The solution is scalable. 

We normally forecast for seven years. Based on that, we select a model, and then we will upgrade one by one onto that if necessary. On a 380F, we used to add only the drives for the additional volume, and if it is in a server for the regular task for the images, we used to add an external additional drive of 140 TB.

This is a newer model for us. Out of the three projects that I have worked on, two of them are using the older model and the XT is primarily in another project. We have tons of scalability in it. We have a whole rack dedicated to Unity, and it is pretty much empty. We have probably close to a petabyte of storage in there, and it is still pretty much empty. Scalability looks really good.

Where we would run into a scalability problem, we are going to do a lot of image storage, and that doesn't compress well. So, flash drives wouldn't really help us. We need a big, scalable object storage system. That is where Isilon comes in. We have about three and a half petabytes of Isilon at each of that project's sites.

Scalability of this solution could be improved. 

The solution is scalable. We have 400 users for the solution. Also, there is a support team consisting of L1, L2, and L3 engineers. L1 engineers are available around the clock in shifts to provide continuous support.

We have found the solution to be scalable. I'd rate the solution nine out of ten in terms of the ability to extend. 

We have about four people directly working with the solution. They are system administrators. 

Scalability is one of Unity's biggest advantages. It looks like we're going to need to do a lot of expansion because any capacity we purchase gets consumed pretty fast. We'll have to increase our footprint on Unity.

Dell Unity XT offers good performance in general with minor limitations regarding mid-level storage. I don't think it's suitable for large enterprise models. I rate it seven out of ten.

It is scalable, and we usually recommend Dell Unity XT to small and medium companies.

There are three of us using the solution. We have more than 3,000 customers using the product. 

It's scalable. Everyone has been pretty happy with its capabilities. 

As long as you're buying the right product, it's probably an eight out of ten in terms of scalability. What you don't want to do is get locked into something you don't want. If you want a hybrid, such as a spinning disk in a solid state, you have to know that upfront. That's because some of the models restrict to only SSD. Later on or down the road, if you want the spinning disk for cold storage, it doesn't happen. You can't convert it. You have to get a different array or something else.

The solution is scalable within the storage limitations for each model.

For example, category 380 allows for one device. To scale up, you need to add additional software or hardware like VPLEX.

I rate the scalability a ten out of ten. 

The preference for Unity arises from its investor-driven segmentation, specifically tailored for application data systems, eschewing any consolidation. Despite possessing numerous units, there is doubt whether it is feasible to invest exclusive authority for each application separately, eliminating the need for consolidation.

The consideration of scalability introduces the ability to simply add on hardware, particularly with SaaS and HTTP. However, certain aspects, such as metadata or previous HTTP pages, present challenges that necessitate careful attention.

The product's scalability has some issues.

The scalability of Dell Unity XT is good because during the period of one year we noticed we had the need to add more and more systems, and more components to it and we were able to do it with no hassle. We do not plan to increase our usage.

We have approximately 500 endpoints using this solution.

We have 600 to 800 users.

This solution is extensively used; it's a hospital, and we use it 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

This is a scalable product. I have set up the device in a lot of different locations.

I haven't scaled it yet. The way that I set it up was half the drive bays are being used. When I do need to scale up, I am just going to duplicate the other half of the drives, stick them in there, and then spin them up.

The growth is difficult to forecast, but it's easy for the unit to grow when needed. It is very scalable.

We have not had any scalability problems.

We have had no scalability issues so far.

We can always add more storage or more devices or more disks. There's always room for growth and it's easy to implement.

This is our primary source of storage and we plan to increase our usage. There's an objective coming in 2022 to increase storage. We have several terabytes and we are constantly chewing that up so there is an effort underway to expand.

We've only had it for a short time so we haven't had to scale up. We got it scaled to our needs with a little bit of growth put on there.

Dell Unity XT has a scalable architecture, but none of our customers scale it up significantly. Our client companies typically have 500 to 2,000 users. 

We have found the solution to be very scalable. We are in the process of receiving more enclosures that to increase the storage capacity.

We have approximately 1,500 users across the country that are using Dell EMC Unity XT and an additional 200 indirect users using it.

The scalability is great. We haven't hit any issues with scaling at this point.

We just recently started using the Dynamic Pools, so while it's scalable, we actually find it valuable that we can just pop in one or two drives when we need to, instead of having to add a whole RAID set. That has actually been very handy for us. A lot of the time, as a government organization, we don't always get all the money we ask for. Sometimes, the money that gets slated to us gets pulled out, last-minute, so we're trying to buy drives and hoard them. We always put drives in last-minute, and that's been extremely helpful.

