I did not explore the scalability. Not a lot of capabilities were offered. It's not as flexible as others, such as SailPoint. 

We're currently running it for over 100,000 users in the system, but not all of them are active. Our active count is probably somewhere around 60,000. We're looking to take on more because we've acquired another company. We're looking to bring in their whole organization. We're going to be starting by bringing on their IT department, but we're looking to bring on their entire organization which will add another 40-50 thousand. We're currently talking with our account manager on licensing and costs for that.

We have no issue with scalability. We start with 3,000 users and reach about 10,000 with no scalability issue. Its scalability is a seven or eight out of ten.

It scales fine. It's one of the better products out there. There is a limit to the amount of provisions you can keep in users accounts and you need to archive some things, but I haven't reached that limit; at least with our users.

It's a good product, and if you have to work with a lot of users, it's not complicated to get scalability with this product. It's not complicated. 

On a scale from one to ten, scalability-wise, I would give this solution a rating of seven.

No issues encountered.

It is pretty scalable. We use it in the enterprise as a provisioning engine. We also use it in our external environment on the consumer side. For both these uses, it works pretty well.

One open challenge that I see with the provisioning engine is that there is something lacking in terms of pure high availability. The active-active model is pretty critical for that. Many of the components do support that model. There are subsets that don't. It would be valuable to get that into the product sometime.

The solution scales well. If a company needs to expand, it can do so.

No.

We didn't have to face any scalability challenges yet because we only use it for our members, which are about 40,000 accounts, which is nothing for two of that size. We haven't had any issues, but we haven't had much load.

Currently, my company has a license for two thousand two hundred users, so you could scale Symantec Identity Governance and Administration, but only a few use it, probably because the solution has a lengthy process where you have to make a lot of connections in the backend, and that's taking up a little bit of time.

I did not specifically examine scalability during the implementation because I did not have the chance or the necessity. We were in the process of considering all that we needed and not what would happen if we needed to scale to expand the system. From what I remember, we also had plugins that we could have installed so maybe the availability of plugins is an example that it is scalable in the sense of functionality.  

But I think, with CA, that the scalability is fine and it is exactly what an organization will need as they grow. We are not involved in really scaling the product when we are deploying it.  

For availability, I think you can definitely scale up as much as you want because you deploy the clients and the endpoint or the console. So in this way scalability works from an availability standpoint.  

For scaling the functionality of the product itself, I think it will need some other kind of intervention or maybe new development. It depends on what you need and what they already have in the form of plugins. I know they have an API but we did not need to work with it for our purposes. With the API's you can extend the functionality outside the original identity.  

During the process with a particular client that I have in mind, we argued about the starting point for the verification and whether it should be the HR system or the identity. This is a business decision that has to comply with the rules and business processes as defined by the organization and any regulations that apply. The question has to be answered before a solution can be put in place. With this client, we agreed that the starting point was the HR system, and one of the proposed solutions was that the HR system would call an API to perform the provisioning for identity. That was one possible approach. The second approach to working with identity was to install an agent on the HR system that could be run on a schedule. This solution is what we settled on and we agreed that this would be scheduled to run once a day, which is more than enough for what they needed to accomplish.  

Because we chose the second approach we did not go for working with the APIs. The approach would be to run the process once a day on schedules like when most of the system resources would be in minimal demand — for example at the end of the workday. This would be done to check each employee for those that were added, transferred or changed privileges. And then an automated adjustment would be done for functionality and organization based on the established rules.  

This is the kind of flexibility you have in deciding processes for an enterprise business — even a very complex business with demanding requirements. It shows another type of scalability.  

We haven't really had any issues with scalability, but we have an older version of it where we’ve had to customize it to an extent.

We started off with 10,000 customers on system, it looked good. Now we have about 1.6 million customers on the system, no problems at all.

I've used Identity Manager before for a different client. The scalability is good.

No issues with scalability. Typically deployments are done with an assumption that an organization will grow by a certain percentage in the foreseeable future. As a result the architecture will adhere to the growth plans accordingly.

The solution is easy to scale. It requires a certain amount of configuration which surpasses the norm, but it takes a rather nice load. 

No, we have not.

No issues encountered.

We scaled for fifteen targeted endpoints. We are still at six, so we are still within the scoping half of what we anticipated. So far, so good.

It's been very good. We have above 40,000 users on that platform and we never have any issues.

We have issues with scalability, and it has taken time due to the requirement of extra memory and more CPU.

The tool is not scalable. That is not a limitation from a CA software perspective. The lack of scalability is more a result of how we originally set up the product.

No issues encountered.

We have approximately 2,000 users using Symantec Identity Governance and Administration in my organization. It is scalable.

This product is highly customizable and flexible in terms of handling customer requirements.

It is easy to code into this solution. You just have to run a setup configuration and, in a few minutes, you have two services. In terms of the number of users, we have around 10,000 users.

We have challenges because of the customization. It's difficult to do upgrades. We are a few versions behind so doing the upgrade is tough.

We have not yet tried to scale this product.

Nobody's complaining about it and we have 100,000 users, even though they're usually not all being authenticated at the same time.

We have encountered issues with scalability.

Scalability of this product is something that we need to look into.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

We're not putting too many users into the system, so it handles this very well.

No scalability issues

Yes, when feeding many users.

We just have a two node cluster, so we have not really scaled. However, I imagine it is easy enough to scale those nodes, so it is scalable since it is a clustered app.

No issues encountered.

Haven't faced any so far.

No

No issues encountered.

No. The product gives flexibility with respect to application servers and databases so scalability more depends on the platform you choose.

Not at this moment.

No.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No.