Based on user feedback, Apache JMeter's customer service and support are rated predominantly positive with a score range of 7 to 9 out of 10.

A significant number of users implement Apache JMeter with an on-premises setup. Many also choose the public cloud for deployment. Several organizations opt for hybrid cloud configurations, while others use private cloud environments. The majority lean towards on-premises deployment, indicating a strong preference for this model. Public cloud is also popular, although less so than on-premises. Hybrid cloud solutions are less common, yet still utilized. Private cloud sees moderate use compared to other models.

A significant number of users prefer Amazon Web Services (AWS) for hosting Apache JMeter, while a noticeable portion selects Microsoft Azure. Some also choose other options. AWS is highlighted more frequently than Azure among those mentioning their preferred cloud provider for running Apache JMeter, indicating a tendency towards AWS in this context.

Users advise others to determine their business needs and consider the use of multiple load generators for effective operation. Apache JMeter is recommended for its open-source nature, extensive community support, and suitability for small to medium applications. It excels at performance testing but has limitations in scalability for critical applications. Users find it user-friendly but requiring initial learning. It's best for those with cost constraints and integrates easily with existing frameworks and pipelines.

Apache JMeter is considered stable by users, though some experience issues under high loads or when using older versions. Many recommend adjusting settings for larger tests. Some report instability with high user loads or when updates are not applied, but online resources help address these. Community support is strong. Stability is generally rated around seven to ten, depending on usage scenarios and expertise. RAM consumption requires attention during tests.

<p>Apache JMeter is open source, which eliminates licensing costs and allows for extensive customization with plugins developed by its robust community.</p>

<p>It integrates easily with tools like Jenkins and supports various testing types such as API, database, and message queue testing.</p>

<p>The tool can simulate multiple users and different load types to test application performance and scalability effectively.</p>

<p>Apache JMeter offers powerful reporting and analysis tools, providing detailed insights into performance metrics and bottlenecks.</p>

<p>Its architecture supports distributed testing, allowing scalability to thousands of users across multiple servers.</p>

Apache JMeter needs improvement in handling SSL, dynamic scripting, session management, browser cookies, and cache. Its reporting features require enhancement for better visualization and scalability is a concern under heavy loads. The user interface is not intuitive, and issues with plug-ins, memory usage, scripting flexibility, protocol support, and integration with tools like Jenkins need addressing. Additional challenges include managing large-scale testing, enhancing the documentation, and improving ease of use for newcomers.

Apache JMeter has been used for a period ranging from a few weeks to 15 years.

Apache JMeter is valued for its user-friendly GUI, open-source nature, and extensive community support. Users highlight its platform independence, ease of use, and integration with tools like Jenkins. Its ability to perform API, database, and mobile scripting tests is beneficial, as is the flexibility in scripting. The tool’s capability for load testing, its modular design, and extensive plugin options are appreciated. JMeter’s reports and automated functions are effective for performance metrics collection.

Apache JMeter is primarily utilized for performance and load testing across various platforms, including web applications, APIs, and databases. Organizations use it to conduct different testing types such as stress, endurance, and spike testing. JMeter helps in simulating user interactions, evaluating metrics like throughput and response times, and identifying system bottlenecks. As an open-source tool, it is favored for its cost-effectiveness, flexibility in deployment, and integration with other automation processes.

Apache JMeter is noted for its scalability, allowing users to simulate a large number of users. However, it faces challenges, particularly with higher loads where memory consumption increases. Distributed testing is useful, but configurations can be complex. While some users find Apache JMeter's scalability adequate, others encounter limitations, especially compared to commercial tools. Its open-source nature and ability to scale with proper infrastructure make it popular, yet improvements are desired for large-scale scenarios.

