get the guys from Interel to fine tune the appliance memory wise because it was little old. By the time we started using it to its full extent, you end up being able to fine tune it and eventually realize even that wasn't going to cut it and we ended up having to virtualize and it seems to be OK now.

One of the things that I would like to see improved is the stability of the solution.

If you would have asked me two weeks ago, I would have said the stability was excellent. However, we had some upgrade problems. They were worked out and the support was excellent in helping us get it fixed. In general, the stability is very good.

So far, the stability has been reasonably good. We haven't encountered any major issues. Even when integrating to overseas central management systems, it has been quite seamless.

It's pretty stable. I haven't had any issues with it.

The solution is very stable. We've upgraded several times and not had any issues. For stability, it's perfect.

It's been a very strong, reliable product.

We have not come across any stability issues. We support the platform, we support all of our platforms and that's the one that we've had to do the least amount of support for, but I can't speak for the other engineers.

We don't have a problem with it crashing at all. We've never had a problem with it crashing at all. It's always been functional.

There have been no problems with stability.

No issues at all.

Small reactive. It is sometimes stuck or kind of jumps, but no actually business impact, but from an IT perspective, whatever we want we are getting on the fly.

The stability of Tufin has been quite good for us. I have no complains about stability.

At one time, it had processed for a year. When I was in my previous company, I had installed one of the T500 boxes, and it had actually processed about 2.7 terabytes of logs, and we were able to trim down the biggest firewall. We now do about 11,000 rules, and they had never been cleaned for about five or six years, so by the end of the whole exercise, we trimmed down the rule base to less than 300 rules.

It has been very stable since 2017. We haven't had any power problems. As far as hardware goes, it's been very stable. In the software, we found some bugs, but we're working with support to fix them.

So far, stability has been good. 

It has been very stable. Though, the policy browser has had trouble working. We have experienced bugs.

The stability has been improved, even person by person. It is even stronger in a way.

We feel that it is a very good solution. So, we'll probably use it going forward.

From my user perspective, I think patching is an issue. I haven't done it, but I know they had to. It got slow, and there were issues getting connected in to it. Everything was running slow a few different times. We’ve had to contact support. There's been times we've lost a day and a half of usage.

It's been stable. No complaints yet, except for the upgrade. The upgrade takes a little long, but that's fine. I believe that’s because of the vastness of our environment.

I think for the most part it's been stable now that we have our new hardware. Our organization's very taxing on it. We have dozens of engineers running reports at the same time, but it's usually just a workload issue. It does give you the ability to schedule reports. If it's not something you need right away, then you can just schedule the report to run as soon as possible and then continue to work somewhere else. That saves me a lot of time.

There have been no stability issues whatsoever. It’s rock solid.

It's a reliable solution.

The stability is very good. It's better than the other tools that we have in the company.

It is pretty stable. We have more issues with the VMs than with the software.

I haven't had any issues. Even though my interaction has not yet provided me with a full understanding of whether it's stable or not, I have been interacting with the tool enough to determine whether there are any stability issues.

In our previous configuration, it would take a beating. It would take days to get certain reports out of the system. We've just purchased a whole bunch of new hardware, and Tufin’s been a lot more stable. I'm getting reports again very fast.

We had some issues because of our unique configuration.

In the sense of operating, the stability is good, but in the sense of performance efficiency, it is bad.

Product seems to be stable. We haven't had any outages yet.

It's absolutely stable and this is why I always promote it. They have the finest set of coders and developers you can find.

It's good. I haven't rebooted.

It has been stable. We pretty much just set it and forget it. It reaches out to us or, when we want to go consult it, we don't typically have any problems pulling it up.

It's quite stable, but you always need to do updates. Staying updated has prevented instabilities.

Product is stable and we've had no problems concerning stability, even if we're not able to have a clear view of the capacity of this tool. There is no reporting on capacity. For instance, there is no alarm.

The tool is highly reliable.

If you have a normal load in Tufin it works perfectly fine. But they need to work on the stability because if a certain amount of load is put in Tufin it just breaks downs, from what I've seen lately. That has to be taken care of. The parameters for the platform also matter in that situation, but if they can work on the stability, that would be great.

