As I said, scalability was one of the key points when we looked into. It's quite scalable for us. The enterprise size that we have is well controlled and well defined for us, so it's good.

It depends on the contract that you have with Automic. If you have a fixed contract, it has limits to spreading out. If you have a flexible enterprise license contract, then you have a lot of scalability for this tool. Then, you can use everything. So, it will depend on the contract that you will make with Automic.

We have less than ten people using this solution in our organization.

In terms of number of applications and deployment targets, the scalability will satisfy the bank's current needs. They have space to grow. 

We've had no problems with scalability, even when it came to network segmentation. We were able to differentiate between test and production, and keep both sides happy, and make our security department not mad at us.

I think scalability-wise it is proven. We are running a significant number of end points. I think other customers have run larger number of nodes as well. The scalability should be okay.

We have not had any issues due to scalability so far. So, I am assuming it is okay.

Running the solution on the cluster goes well even if it is a big cluster. From that point of view, I'd say the scalability is okay.

It seems to use more CPU on IBM Mainframe for file transfer than FTP embedded in IBM z/OS solution. That needs to be improved.

The solution is very scalable. 

No, we did not have any issues with scalability. Our solution runs in HA mode, with two active nodes. It is enough for our usage and current load from integrated applications.

We can easily scale.

It has never-ending scalability. It depends on the hardware.