Users evaluated NeoLoad, BlazeMeter, Silk Impact, LoadRunner, SoapUI, Postman, Visual Studio, Bluehost, SmartBear, Epic, Micro Focus, Cavisson NetStorm, k6, Locust. Some preferred LoadRunner due to familiarity. BlazeMeter and LoadRunner had licensing concerns. JMeter was chosen for affordability, reliability, flexibility compared to others. Silk Impact and Load Balancer offered additional network features. Users had varying technology stacks influencing their evaluations.

Organizations benefit from using Apache JMeter by simulating user loads to identify performance bottlenecks, improving deployment strategies, and effectively optimizing hardware and application performance. Its lightweight, open-source nature saves costs, supports diverse protocols, and integrates into CI/CD pipelines. JMeter's extensive community offers support, enhancing usability with templates and recording features. It allows detailed performance analysis across metrics and facilitates quick API testing, making it essential for various testing needs without financial strain.

Users switched to Bitbucket for its superior cloud capabilities, user interface, collaboration features, and easier migration compared to previous tools.

6.25

Most Bitbucket deployments are completed in-house within 2-3 hours, with manual testing and no external assistance needed.

{"quote":"I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.","score":"5"}

{"quote":"I would recommend Bitbucket to others because we are not experiencing any significant issues currently.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.","quality_score":"4","sentiment_score":"7"}

{"quote":"I like communicating with the Bitbucket team and would rate their technical support as seven out of ten for their quality of service.","quality_score":"5","sentiment_score":"6"}

{"quote":"Stability has some glitches and bugs.","quality_score":"6","sentiment_score":"4"}

Bitbucket users primarily prefer on-premises deployments, followed by public cloud, while private and hybrid clouds are less common.

{"quote":"Bitbucket is very secure and easy to handle compared to GitLab.","quality_score":"8","sentiment_score":"9"}

Bitbucket excels in source code management, offering seamless integration, user-friendly interface, security, and support for cloud or on-premise deployments.

6.65

Bitbucket setup can be quick or complex, depending on deployment size, configuration needs, and technical expertise.

Amazon Web Services is widely preferred by Bitbucket users, though other cloud providers are also considered without specific names.

Bitbucket's support receives mixed reviews, with concerns about communication delays and a preference for third-party assistance.

7.0

5.25

Bitbucket is praised for scalability and architecture, but users note potential cost issues and necessary branch management.

Bitbucket is praised for ease of use and integration, but migration can be slow; trial features and Git training suggested.

7.58908

{"quote":"At present, we primarily use email for code verification and validation rather than a repository model.","score":"6"}

{"quote":"The branching model in Bitbucket is also a significant aspect.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"The most valuable features are the scripts used for migration purposes and to create new repository releases.","score":"9"}

7.5

Bitbucket provides strong security, tool integration, and user-friendly features, enhancing collaboration and code management for effective repository handling.

{"quote":"I would rate their technical support as seven out of ten for their quality of service.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"I like communicating with the Bitbucket team","score":"6"}

Bitbucket needs improvements in branching, code reviews, integration, interface, permissions, search, collaboration, and customization to address user concerns.

Bitbucket users have varied experience, using the platform from several months to a decade, highlighting diverse user engagement.

{"quote":"I would rate stability as seven out of ten.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"An easier way to write automation scripts could significantly reduce the amount of scripting required.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"Stability has some glitches and bugs.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"We need a script that can automatically integrate specified changes at certain times without manual intervention.","score":"9"}

{"quote":"Automation for this process would be beneficial.","score":"8"}

Bitbucket is highly reliable, with minor issues quickly resolved, though a better backup system is desired for recovery ease.

{"quote":"In Bitbucket, manual processes are needed to handle changes between repositories.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"Optimizing scripts will make scalability easier.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"Scalability involves vertical or horizontal expansion, and adjustments need to be made based on requirements.","score":"9"}

Bitbucket offers competitive, scalable pricing suitable for various business sizes, with free and tiered plans, plus annual discounts.

