It's scalable, at least in this environment. I haven't worked in a very large-scale environment with this technology. At least you don't have bottlenecks in your operating system or external virtualization. For this organization with 10,000 people, it seems to be working.

I believe we may have done a bigger deployment than we actually need. We were advised to use a node and another node to have a little bit of a cluster function. We went even bigger than that, so we are using the biggest version of what they recommend. 

But I don't see scalability as an issue. I don't think it's something that Safeguard does particularly worse or better than anyone else. It's easy to deploy another node for the same function that you already have. Or if you want to replace something that doesn't work the way you want it to, you can switch it. It is very scalable. We haven't touched the limits of what it's capable of and I don't think we ever will.

We have about 150 users at the moment.

It is very scalable. If we want to add another site or stand up another data center, we just buy a couple more appliances. Then, we set up a couple more session boxes and everything is covered.

So far, we are just using it for passwords, then passive session monitoring. Therefore, our usage is pretty minimal:

• Trying to track down people's accounts.
• Getting locked out because of user password changes.
• Not closing out of RDP session right. This is sort of a pain. However, people are getting better about logging off appropriately instead of just closing out the window.

We have about 140 end users because it is really just for our IT people. So far, businesses or anybody outside the IT organization doesn't even know the solution exists.

Safeguard is highly scalable due to its architecture. From my perspective, it is one of the most scalable solutions on the market among other Privileged Access Management solutions.

The scalability of the solution is good. It was one of the reasons why we chose it. We needed something to scale with our customers. So far, we've been happy with its capabilities. 

In our company, the scalability is good enough for us at present. In my department, there are ten direct users, and outside my department there are another seven direct users. Perhaps when we increase our customers, we will scale up further.

It is very scalable. We recently increased the number of licenses. Previously, we had a thousand servers, but now, the number has increased. The number of users has also increased. So, we upgraded our system. 

We are using it mostly for privileged users, developers, and system administrators. In total, we have around 300 users. We have plans to increase its usage. We have some upcoming projects where we want to use it on a larger basis. We have plans to use it for DevOps users and third-party vendors, but it will take a little bit of time.

We have not integrated the solution with any other parts of the business, such as DevOps, RPA, or cloud targets. We are evolving day by day. We are upgrading our technology, and we have plans to do that in the future.

I didn't have a requirement to test the scalability of the solution. We did discuss the scalability with the system integrator at the beginning, and it's on the license level. I don't think we will have an issue once we come to the point of needing to scale.

We have 3,000 end users and 10 administrators.

It's very scalable. It doesn't matter what size of organization you have. If you have an organization of 1,000 or 100,000, the product is going to be scalable to your needs.

In our company, we have sporadic roles and we have about 55 users who are tuned into Safeguard. We're managing over 3,000 privileged accounts. Some of the users' roles are network administrators, IT administrators, help desk administrators, and InfoSec administrators. Our marketing team has users of the product, as they have applications whose passwords are being managed through Safeguard. We have a nice blend of users who are using the product daily. It has really done a good job of keeping up with the demand.

We definitely have plans to expand the usage of the product. Any area that's going to require some kind of privileged account, especially as we go through a digital transformation in deploying cloud services, Safeguard is going to be right there with us and will give us that flexibility to manage those kinds of accounts.

For deployment and maintenance of the solution we have a staff of one who reports directly to me. He's a senior cybersecurity engineer.

It's scalable, depending on the solution case. I don't know if it's domain-based because it was not restricted. We're gradually moving to the Azure cloud.

We have not had any issues with scalability to this point and it is handling our capacity and needs. The only potential issue would be budgeting for additional licensing, which would not be a problem in our case, and handling the resource usage. These are not really limiting.  

Between the banking client and our company, not everyone has been onboarded yet to the One Identity Safeguard. But in the end, we are looking at probably about 500 servers and I think a total of about 180 admins. This seems realistic using this product.  

One Identity Safeguard is scalable, but its performance degrades as it is scaled up.

The scalability, including the clustering for One Identity Safeguard, could be improved. It is fair right now, scalability-wise, and from an engineering perspective, it may not be as easy to do that because the appliance would have to be encrypted, and there's a security requirement. Still, it would be nicer if scalability could be improved in One Identity Safeguard.

It's not scalable.

I did not face any problems. It is very scalable, and it can be used for a small company or a big company without any problems.

Currently, there are about 20 users who are using it.

We don't use the scalability. When we need a new appliance, we deploy it inside another network. We don't need scalability for now, but if we grow quickly, we will need to think about it.

We have about 50 users inside the company, including the security team, operations team, infrastructure team, and Level 1 support.

We are using 75 percent of the parallel session unless there is an incident, then we can use all the slots.

When increasing the number of users, we can rather easily add to virtual appliances processors and memory, or disks for storing records, which is more difficult to do on a hardware (physical) appliance.

We have two administrators involved in the deployment, configuration, and maintenance of this solution. During the peak of the pandemic, we had up to 3,000 users connected through the solution and able to work from home.

The scalability is fantastic. It is very easy to connect and use the solution, if you need it.

I am encountering issues when it comes to the scalability of the solution.

The product is scalable.

The tool does everything that it is designed to do. It is one of the leading privileged access management products out on the market. They rebuilt the whole product, giving it a nice brand a new clean user interface, which is very user-friendly and easy to use. One Identity has done a very good job taking the old product, TPAM, and doing a whole refresh of that tool. We're very happy with the Safeguard product.

We have approximately 50 to 60 human privilege accounts whose roles are everything, everywhere. From the information security department to the desktop people, there are about 12 users in that area. There are about 20 people who comprise our IT engineering group and another 15 or so who comprise our network team. Then, there are the third-party users who have to login on behalf of the bank to do changes for us, which is another 10 or so privileged accounts which have been setup for a one-time usage when a third-party vendor needs to remote into our system. Crawl-walk-run impacts about 30 percent of all the changes being made. Most changes are made to the production environment and need to be done with a privilege account.

The solution is not so scalable. 

Mabe 20 or so users are leveraging it in our organization. They are admins. 

We can continue to add more VMs to support thresholds. We can certainly scale up with it. It's being used on about 300 servers right now and we have plans to expand to about 200 more.

We have 50-plus people using safeguard right now and they're all in IT. For deployment and maintenance we have one to two people.

I have found One Identity Safeguard to be scalable.

No problem to scale. It's always a good option to use a load balancer in front of the solution to handle the traffic.

Because of the nature of the connections being monitored, you can load balance it quite well. It is easy to shift the load from one appliance to another. However, the high availability function of the box itself requires a long time to switch over from one appliance to another. So, there is room for improvement

We run One Identity Safeguard on a VM, so we can create as many as we need. 

The scalability of One Identity Safeguard is good, we can add multiple devices.

We have approximately 40 administrates using this solution in my organization.

We plan to increase usage in the future.

As of now, we use mainly virtual and have not tested the scalability and high availability, because it is a new thing.

We have not had scalability issues.

The scalability is great.

It is scalable. It scales well in our company.

If your current architecture is not designed for this, then it can it may be difficult to expand beyond a certain amount. Our current biggest deployment is for thousands of users.

Scalability is very good.

I have encountered scalability issues. The system needs to be properly analysed before putting it into production. Supported protocols have different needs in terms of computing power, and this directly impacts the number of concurrent sessions that can be managed.

We have not had any scalability issues.