+1 619 822 1745 [email protected]

Rate your engine’s stability, reliability & scalability

We asked participants to consider the following:

  1.   How stable is this engine in your specific environment?
  2.   Would you consider it reliable?
  3.   Is it “low maintenance” or “maintenance intensive?”
  4.   How complex is scalability?
0% – Not stable
100% – Very stable
  • Corepoint 96% 96%
  • Cloverleaf 96% 96%
  • Ensemble 94% 94%
  • Rhapsody 88% 88%
  • Mirth 86% 86%
Expand to read user comments
Corepoint
  • We have not had any issues with stability. 99.9% up time with production. We run assured availability with multiple servers. Only downtime is for upgrades (usually less than an hour).
  • In the eight years we’ve depended on the Corepoint interface Engine, I can only remember failing over to our Backup Engine on two occasions. Both were handled gracefully by the Corepoint Assured Availability solution (A2). Neither incident was due to a problem with the engine itself, but were network interruptions due to external factors.
  • Without an unlimited option, there’s always the question…should we be using the interface engine or stick with point-to-point in order to save on a connection license.
Cloverleaf
  • I’ve never seen systems as solid as these.
  • Incredibly stable. In 10 years I have never filled-out a TIR (Technical Incident Report) that was Cloverleaf-related. Not once. That’s a pretty big endorsement. Scalability is second to none as well.
  • Alerting could be better
  • Important: stability and reliability are excellent.
    Improvement: fully support more than two nodes in any interface path.
Rhapsody
  • The last two upgrade versions have memory leaks.
  • Orion, InterSysems, and CorePoint all said that we could run our entire enterprise on one server … we now have 10 production instances and are processing over 21 million transactions per day …
  • Uptime rates, and configuration management are very good. Single file exports/backups allow for very light effort to replicate environments or to upgrade servers or Engine software.
Mirth
  • We are adding interfaces on a weekly basis, very scalable.
  • Does not scale well
  • We only have to tweak or adjust interfaces a few times per year. This seems acceptable.
Ensemble
  • It is very stable and scaling up is very easy. Creating a mirror for disaster recovery is very easy and requires very little work.
  • We routinely re-start the engine, but otherwise it has never shut down. So far the engine itself is indestructible.
  • After 7 years we had to increase the CPU processing and the RAM to accommodate scaling up of the numbers of interfaces. Otherwise the engine has been stable and reliable.
  • It works, I feel confident in its stability.