It scales well, but the cost is a limiting factor for us.

We bought the biggest box there is, so it's as big as it's going to get.

Cisco Secure Network Analytics is designed to scale well, especially in your SD-WAN solution that is designed specifically for scale. It makes sense that it scales because it is a security product for SD-WAN solutions. I have had no problems scaling. It has been pretty easy for us to scale.

For scalability, we probably want to see more NetFlow availability in other infrastructure products. We know it is there in routers, switches, and foundation. We know we can send it to the box. These are our current questions about NetFlow expansion:

• What about firewalls? Where does Cisco stands today on NetFlow or in the future for firewalls? 
• Is there NetFlow on SPD? I don't know. 
• Are we doing NetFlow on ASA today? Our company is not.  

I do not think it is ready yet, or stable, and expanding NetFlow would be huge.

Its scalability is pretty good. We're about to roll it out bigger.

The solution is expensive to scale up commercially.

The scalability is limited only by the license type. It's not a problem as long as you purchase enough licenses and the necessary services. We have 300 users.

We haven't had any issues with scalability yet.

Stealthwatch has a good level of scalability.

The solution is fairly scalable. Our clients are primarily enterprise-level businesses.

I think that the solution is very scalable. I believe that if we had to expand, we can easily add port collectors to our environment across the enterprise, and use the same management system to view the data.

We have not yet had to scale the solution.

We haven't scaled it out more than what our initial scale was. I am only just imagining adding more sensors. When we configured it initially, we really didn't have a fundamental knowledge of exactly what to do with our network and the infrastructure. So we kind of had to let it sit there for about a month or two to learn — or get used to — the network and the product.

My understanding is that it has been easy to scale, although I was not around for it. We have not had astronomical growth, but it sounds like it runs stable and there haven't been any performance issues with it.

We have 10 to 20 threat prevention engineers and network engineers of various levels who use it.

I would rate the scalability as a seven out of ten. It is most suitable for enterprise businesses.

It scales very well.

As it's in the cloud, I would imagine that it scales easily. Still, we didn't use it long enough to worry about scaling it. 

We've had problems with element licensing costs so scalability is a concern.

This is a really scalable solution. We have done some pretty large deployments, and I have seen the scalability.

This is a cloud-based solution, so it is very scalable.

Scaling with Cisco Stealthwatch is a little bit difficult. At our scale, we need a lot of boxes to make it work. The hardware is something else. Some of the devices seem a little bit outdated in how they're built.

For the scalability, other than some of the interesting things like the blow sensors, the actual analytics engine is solid so far.

The scalability is good, seen from a license perspective, as well.

No issues with scalability. Collecting NetFlow data is not hard, however, there is a chance you’ll end up with a huge amount of data that needs investigating. It might be a good idea to deploy gradually, by network segment.

This solution is highly scalable. We have a couple of clients with fairly large networks, more than a thousand network segments that are using Stealthworks. Maintenance requirements depend on the size of the implementation and are carried out by a network engineer. It's usually a couple of hours every few months for a small client, a couple of days every few months for a larger client. It's a matter of watching interim product releases to decide when you want to move the product up. You don't want to get too far out of date, but you also don't want to implement every single upgrade.

We're going to be looking at this, and I'm hoping that it is scalable across our environment.

The scalability is okay.

We're kind of immature, right now, in our implementation, but I see it growing.

We only use it for certain subsets so we're not really dependent on how scalable it is. It does what we need it to do and that's all we could ever let it do.

We're doing scalability with Cisco Stealthwatch now. We have a 1 GB collector. We need a 10 GB collector. We're looking at upgrading. 

Cisco Stealthwatch has been good for us in the last couple of years. We had to purchase a whole new appliance for the 10 GB collector. 

As far as scalability for the one that we purchased, it was not that great.

It is a product that can scale as needed. 

We have three people using it in our company right now. 

Our initial deployment was built out to the right size for our organization.

That scalability seems to be ok, although we did have some concerns. Potentially, we are going to be looking at 100-gigabit links, and the version of the solution that we deployed does not support that. That is a long-term concern, rather than an immediate one.

Cisco Stealthwatch is scalable with money. It's expensive.

It's challenging to scale as big as our environment.

Stealthwatch is very scalable.

It supports vertical scalability. When you size the product, you need to calculate the number of endpoints. You can add multiple regions and multiple consoles. If you are adding multiple branches, it can be easily accommodated.

Based on what we've used it so far, it looks like it's scaling. We're growing and it's growing with us, so it's doing what we need it to do.

We are a very small company, so scalability isn't a problem for us. But I believe it is scalable.

It is very scalable. You only have to purchase more licensing. As far as I understand, it can become as big as you want it to become and how many net flows you can afford.

The scalability of this solution is good. We don't have a very large network that we use it on. I support only around 200 routers or so. But for what we use it for, it is scalable.

No issues.

Scalability is where we're still finetuning the product. Initially, when we implemented Stealthwatch, we did a serious overkill on our flows per second. Now we're trying to correct that and then spread those appliances. 

We would like to license the product across all of the different hardware we have.

I think this solution is okay with scale.

I believe there isn't much to scale for it and I think it all depends on how many nodes you're running in the environment. I will say the scalability is fairly decent.

The solution is scalable, it can be done easily. I don't see any problem with us expanding our network and for the solution to be able to accommodate our needs.

Our company has approximately 1,000 people employed and they all use Cisco Stealthwatch. We have administrators that can access it and do work on a daily basis in order to see alerts and inspect all the potential problems in the network.

It's not scalable due to our own implementation. Everything that I read though, indicates that it can be scalable. 

We did not encounter any issues with scalability.

No.

It all depends on the platform you are using, but I think it is pretty scalable.

It's scalable, there are many models that we can use for a small network. Cisco offers the scalability that we need. We have about eighty students, and all the students have to do some training on it. We have plans to increase the usage of Cisco.

We have three people who are using this solution.

No.