{"quote":"Pricing is not based on low cost. It's based on the quality and satisfaction of the services provided.","score":"9"}

Users preferred Bitbucket for its cloud hosting, Atlassian integration, and suitability in CI/CD tasks over alternatives like GitLab.

<p>Bitbucket integrates with JIRA to enhance project tracking, offering straightforward initial deployment within an hour. It provides effective version control and tool integration for bug tracking, supports DevOps practices, and offers cost-effective solutions with on-premises hosting. Areas for improvement include automation features, search capabilities, integration with cloud services, and pipelines scalability. Enhanced workflow automation and pre-integrated code review features would further streamline development processes for tech buyers.</p>

Bitbucket boosts code quality and collaboration with peer reviews, integrations, automation, and cloud-based project management tools.

We switched from GitLab to Bitbucket for better performance in version control and CI/CD processes. Bitbucket's ease of use and secure features, like scripting for migration and repository creation, are valuable, though automation improvements are needed.

Users switched to Bitbucket from various tools including GitHub, GitLab, Team Foundation Server, CVS, ClearCase, Microsoft SourceSafe, and SVN. Reasons included Bitbucket's cloud capabilities, user-friendly interface, source code management, and migration ease. Many valued Bitbucket's modern features, especially for remote access and team collaboration. Concerns with alternatives included pricing, maintenance issues, and limited on-premise options. Despite being similar in functionalities to GitHub, Bitbucket's support model and migration convenience were often preferred.

<p>Bitbucket could enhance its security, particularly in user access security and security log options.</p><p>Search and indexing capabilities in Bitbucket need improvement, as current options are limited and not well-organized.</p><p>The scalability of both cloud and server versions of Bitbucket could be improved along with automation features.</p><p>Bitbucket's integration with third-party solutions and other cloud platforms beyond AWS is complex and could be streamlined.</p><p>Bitbucket's pricing could be more affordable for small companies, especially considering its current feature set.</p>

<p>Bitbucket surpasses its competitors by offering seamless integration with Jira, unlimited private repositories, and robust security features, making it an ideal choice for teams seeking collaboration, efficiency, and secure version control in their software development projects.</p>

Enterprises using Bitbucket experience varied pricing based on user numbers. The cost can appear high, especially when add-ons are needed, but its capabilities justify the expense for many. Monthly pricing starts from $10 for small teams, with discounts for annual payments. Cloud-based options offer maintenance-free use with automatic updates. While some find pricing competitive for small to medium-sized businesses, others perceive it costly compared to competitors. Final costs depend on user count and selected features.

<p>Bitbucket integrates seamlessly with other Atlassian products like JIRA, Confluence, and Jenkins, enhancing its functionality and user experience.</p>
<p>It offers quick and straightforward initial deployment, typically ranging from 30 minutes to an hour, and is easy to use for code management practices.</p>
<p>Bitbucket supports both Git and SVN, providing extensive tools for merging, branching, and change management which are essential for collaborative development environments.</p>
<p>It includes features that support DevSecOps practices, such as code reviews and IP address whitelisting during deployment, ensuring security and efficiency.</p>
<p>It is considered cost-effective compared to other similar platforms like GitHub, and offers on-premises hosting options, making it a scalable choice for different business sizes.</p>

Many users handled Bitbucket deployment with their own teams. Implementations were mainly in-house, with some setups completed individually. Installation processes were straightforward, typically involving small developer teams. No third-party assistance was necessary for most, as internal teams managed configurations and initial setups. While some had internal support from Bitbucket, automated testing was not yet implemented, with manual processes still in place.

Many users praise Bitbucket's technical support for being knowledgeable and responsive, rating it between seven and eight out of ten. However, some find support limited outside of subscribed hours and express frustration with email-based communication. Several users haven't needed support due to Bitbucket's reliability, while others consult third-party vendors for urgent issues. Documentation and setup guidance have room for improvement, although users generally find Bitbucket's support satisfactory for routine queries.

