It is highly scalable. We have a user base of over forty-two thousand individuals.

The current hardware I have is a few years old. Just last week or two weeks ago, we received a large number of emails, and as a result, the device experienced some slowdown. Considering the scale of traffic and activity, I am encountering an issue with it. I acknowledge that the cloud is more efficient in handling such large platforms. I would say the scalability for on-premises systems could be improved, but it's also partly due to the fact that I am using an older chassis. I may have to consider moving to the cloud eventually because the service remains the same through the client portal in the cloud.

It's extremely scalable, especially with it being a cloud appliance, because you're not bound by the hardware like you might be if you bought from an on-prem installation. If we need to go from 500 to 1,000 users, they can just tweak the hardware settings on their end and we're ready to go. I don't think scalability is an issue at all with it being in the cloud.

There are approximately 425 email accounts that it's monitoring and when I last looked at the report about a month ago, there were 25,000 emails a day, on average, that it was analyzing for those 425 users. We're about to add another 50 to 60 new users from a company we just bought. We'll go up to nearly 500 in the next month or two, but I don't see any issues with that . We'll be adding their domain to our system and then adding the users.

It provides a high scalability. Our customers are enterprise businesses. I would rate is eight out of ten.

We have more than 1500 users for the product. 

Our environment is scalable, and we monitor that with Cisco. When we do our periodic Health Checks, we look at the performance of the appliances and how they're doing. They're handling the 10 to 12 million emails that we do receive through Cisco Secure Email Cloud Gateway a month. There are about 90 percent which are not even forwarded onto us. Therefore, it's handling the capacity that we have at the moment. At this stage, there's no need for any increase in our hardware.

It's an invisible service where every piece of email going in and out of the organization goes through CES.

We are doing more integrations with other security products, like Threat Grid, Threat Response, and AMP, along with SecureX. Getting the Cisco Secure Email Cloud Gateway feed into that and have one pane of glass to see the threats of the organization through both emails, firewalls, routers and VPN is fantastic. 

I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. 

We typically work with customers to price space. We don't typically work with customers in the service provider realm where they would typically have very large scaling of firewalls. They would do clustering and things like that. We know that these features are available, but that's not a particular area that we would actually work in. But, obviously, there's a breadth of Firepower products and platforms, and we can actually scale or arrange the correct firewall for the particular needs of that customer.

The solution is scalable.

1300 users are using this solution.

I will rate it 8 out of 10.

It is a scalable solution.

My company uses three Cisco Secure Email solutions in parallel. In my company, we have set the product for different segments or networks, but all three sync well with each other and work fine.

For administration purposes, there are five people who use the product. As end users, there are over 2,000 to 3,000 people who use the product.

Cisco Email Security's scalability is good. We have had a couple of cases where the user increased the licenses. There is no challenge to scalability. For the past year, there have been four to five customers to whom we have sold the product.

We have four million users using the solution. In India, we are a premium service provider of Cisco Secure Email catering to many institutions.

I rate the solution's scalability a six out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability a seven out of ten. Our customers are medium and enterprise-level businesses.

It is scalable.

With it being cloud-hosted, it can scale as wide as you need to.

We have roughly 1,000 employees and all of our inbound and outbound emails go through this system. This means that there are several tens of thousands of messages a day flowing through it. We haven't had any sort of performance issues at all with our environment.

We did grow out of the product, so we changed the product to a bigger box. It was the same installation and the same setup, so it was fine. We just replaced them with a larger box.

In terms of our environment setup, we have it set up in two data centers just for redundancy. We have about 1,200 people using it in the organization.

It is not scalable. For scalability, Cisco products are not good. That is the problem. And for deployment, it's a three-tier architecture system.

We have around 200+ users.

One administration executive in our organization uses Cisco Secure Email. I rate its scalability a ten out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

After moving from Exchange to Office 365, we thought that we needed to upgrade the license or do a couple of changes, but it was already a part of the plan from the product itself. So, it was easily scalable.

I haven't seen any scalability issues. I'm not quite sure how scaling would be handled if we had a truly immense increase, but I haven't seen any challenges with it. We're on the small side so we may not be a good example.

We don't really intend to change our usage much. We use it for all of our inbound and outbound email.

The scalability is good. It seems like it still has capacity in the cloud. It is hard to tell in the cloud. However, the ones that we had on-prem were running real close to their limit for whatever reason: memory swapping and CPU utilization. So, we had to do something there. Right now, it seems like there is capacity/room to grow.

The solution protects 450 users. We plan to gradually increase users.

I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten. Cisco has to improve its database because email security is something like DNS servers. So we have to improve the database and put more information initially in it. 

Scalability is good. We have four appliances total clustered, two in one data center and two in the other. The ability to increase is definitely doable, and it's helpful if you need to do that.

We are a legal firm with close to 2000 employees.

I rate Cisco Secure Email a nine out of ten. 