I know that's not exactly the question in terms of scalability, but that has been more helpful to us than being able to add a zillion disks at a time. Being able to add onesies, twosies to a pool is really helpful.

The scalability of Dell Unity XT is good, it can scale well.

We have many VMs that are using the solution. We have plans to increase the usage of the solution.

We haven't really had to scale it too much. Whatever we've had to do, it's been able to accommodate what we need. We know that it can grow more but we just don't need it to. Also, we're shifting away from it because it's being replaced.

The scalability is also good.

Dell EMC is one of the best in terms of scalability. They can just add another component to it. It's so modular so it's super easy. The scalability is very nice.

We have more than 10 customers using Dell Unity XT. We are focusing on Dell PowerStore more because it is a newer product. We would like to convert our customers from Dell Unity XT to Dell PowerStore.

The scalability of Dell Unity XT is very good.

I rate the scalability of Dell Unity XT a nine out of ten.

This is a scalable solution. 

We have 30 to 40 Unities out there in the field. We don't even scratch the full capabilities of the Unity. We are at about 20 to 30 percent utilization. It is just provisioned so well that we are sitting at 90 percent performance level. We have it well-provisioned so we don't need to worry about performance for the next five years.

It is quite scalable. If you want to add on, you can add on easily. We have a 25-slot enclosure and are probably at 15 right now. If we purchase a big company, need to scale up, we can easily scale up. 

We have added one additional shelf to one of the two Unities. As far as I can tell, it went really well. It was not something I was involved with, but we may have had Dell EMC assist us with that.

Scaling is easy. Just add drives, extend the space. It's super simple.

I rate the scalability a nine out of ten, and we have more than 80 customers in Egypt.

Dell Unity XT is scalable. It is easy to scale.

Scalability, I've done it a few times with new enclosures, and it's a simple process to connect and extend. It's straightforward.

I would rate the scalability a five out of five.

The product is not specifically designed for users but I believe it is for a few thousand or more clients. It is for our production where production services and applications are deployed and exposed to our clients.

Having only used it a short time, we haven't tried to scale it just yet. We don't foresee any limitations, however, without actually doing it, we can't really tell.

In terms of scalability, the size is fine for the environment we have. We're usually at about half the capacity, so we have quite a bit more we can expand with. It's good.

We have a Unity 500, which scales to 500 drives, and we're about half full. But it's like their previous systems where you can add a couple of drives or a couple of shelves. There are no issues on that end.

The scalability has been pretty easy too, as opposed to some other vendors that we've had in the past.

It is scalable. We can always add additional tools if we need to expand it. 

It will scale as much as we want or need. Scalability is not a concern.

The scalability is really good now that they have the Dynamic Pools. We don't always have the money to buy complete write sets when we have to expand the storage, so now with the Dynamic Pools we can add disks on the go. It's an easier process to order them and to get more storage when we need.

None. Data-in-Place Conversions are available, for “scaling-up”. This feature may be driven online, in the next “UnityOS” release (4.2 SP1).

We have 8000 Dell Unity XT users. I rate the product’s scalability an eight out of ten.

Dell EMC Unity XT has good scalability.

You can grow as much as you like. There is no limit. It's easy to scale.

We had about 1,000 users of the Unity XT.

We haven't tried scaling yet.

If those SP utilization things, noted above, get to be an issue, I think scalability might be an issue too. But we need to confirm that. I don't know yet.

Dell Unity XT is a scalable solution. 

Unity is scalable. 

The scalability is okay, it's fine. It's not powerful though. We have another product that is more scalable than Unity. It needs to be able to scale out, like the Isilon system and other systems.

We haven't had to scale it out. We're going to scale it out next year.

We haven't really upgraded yet, but I know we can scale to about 500 drives with the system that we have. We are about halfway full. The scalability seems fine.

You only have so many days in the storage. When you buy storage, buy more than you think you'll need, because it will come back and bite you. Because now, if we expand anymore, we will have to buy a box to piggyback on this storage. Hindsight is 20/20, but all-flash is expensive.

It's been very good at scaling when we've needed it to. It's been a good solution so far.

Scaling is easy. If there is future growth I am able to call Dell EMC to provide additional capacity.