I find it very stable. We haven't had any big issues since we started using it. Issues we have had have mostly been related to new features being added that weren’t supported by the device. In those scenarios, we submit the case to Tufin and they tell us about the new release.

We haven’t had any problems, except for some licensing issues a long time ago.

We haven't had any issues with stability.

Overall the system is stable, and we have had no issues configuring it with our firewalls, or otherwise.

We have had a ton of issues with stability. The database is weirdly designed. Things just go wrong with it where we have to call the tech guys. They come in and clean the database fairly regularly.

It's very stable. We haven't encountered any major issues, so it's pretty good.

It's been stable in our environment.

We don't have any issues with stability of the product.

It's only broken twice in the ten years we've had it, so it's very good.

I think the stability is very good. We've had no issues with instability.

I have no instability issues at all. It’s working so well that I’m not worried about it.

We've had no issues with stability.

The stability is bulletproof. 

It has been very stable since 2017. We haven't had any power problems. As far as hardware goes, it's been very stable. As for software, we found some bugs, but we're working with tech support to fix them, which is normal.

Stability is good, so far it hasn't given us any trouble.

I have not found it to be slow at all. The speed is good. At first, we installed Tufin in one of our offices, but now we are using it everywhere.

It was stable. We didn’t have any stability issues.

No, we never had any stability issues because it's a browser-based tool. We've never had any problems with accessing the tool, and its performance is great.

It's quite stable. We've had no issues with instability at all.

As far as I know, it’s OK.

Two years ago we had some problems with stability, but now it's resolved. Since then, we've had no issues with instability.

We have had no performance issues.

Performance is good and any queries we run are smooth and straightforward. But we haven’t loaded too much on yet. There’s a lot of build still to come. For the basic purpose of what we are using it for, it’s pretty good.

It is very stable. It has good stability.

In terms of stability, the version I tested in the lab was okay.

The stability is fine.

It's been stable in our multi-domain environment. We have more than 20 or 30 policies.

It's absolutely stable.

We've had stability issues because it's a heavy solution. It takes a long time to get up and running, and when we migrate releases, that's an issue.

The best 10/10.

So far, the stability is good.

The product seems stable from when we implemented it at the time.

It's very stable.

We haven't had to log any support cases, so I'd say that it's a stable solution. We haven't had any issues with stability.

Tufin performs very well.

We had a couple of stability issues before, when we were running on our old core. We used to not get the reports as we expected. The Tufin used to get disconnected from the device and just not provide the exact reports such as the hits on the rules.
Over the last year and a half, we upgraded twice, and right now it's pretty stable.

The stability works, for what we've been using it for. The system has been up and running for at least a year and a half without any issues. The only time we do anything with it is when we upgrade it or patch it, but we have never had any performance issues or it falling over.

We have no issues.

I haven't seen any stability issues. We actually seldom see issues with the product, so the experience with the support is not that common, but I think the issues we've seen have been handled quite well.

It's a stable solution. There are some bugs that they are working on but that is common with any vendor.

They do mention that they don't support specific features from Nexus for some automation but it does actually work, although it is not listed as working.

No issues with stability.

It is a stable solution.

It is very stable.

The stability is quite good. We are deploying the solution on physical machines, and it's on a lot of devices in our company. I think that if we did reports every day and every week, there would be no problem with the stability. It needs no maintenance and it's very stable.

Stability is OK. My customer has one problem, but I am not sure where the problem is. It's not really my part to fix the problems so that they do not always get the target. They have nine gateways and by some changes, Tufin does not find the target. You have to search for the target which has the policy where the change has to be implemented. This is so complicated if you do not know the policy as well.

Stability is good.

We haven’t had any issues with stability so far.

It scales with functionality.

I think it's OK. From what I've seen, yeah, it's alright. I don't get involved in the maintenance of the Tufin copies though. I just use it, rather than maintain it.

It is very stable.

It is very stable. We've had no issues with instability.

The stability has been perfect. I know it quite well and it's been stable almost from the very beginning. There were some minor technical problems, as with anything, but the developers were responsive and helpful.