Many found Bitbucket's initial setup straightforward and quick. Some mentioned simplicity due to its cloud version, while others experienced complexity, especially when involving large code migrations, reverse proxy setup, or Linux console usage. Deployment times varied, ranging from minutes to a few weeks, often involving small teams. A good understanding of infrastructure was beneficial, but the process became easier with integration tools and extensive documentation. Maintenance typically required minimal intervention once set up.

Users advise others considering Bitbucket to focus on its compatibility with tools like Jira, Bamboo, and Jenkins. Migration from older systems can be time-consuming, so improved migration tools would be beneficial. Bitbucket is user-friendly and suits both on-premises and cloud needs. Some users suggest Git training for a smoother integration. Bitbucket's pricing is competitive, although it has limitations compared to competitors like GitHub. Users consistently rate it between seven and ten out of ten.

Bitbucket's customer service and support is rated as highly satisfactory, with scores predominantly at the upper end, out of 5.

A significant number of users deploy Bitbucket On-premises, followed by those opting for Public Cloud. Fewer participants select Private or Hybrid Clouds for their deployment. On-premises and Public Cloud are the dominant choices, reflecting diverse deployment preferences.

Many users choose Amazon Web Services (AWS) for managing Bitbucket, highlighting its popularity in cloud preference. Other cloud services also attract interest, though not specified in detail.

Users generally find Bitbucket stable, with many reporting no significant issues. Some occasional glitches and crashes occur, but these are infrequent. Stabilization efforts solve initial problems, especially in larger teams. Regular minor outages and backup complexities are mentioned, yet the overall perception remains positive. Stability ratings range from five to ten out of ten, with a few mentioning issues like access problems and application restarts. The backup system's effectiveness is crucial for maintaining stability.

Users primarily utilize Bitbucket for managing source code repositories, version control, and integration with tools like Jira and Jenkins. It supports various development activities, including access management, pull requests, continuous integration, code tracking, and build automation. Bitbucket also facilitates collaborative development, real-time data collection, and deployment processes. It is favored for its seamless integration capabilities, user interface, and robust security features, serving as a standardized tool for various coding and development needs.

Bitbucket faces limitations such as slow cloud performance, complex CI/CD processes, restricted branching options, and cumbersome installation and updates. Developers find issue tracking and wiki features lacking. Usability challenges persist, including code review complexity, confusing terminology, and inadequate documentation. Integrations with popular tools and improved automation are needed. Security enhancements, better search capabilities, and scalable infrastructure are also desired. Users seek more intuitive interfaces and lower costs for seamless user experience.

Users evaluated options like GitLab, GitHub, TFS, and Tekton alongside Bitbucket. GitLab was noted for features and pricing, though preferences varied based on integrations like Atlassian. GitHub required a server. Some preferred GitLab's UI. Advantages of Bitbucket included strong CI/CD capabilities, cloud hosting, and interface usability. Preferred for its comprehensive Git support. Familiarity and existing system integration played roles in choosing Bitbucket despite missing some desired features. Organizations stuck with Bitbucket for ease and reliability.

Bitbucket's valuable features include strong security with IP whitelisting, seamless integration with tools like JIRA, and intuitive UI. It offers robust Git operations, CI/CD pipeline automation, and supports both Git and SVN. Users appreciate its history tracking, pull request capabilities, and version control. It is cost-effective and fosters collaboration among developers, with reliable repository management and code comparison features. Bitbucket integrates well with DevOps tools, enhancing workflow efficiency and providing essential support for deployments.

The usage of Bitbucket has ranged from a few months to over ten years.

Many find Bitbucket scalable, supporting hundreds to thousands of users across varied roles. Some users mention the need for additional licenses when exceeding 50 users and emphasize the importance of proper code management. While cloud scalability is discussed, there's emphasis on vertical and horizontal scaling and hardware optimization. Challenges include handling large binary files with Git, adjusting to Git's limitations, and ensuring adequate infrastructure for both cloud and on-premise deployments. Scalability ratings often range from eight to ten.