As far as hardware goes, we haven't had to scale up at all. We're staying pretty steady. 

As far as users go, I have about 1000 users on it right now, and it's not even at 50%. It's amazing as far as utilization goes.

We haven't found a scale that we can't go to yet.

Dell EMC Unity XT has some scalability issues which they need to address.

It's been acceptable in terms of scalability as well. We've found that it's easy to expand and not too expensive.

I'm using 25% of the available space for that drive. I can scale it as far as money could spend, as far as I can tell.

The solution is scalable.

Dell Unity XT is scalable. We have one customer who has an enterprise company using this solution.

The scalability has also satisfied us. We use it extensively. We purchased an expansion last year and added about 150 terabytes and we're going to purchase another expansion next year. We plan to use it until the end of support.

The services on the Unity storage are used worldwide in our organization. We have about 1,500 employees.

Scaling is easy. If we need more, we just buy another shelf. It's probably not as easy as the Isilon, but it scales well.

We've added more and more on to it, and had no issues with it. When we started there, they had just deployed Unity. It was used in a few places, but not all that much. We've been migrating more and more over to it to get off of and retire the VNX, and we've had no issues. The compression has been working well.

Moving away from the traditional EMC Clariion integration with the VNX, and some challenging upgrades through that process - specifically on the file side - the Unity, especially the all-block Unity platforms that we have been selling most of, are very simple, seamless, non-disruptive upgrades. Most customers are extremely happy with that. On the file side, the Unity is much easier to upgrade than it was traditionally with the VNX, so, once again, a big improvement over previous solutions.

The scalability is less than with VNX. In the VNX, I could replicate out to more than one storage system. On Unity, it's one on one. If I could migrate one to many, that would be helpful, but that is missing now.

The scalability is fine. There's not much for me to really say about scalability. Adding disk is really the scalability factor, for right now. We only have two shelves of storage disks so I don't have any concerns about or needs for scalability.

We are a small bank. It is very scalable whenever we want to expand the disk storage. 

It scales decently to 100,000 IOPS, maybe 150,000. But as long as your IOPS requirements are below that, it does a great job.

With the nature of the architecture, there's a limitation to its total, possible throughput. So if you need IOPS above that 150,000 mark, your Unity engineer will say something like, "Oh, we just need to cluster it and do that." That's a very old-school approach. If you need more IOPS than what Unity SAN can provide, clustering is not a great option. The better option is to go with a SAN with better IOPS. Unity is good at what Unity does, so don't try to make it do what it doesn't do. It's great for bulk storage, up to a certain performance level. If you use it for that, it works great.

On a per-SAN basis we could have 3,000 to 6,000 VMs connecting to it.

Again, it's a branch office, small, so there's no need to scale it, we haven't crossed that path yet. This is our first implementation of Unity within our environment, we are primarily a VMAX shop, so our venture into the mid-range arrays was something that was brought on because we needed better performance within our regional offices.

We have around 40 users for the solution, and the maintenance requires just one engineer.

Unity XT can be scaled up.

The solution is scalable.

We have approximately 700 people using the solution in my organization.

We know that we can add another whole tray or two of disks if we need to. We started with a high-density to begin with, but we knew we had significant space to expand when we needed it.

It has exceeded our performance expectations. We were expecting an improvement, but we were expecting to eventually in the short term come close to hitting capacity on it, and we haven't. Performance-wise, it's held up very well.

We are very fond of the scalability. We are using the Unity 300, which has a limitation. However, if we needed more, we could go to the Unity 400, 500 or 600. We could go down the series until we get the one that meets the size that we need. It has very impressive scalability.

We're not cloud ready yet, but we like the option for the expandability.

The scalability is great. If we need to expand, it's very easy to expand.

I don't know that I can really address the issue of scalability with the units we have. We have mostly a test box, a small one. We haven't had to add disk shelves or do any scaling of the system.

It is scalable. Customers are going more into distributed architecture, so the Unity definitely  has a scalable architecture built into that. Scale-out architecture, scale-up architecture.

For our market, in Argentina, Unity is, most of the time, a good product, a big product. It is unlikely our customers would be short of on the number of drives or IOPS with the Unity. We don't have huge enterprises compared to the American market, for example. Unity is enough for our market's scalability. With the biggest products in the Unity line, we cover pretty much every customer and, if not, we start talking about VNX; but only for a couple of the biggest companies in Argentina. We are a small market.

