We are using Trellix Network Detection and Response on approximately 3,500 servers and 33,000 workstations. I rate its scalability a ten out of ten. 

The solution is scalable, you only need to purchase more licenses to have more scalability.

Around 1,000 people in my company use the product.

This is a standalone solution. It doesn't scale per se. 

I have no issue with the tool’s scalability.

If you choose a good appliance, it could be scalable. 

You have a login to your applications.

We are 600 users who are on the payroll, but in total, we have 3,000 and 2,400 of which are volunteers.

Its scalability is good, but it depends on the features you are using. If you are using all the features, you might have to upgrade the boxes. It can scale to a certain level. For example, if you have 100 users, it can cater to 120 or 150 users, but it cannot cater to over 200 users. A lot of time, because of money issues or some other issues, customers just buy the hardware for their current needs, and they don't consider the future requirements. It is not something that is related to the scalability of FireEye.

We do not use it in our company. We are a partner of FireEye, and we implement it for our customers. I have seen customers using it for maybe 4,000 or 5,000 users.

It's a very scalable solution. When we deploy it to the end client we use LANDesk to help us. We have no problems with the deployments. So in terms of the scalability, integrity, and interconnectivity, it works well.

The solution can scale well. It's not a problem.

We have one client with around 5,000 users, however, the user base varies from customer to customer. 

The solution is scalable with different modules of NX appliance which is a passive IPS/IDs for different bandwidth capacities. It's a matter of using the appropriate ones. 

We have scalability across our whole network. We haven't had any scalability issues at all. It's used daily, as far as for the continuous monitoring required for cybersecurity.

We have the administrators, which is approximately five people that monitor it. Then it's also for our enterprise network, which is over 200k users. They're all sysadmins and cybersecurity engineer type people. 

The scalability has not been a problem. We have deployed the product in very high bandwidth networks. We have never had a problem with the FireEye product causing latency issues within our networks.

Scalability has been okay until now. If there is a major expansion in the future then we will proceed with that as it comes.

The scalability of the solution is above average.

Scalability is smooth. I don't have any issues with the scale. We have the right boxes and the right configuration. For the telecom industry we have around 400 users and in the oil and gas industry, we have 600 users. 

The scalability is great. 

You don't have to purchase another machine, but if you want, you can add another one. It goes through the cluster very smoothly.

I am part of the professional services with multiple organizations and multiple users.

There were scalability issues for the appliance-based solution, but not for the cloud-based solution.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

I find this product scalable for our needs.

As far as I know, scalability is good. However, we haven't had the need to scale it up at all.

In terms of scalability, we haven't deployed them on a larger scale. We have only deployed on two appliances. It requires two or three people to administer the device. Usually, those are cybersecurity engineers or network admins. 

No issues encounter.