Bitbucket's push and pull features enhance code quality through mandatory peer checks. Companies benefit from daily updated code, streamlined communication, and visual processes. Integration with tools like Slack, Bamboo, Asana, Jira, and Jenkins facilitates efficient collaboration, traceability, and synchronization. It speeds up production, automates tasks, and simplifies versioning and tracking, crucial for addressing technical issues. Organizations save time by completing activities faster, supporting cloud collaboration, and improving production efficiency and delivery processes.

Users focused on IBM FileNet for integration and support, while considering alternatives like EMC Documentum and OpenText for specific needs.

Users considered various options including Documentum, OpenText, Alfresco, SharePoint, and others before choosing IBM FileNet. Decision-making factors included stability, support, and integration with existing IBM products. Some users valued IBM's brand and future support. Others noted compatibility with their architecture and the ability to handle large volumes. Documentum was seen as more expensive and harder to implement compared to IBM FileNet. Previous solutions like in-house systems or simpler document management systems were not adequate.

Users preferred Apache JMeter for its cost-effectiveness, ease of use, and strong online community over expensive commercial alternatives.

Users considered NeoLoad, LoadRunner, BlazeMeter, Silk Impact, LoadUI, SoapUI, Postman, Visual Studio, Micro Focus, Cavisson NetStorm, k6, Locust, Bluehost, SmartBear, Epic, Web Performance Tester, and PureLoad. They cited Apache JMeter's affordability, open-source nature, ease of use, and popularity as factors in their choice. Commercial solutions like LoadRunner and NeoLoad were often too costly and required licenses, while JMeter offered flexibility and community support.

Users chose Bitbucket for its cloud solutions, Git support, CI/CD capabilities, and Atlassian integration despite GitLab's superior features.

Users considered alternatives like GitHub, GitLab, TFS, and CVS before choosing Bitbucket. GitHub was preferred for its features, but Bitbucket's cloud-based nature appealed to those needing remote access. GitLab attracted users for its UI and pricing, but Bitbucket's support and integration were decisive factors. Transition concerns from on-prem to cloud influenced users, while some switched from SVN and SourceSafe due to Bitbucket's advantages in server maintenance and collaboration.

5.925

Users switched to VMware Aria Operations for Logs due to cost-effective licensing and specific VMware environment compatibility.

Most entities use on-premises VMware Aria Operations for Logs, while some choose a hybrid cloud deployment model.

2.333333333333333

Organizations deploy VMware Aria Operations in-house or on VMware, with minimal maintenance aided by clear VMware documentation.

{"quote":"For VMware solutions, using VMware Aria Operations for Logs provides better data interpretation.","score":"9"}

{"quote":"When working with a specific vendor's tool for managing logs from their own infrastructure, that tool is often better and more precise than others.","score":"8"}

7.5

{"quote":"Customers may notice differences in performance, where a search might take five seconds today and thirty seconds tomorrow.","quality_score":"8","sentiment_score":"4"}

{"quote":"If data migration occurs during a search, it alters performance, causing delays.","quality_score":"8","sentiment_score":"2"}

{"quote":"The ability to narrow into a specific time to filter heavy hitters and anomalies is extremely valuable.","quality_score":"9","sentiment_score":"9"}

7.5

VMware Aria Operations for Logs offers advantageous pricing in bundles despite complex licensing and high setup costs compared to competitors.

VMware Aria Operations setup is usually easy, but complexity and documentation gaps can require substantial expertise and research.

Users generally find VMware Aria Operations for Logs' support reliable, despite occasional delays and challenges accessing expert specialists.

VMware Aria Operations for Logs is praised for scalability, user-friendly interface, and efficient integration in large environments.

VMware Aria Operations for Logs is used for log management, troubleshooting, performance optimization, and efficient infrastructure monitoring.