No, the Unity 400 hybrid is highly scalable. It adds extra storage or connectivity can be done while it is online.

No scalability issues.

The scalability is exceeding expectations.

We did not encounter any scalability issues.

I did not encounter any scalability issues.

I haven't tried scaling it because my work is a fixed requirement but it seems to be scalable.

The solution is scalable.

We have approximately 120 users using this solution when combining all the customers we have. If our capacity requirements increase we would be increasing the use of this solution.

It scales, but then you have to buy additional stuff. So, if we need it, we can scale it. That is not the issue. However, we don't need it to scale further, because when I scaled it down, there are multiple platforms that we will move off the Unity to a hyper-converged or Isilon solution. Scalability isn't that important.

Scalability is also really easy. There are lots of options.

We haven't had to do any expansion on it yet, but I've heard that it's very easy and that, if we ever need it, it shouldn't be a problem.

Scalability is good.

Now that they can do the controller upgrades, it's really helped them out a lot, and it'll help to be able to scale more. They're not just trapped into one model and, instead of having to do a lift and shift of all the data, they can now do head upgrades.

It is scalable, but you have to know your customer, and what the environment is. Perhaps you're going in there with a Unity 350 and then, at some point, do a data-in-place upgrade to a 450 or a 550. You have to get a good base understanding of what to initially go with for customers, so they're not coming back to you six months later saying "Hey, this thing is full."

The XT scales better than its predecessor. 

===> Review 01/2023

The Unity product will not survive as its own brother in the same low-end midrange, being PowerStore, is in all aspects a better product (latency and scalability-wise).

The solution does not fully scale because it's a scale-up solution, not a scale-out, but if you get the right target, you will be able to scale up to meet your needs. We are not planning to expand the storage of the solution at this time.

We have approximately 200 users using this solution.

It is very scalable.

We have not had to scale it yet but, from what I have read and understand, scalability will be very easy. Adding extra bricks or nodes to it is going to be easy.

For us, it's scalable.

No issues with scalability.

Our hypervisor cluster has 13 nodes. We have some file level and front-end services.

We leverage the iSCSI and Fibre Channel functionalities for scalability.

No issues. It has been a year, and at the moment, I am having a schedule of work put together to increase the capacity. It will be a very easy job. A matter of adding extra disks to existing slots. Very easy to do. So, a very scalable product.

All the models in the series/family have a specific range of scalability. I believe there never was an issue on this, its predecessors, or with the Unity.

SAN is a scale-up technology. Usually when a system needs to be upgraded to handle more workloads or requires to scale up more than the existing systems’ capability, you do not need to do a traditional "fork-lift" upgrade. You do not need to get a bigger SAN and then do the traditional migration from the old SAN to the new one.

You can simply replace the existing storage processors one at a time with a higher model SP and voila, you’re done! Now you’re upgraded from model A to model B with higher scalability and better configurations.

I believe it is scalable.

Scalability for the 650F is good, but I was expecting a little bit more than that.

Most of our customers are medium-sized businesses. My market, my targets, they don't need high-scale performance. But I know the scalability is very good and you can scale very easily.

At this point, we're at the high end. I don't know that we have a lot of room to scale up, but I think it's going to meet our needs for a while.

We purchased big enough that we haven't had to worry about scalability yet.

I think it will meet our needs going forward. I don't think we would ever max out the Unity that we bought, based on our business model.

For our needs, it's more than capable. We run about 100 virtual servers on it. We have about 100 users accessing the file shares from there, and I've seen no problem with that. We have about a 10GB backbone. Whatever we throw at it, it hasn't shown any sign of weakness or anything. It's been really good.

If you build it out correctly and it's intended for the workloads that you anticipate, then it's absolutely scalable. If you start to do more with it, and it wasn't built for that particular use case, then it's not as scalable. At the same, with Unity now, you've got the ability to do data-in-place upgrades. From that aspect, it can be relatively more scalable.

We probably overcompensated with the numbers that we put into it in the beginning, so we've not had to upscale anything yet. We're still using it two-and-a-half years later, which is proof that it works.

We haven't increased in size much. Given the user rate we're at now, we think it will probably scale pretty easily without having any issues.

Scalability is good, although we only have a 400F. I think we missed out on getting the 450, but it seems to be fairly scalable.

There have been no scalability issues with our customer base. Our customers are maybe, at most, a few hundred terabytes, so scalability is not an issue.