We haven't had to address scalability. The umbrella IronPort is broken down into two halves: email security and web security. I haven't had to deal with the scalability of the email security at all. But since they're both under IronPort, I have had to deal with scalability on the web security end. Relying on some of that experience, my assumption is that the way it worked for the Web Security Appliances is probably pretty similar to how it works for the Cisco Secure Email Gateway. With that in mind, I can say that scalability is not an issue. It's as easy as just bringing another Cisco Secure Email Gateway into the cluster.

In terms of plans to increase usage, if you ask any enterprise they're going to tell you, "Yes, of course, we're going to grow, and as we grow we're going to use more." And the reality is, any growing enterprise is going to utilize email more and more. As the landscape morphs and changes, so do your rule sets and the features available to you on these appliances. Will we be using it more and more? Absolutely. Will it be a daily thing? Absolutely. I'm in these appliances every single day, taking a look and tuning where necessary and trying to find more efficient ways to handle the email traffic flow. It's safe to say that for any enterprise that's going to be the case.

The scalability is fine. 

We have around 1500 users. 

There are two system engineers that support it right now.

Emails grow in numbers. So sometimes we need to alter our system to hold that amount of emails or to grab all those emails and transfer them. 

The scalability has been fine so far. We are very happy to use the cluster functionality in the ESA. 

The same type of clustering in the ESA has not been implemented for Cisco web security and we have been waiting for years for that functionality for the web security. But in the Secure Email it's working very well and we are happy with it.

We added one appliance to the platform and upgraded one to a newer version. The company did it quite easily. I was not part of that implementation, but the another guy told me that it was quite easy to do.

There were no plans to increase usage of it in that company at the time I was there. It was used by about 800 users and, since all of the users were using it and the organization was limited, everybody was already onboard. We had licenses for all of the users. It was all well designed from before. Apparently, they had to procure licenses for 200 to 300 more people, but that was after I left the organization. I didn't see what happened at that point.

We are currently utilizing all the features in the product.

We have 1100 users.

The tool is scalable. We have eight to ten administrators. All our emails go through the solution.

I rate Cisco Secure Email's scalability a five out of ten. 

Scalability is very good. We have not faced any hiccups over the years with a 15 percent increase per year in the number of users. We currently have 3,000-plus users in our organization.  It is one of the main security controls we have and is used extensively. We don't have any plans at the moment to increase usage, but that might change.

It's very scalable, especially the cloud version. You can get up to about 100,000 users on the appliance but the cloud version is more flexible. When you do scale it up you don't see slower performance.

In the largest environment in which we've implemented it, there are 200-plus users. It's utilized by 100 percent of the users. It's not at 100 percent capacity.

Everything is fine with the scalability.

We have 400 users on this product, with two site, 2 physical appliance in one site and one physical appliance in the second site the three working as a cluster, and next year, we plan to increase our usage and move to the newer physical appliance version. because those we're using , are arriving to them end of life soon.

We are supporting around two million mailboxes. I rate the tool’s scalability a seven out of ten. It is a multi-server architecture, and I have to manage them separately.

Cisco Email Security is working well for us, but we currently have no plans to increase usage.

The scalability is good because when you have appliances such as we have, if you have the infrastructure and the available resources, you can install additional virtual appliances. From the point of view of scalability, if there were a problem with performance, it is possible to add other systems or devices, even though they are virtual, and they all fall under the same control interface. They are all a part of the same cluster so they are all relatively easy to manage.

We currently have 11,000 employees and a large number of those users hold email accounts and email addresses.

We have a 24-hour operation because our company is located in 62 countries, so we have to respond relatively quickly because email is important. We have a department that deals with IT security and likely, at a minimum, we would have six people who have the capability to work on these systems. But in reality, because the systems are very stable, we have three or four people who regularly work on them. All the people who maintain the system are currently in the same department as me and all of them are considered IT security officers. They deal with other systems as well as the email.

It's scalable. In the enterprise in which I had to deploy it, there were between 500 and 1,000 users, so the scalability is quite okay. We had two Cisco Secure Email Gateway boxes and there was load balancing using Cisco ACE. The scalability is okay.

There weren't any plans to increase usage, as far as I can remember. It was used very well and they're still using it. I do interact with the current engineer now, and I don't think there has been a serious issue of late. The only issue he told me about is some outside mail is being trapped by the current site.

The scalability is quite good. We have three administrators using it. The product is serving around 2000 to 3000 people in our environment.

The scalability has been OK.

The scalability is really good for multiple users. There is no issue with the scale. We have 300 to 400 users.

It's scalable. A medium-sized business would go with a C370 while a small business would use a C190. We are able to migrate users from lower-level to higher-level products. Scalability is not a big issue for this product. The same configuration can run 500 users and 3,000 users.

In terms of scalability, I'm pretty much sure we could go as high as 1,500 users.