+1 619 822 1745 [email protected]

Stability & Scalability

User Comments

Corepoint

  • “Runs well, thought the A2 high availability solution may need some fine turning as we’ve had issues failing over in the past.”
  • “Corepoint has demonstrated to me in the last 12 years, a very, very stable interface platform. We do not worry about routine patching and rebooting every 30 days and recovering from any type of failover.”
  • “Corepoint has provided an interface engine platform that is scalable and allowed investment protection and growth as our organization has expanded services and added ancillary sub-systems interfaced with our HIS (Hospital Information System).”
  • “Corepoint uses an SQL database to log as well as transform data, if there are problems with the data base any interfaces that reference SQL transformations go down (i.e. a translation table used to change a value within a message).”

Cloverleaf

  • “I have worked with Cloverleaf in places very small to huge enterprise. If you buy the hardware, the engine seems endlessly scalable.”
  • “I’m very confident in the engine’s stability. Most maintenance can be automated and as long as you follow best practices you can keep uptime near 100%.”
  • “Inability to do active-active cluster is problematic. Over-dependence on TCL scripts for any customization. No publication/subscribe functionality.”
  • “Mostly rock solid thus far. We’ve had some issue with SMAT file corruption, but most of the time even those are due to identifiable user error.”

Ensemble

  • “The mirroring ability had a bit of a learning curve but was well worth the effort of learning.”
  • “The application is able to scale. Stability has been very pleasing, downtime is virtually non existent.
  • “Running on AIX is probably inherently part of the stability of the platform. In the 6+ years we’ve been on the platform, we have not had any software-initiated, unscheduled downtime.
  • “It’s very stable and reliable. I feel the DR failover could be more user friendly.”

Mirth

  • ”The scalability for Mirth Connect requires constant increase of memory and storage and consumes resources like crazy.”
  • “The engine is pretty stable, but since it is a Java app the biggest thing is providing enough heap for your growing interfaces so you will always have to continue to adjust as your volume grows.”
  • “Engine is as stable as the Java environment and the backend database. Improve logging and per channel archiving of transactions.”

Rhapsody

  • “For the amount of throughput we currently put through the engine, it’s very stable. However I have worked with other clients who use Rhapsody for their HIE product and the interface engine, and it crashes constantly. I think that when we complete all of the development we want to accomplish, this engine should be able to run on its own without much to any human interaction.”
  • “Several of our Rhapsody instances have not been brought down in over a year, it has been completely reliable. Any issues we have had are related to network/SAN storage.”
  • “We have been measuring route reliability and are hovering around 99%. Once the route is tested they just don’t fail. We have built in a lot error checking for simple things that would easily take down routes, but building in those checks and scaling up are simple.”
  • “I would like a better HA solution; other than that we really have the highest uptime percentage of all of our systems.”
Compare All Ratings in Survey Summary

0% – not stable/scalable 100% – very stable/scalable

Corepoint

94%

Rhapsody

93%

Ensemble

90%

Cloverleaf

82%

Mirth

Ratings

Meeting Needs Features & Usability Additional Features Implementation Setup Stability & Scalability Support & Services Total Cost of Ownership Vendor Vs. Partner
Overall Rating