The solution is scalable for load, devices, and groups. 

However, application performance goes down when we try to load a set of groups. For example, loading 3,000 devices is no issue. But the solution cannot load 3,000 groups. 

I'd rate the scalability eight out of ten. It can expand. I haven't run into any shortcomings. 

We have hundreds of users on the solution at this time. 

I'm not sure if there are any plans to increase usage at this time. 

I can't rate the scalability. Our network is not very large. We use a simple architecture.

The solution is scalable. Once we have completed the on-premise verification, we will need to add additional hardware to our machines, as we already have a large number of devices to monitor.

We have around 2,000 people using the solution.

Scalability is great. We would like more because we are almost at the limit or at least the advertised limit for the system. I know they are working to move their four million data pulled metrics up to 10 million. So, that will be a lot better for us, just because we have such a large enterprise. 

At our company, we have a large implementation, and we have not had any issues with scale. We just scale horizontally.

Scalability is yet to be determined, as we continue to build out our infrastructure. But so far, as we've been adding new portfolios, new domains, we haven't had any challenges with regard to the performance of the tool as it's managing additional devices in our environment.

We have not had an issue with scalability other than in reporting. I would not necessarily say that's a scalability issue of the product, but that's scalability with respect to one of the functions of the product.

We have multiple large data centers and we've never had any issue getting those data centers hooked into CA. If we have to connect to something with our ADA or NFA products, we find it: it's there. We don't have any problems with size or scalability. It's quick, and if we need to bump it up a little bit, we can do that as well.

DX Performance Management is a highly stable solution.

We have a lot of customers that use this solution because we are an MSP. We have over 1,000 users and 80 servers.

Scalability is the reason we bought the product to begin with. It was designed from the ground up for carrier-grade services, and we are in effect a MSP ourselves. So we were really interested in looking at something to be able to handle the multi-tenancy and scale as large as possible. This was the only solution that we really considered at that level.

I am happy with the scalability for right now. It is better in the later versions.

The company is 25,000 employees. Our department consists of two groups that work together. We are broken up into a monitoring group and a network group, both use the tool, probably about 20 of us. Maybe a little more that use the tool to get what we need out of it.

I have mixed feeling about the scalability. I feel like there are things which are being put into UIM right now that are not being included in Performance Center that we need to see in Performance Center. We are kind of being driven to buy UIM, and I can't justify it.

There are just some charts and views that we can't build in Performance Center right now.

No issues with PM. We use other products like NFA and ADA. We've had scalability issues in those areas, but with PM we have not. I don't think we've run into a situation where we have too much. We actually designed our system around a million interfaces to monitor, and I think we're probably less than half a million at this point.

No issues with scalability.

To date, we have not encountered any scalability issues.

The solution is scalable. My company has 500 users. 

Currently we're not facing any issue with our infrastructure. There are around 5000 devices monitored using CA Performance Management. To be frank, I don't have any idea what the capacity of the product is, going forward. But currently, I don't see any issue with the capacity, the amount of devices. 

The 5000 devices are monitored from data collectors housed in three datacenters.

Redundancy over two data centers is one of our challenges, as well as the fact that we use a lot of data collection, even using Docker containers for it.

This is the scalable option, and it's why we need it and have it.

We have never had a problem with scalability. We've always been quite well under what it can do.

This solution is not very scalable. For example, a case manager in another company was able to handle a thousand devices with only one server. If the same customer with the other company logs into CA Performance Manager and needs to do the same, he will need seven servers. How can you explain that? Even if the customer has free access, it's not possible. It's not reasonable.
The investment you have to put into strong enough software is high. So we've lost many customers because they didn't like the replacement even though it was free for them.

This solution is scalable. 

No issues with scalability, and we even worked with a customer with more than 20K devices within the system.

It has high scalability. You can have thousands of devices inside and hundreds of thousands of interphases without a problem.

No issues with scalability.

It requires higher availability in case of any incidents with any of the servers.

There were no scalability issues.

I haven’t encountered any scalability issues.