It had better scale, it costs a lot of money. I definitely think it will. Also, my hope, being that it is solid-state, is that the ongoing maintenance costs will be reduced, on the off chance that our firm might not want to replace it after five years.

I have not yet encountered any scalability issues.

The solution is suitable for Medium-sized companies. When you talk large, it's relative. Our customers here in Algeria are the largest here but they are only medium-sized compared to other countries.

You can just add nodes and shelves to it.

I'm sure scalability will be fine. It will be great. But the client has not reached the point of needing to increase the capacity, or other features, yet.

No issues.

We have had no problems scaling up this solution.

It is very scalable.

Scalability is great. We haven't scaled up very much, but it's definitely easy to do.

It will certainly help us scale bigger. If I look at the footprint, the VNX's was multi-rack. Now, all of a sudden, we're only at a portion of a rack. And, obviously, if we can scale within the same rack - we can certainly see that by the number of hard drives we've had to put in - we can scale a lot more easily.

Scalability is great, anywhere from upgrading the SPs to adding disks.

The Unity XT series is very scalable.

Its scalability is good.

I can't really comment on scalability. We bought the frame fully loaded. I don't know whether it scales or not. I suppose if I bought a unit that had half the capacity, it would scale to the max capacity. That wasn't my need.

The market I'm working, in Switzerland, is quite small. The Unity, in terms of scalability, covers 90% of our use cases.

Scalability is not good. We have a Unity 300, now we have to do a data-in-place conversion for the next upgrade because only 150 slots are supported, not drives, only slots. So my job next week is to do an in-place upgrade from 300 to 400.

It's not really scalable. Up to mid-range requirements, it's just fine. But scalability takes you to the enterprise-class, and that's more high-end VNX or low-end Symmetrix.

It is scalable. For example, at this moment I have a large customer, a government ministry in Costa Rica. We have two Unity's with services for transactions on different scales. It has grown over the course of six months. 

I will need to see in the future. I do not have time for scalability for the time being to determine whether it can scale out.

We didn’t encounter any scalability issues.

Today's mid-range SAN storage is designed with a mixture of some high-end features and enhancement can address new IT demands and EMC Unity XT is also one of them.

We really enjoy the scalability, absolutely. We're running one box right now, but the fact that we can add additional compartments as needed is extremely useful, and we will probably go that way in the future.

We have not had to add capacity to them. I would imagine it's going to scale well, we just haven't had to add capacity.

Peru is a very different market from the U.S. or Europe. A company that is mid-range in the U.S., for instance, could be using an enterprise solution in Peru. For Latin America in general, it is a perfect product for mid-range and for some enterprise-grade, big, transactional businesses.

Scalability is good.

No problem. During installation, I added more disks and this activity ran without problem.

Dell EMC Unity is scalable. 

The solution is scalable to whatever capacity the model allows.

It scales very well. It's built into the model line which allows you to scale as necessary. You can choose the model you need to scale with your needs.

Scalability is phenomenal.

I know there are new, scalable versions of Unity that are out there. We recently have been getting more because our data is increasing. Recently we got the latest Unity model, and we are planning to convert most of our VNX data over to the Unity at some point.

I did not encounter any scalability issues.

No issues with scalability. It is very good.

It is limited to a certain amount of terabytes. We haven't reached that threshold yet. 

None whatsoever. We expanded both our EMC Unity disks by 10TB without any disruption or issues. Simply added the disks, then created further data stores.

Not yet.

Scalability is good. We use some Dell EMC blade servers, so it's easy to add another blade server without a lot of cabling or setup.

There are no issues with the scalability.

It can scale.

No.

The scalability definitely meets our businesses requirements. It is highly scalable.

It will definitely meet our needs going forward. With all-flash it should be able to scale. You probably just need one 4U device and you have terabytes of space.

No issues.

No issues.

No, there have not been issues with the scalability.

Not for now.

It's fairly scalable. We went through a scale-up and it performed as expected.

Scalability for us is not yet much of an issue because most of our customers are running on rather small systems.

For our use cases, I believe it will meet our needs moving forward.

So far we have no issues. But we are currently doing disaster recovery tests so we've deployed the Unity 300 with an expansion in our disaster recovery sites. Now we're going to do some serious tests, so we'll be able to tell you that in a few weeks, whether or not it holds its own.

We have had no issues of scalability with the product. The product has been upgraded with additional drives and enclosures multiple times without incident.

I did not encounter any scalability issues.

It can easily scale up to meet our requirements.