Scalability is the best that you can get. You can carve it up any way you want, e.g., add storage or compute. With the new UCS X-Series, some of the shortcomings in the traditional UCS have been resolved. Now, it is even more scalable and granular, if you want it to be, but it doesn't have to be.

The flexibility, operational efficiency, and scalability of FlexPod is really high. You can add compute and storage independently with ease. There are no real concerning limitations other than having 20 chassis in a UCS domain and then you need to start another one, which is okay, you can then connect all the domains you have to Intersight for that single pane of glass of management. Most customers don't get past 10 chassis at a single site.

We've scaled FlexPod as much as we needed in any direction. We haven't even scratched the surface of what it could do. There are no practical limits on scalability as a design standard.

It's greatly scalable. It just relies on what FIs you have for your interconnects.

The system is designed for easy scaling. Because we define everything clearly. So when we plug the system in, we apply the profile, and it scales easily. 

But it might require additional things beyond physical aspects. We have over 15,000 end users in our enterprise. 

The scalability simply works. I would rate it as five out of five.

Our latest project was a stretch solution with two data centers, around 400 terabytes of storage capacity, and 20 servers from UCS. There were about 400 users in a health company accessing different services, like virtual desktops and classical virtual machines.

Over the years we've expanded our FlexPod, our NetApp nodes, from four to six.

It's scalable. If we need capacity, if we need to scale up we can purchase new blades and have more powerful CPU and RAM. If we need to scale out and have more space, it's pretty flexible. Whether we need to do storage, compute, or network, they are all components that we can just purchase and hook in.

I would rate FlexPod XCS' scalability an eight out of ten. My company has 6000 users for the product. We use it every day but usage will decrease due to migration. 

This solution is very scalable. UCS, itself, will scale up to twenty chassis and you have eight slots in each one. That's scalability. The same thing with storage. If you need to add more disk shelves then you just add them. As far as bandwidth goes, we have seven Ks up into the core, which is over a terabyte worth of bandwidth right there.

FlexPod is very scalable.

Scalability is just fantastic. There's no problem to go vertical or horizontal. It's quite easy, modular, and can be done online.

It is very scalable. It does depend on what model you get. For example, we don't try to put a small model in a site that we think would be growing.

Scalability is good because we can add blades to our system.

I like the fact that we can add compute as needed, without downtime. From the storage side, I guess that's easy to expand as well, by just throwing down another shelf to the FlexPod.

The scalability from the computer is pretty good. On the storage, they need to do something. They have to come up with some other options to scale both on the computer and also on the storage layer. An idea to fix this is possibly connecting the NetApp high availability model with a FlexPod by having them sit right next to each other. 

It's flexible. You can scale up or out. Our environment has never needed it, but the option has always been there.

We can scale in a matter of hours.

Unlike most converged and “hypercoverged” solutions, you can scale up or scale out on either compute, storage, networking, or ALL. Sometimes, the client just needs scale on one aspect; for example, add in storage. The design doesn’t change. With hypercoverged, you find you need extra compute, you need to add a whole node (compute, storage, and networking), which means you don’t have a cost-effective solution that offers a true ROI or, with VCE Vblock, you need another block.

The scalability of the solution is brilliant and works great. With the fabric interconnects, you can scale it horizontally. I don't know the actual stats, but I believe with the newer fabric interconnects, you can scale indefinitely pretty much.

We haven't had any issues yet. Anytime that we've ever had to scale, we just add another blade chassis, and away we go. We throw in more blades. It is very easy. We reuse all of our templates for that. So, it is very quick to deploy new hardware.

Scalability is very easy. You just scale up or scale down, whenever you want.

We planned a five-year model for our Epic environment, so that we haven't really needed to scale. For other areas of our environment, it has scaled fairly well. The data mobility helps a lot with that, if we have to do a refresh. It's just simply vol moves, etc.

One thing to note would be that we're now looking to go into a MetroCluster IP with our FlexPod. Going from Fabric to IP, we're not able to do that with vol move. Still, we can do SnapMirror relationships and get all that data moved over.

The one other thing would be that in the transition from 7-Mode to CDOT there was no unplanned downtime, and it went very well with all the tools that NetApp has provided us.

We purchased what we needed, so there is some room for scalability. We went big with the A700, thus we are using the 15TB SSDs. So far, so good.

We can scale up whenever we want.

We will see if it can scale, because it's still fairly new.

This solution is quite scalable. You add more and they work better together.

Scalability is very good. It allows us to grow most computing and storage resources independently. It allows us to add what's needed.

You can grow within the environment or you can scale to a different pod architecture. It allows for easy scaling. You can scale within or outside of it. So, it's resilient and scalable, which makes it a great platform.

The scalability has been great, whether it's VMware, or if you need more blades, or storage that needs to grow is also easy to expand. We went through a storage expansion, but we built the network portion a bit bigger so it was ready for the expansion. We had physical ports available, it's things like that.

I would rate the scalability as eight out of 10.

Scalability does have some issues being that NetApp is all part of the FlexPod. It could limit how much you can scale. Depending on what head system you bought that came with NetApp it will make a difference for you to be able to scale. I don't remember off hand what the step-by-step is to upgrade. But I know sometimes that it can turn into an issue. If you didn't gage right and you bought the wrong piece and you went too small on your storage and you need to expand, you might have to change stuff out.

I am very impressed with scalability because, given the applications that we're running on it, it's much easier to ensure that the resources are dedicated for each application and we can scale each application's own pod as we need to.

It's scaled easily to what we need it for. 

In terms of scalability, that's exactly what we have with FlexPod. We're trying to expand into the cloud. Anytime we need to add some servers or take some down, it's very scalable. FlexPod is very fast.

There are no issues in terms of scalability with this solution. If I want to grow the compute resources or Azure separately then I can do it. Or, if I want to add a fabric internet switch then I will just buy it.

It does have its limitation if the architecture is weak and constructed incorrectly. If you do it right, it scales infinitely.

When you build it, and you build it to scale, you'll be able to serve out any application dynamically to end users. It could be an organization of 3,000, it could be an organization of 50,000. As long as you build your FlexPod architecture correctly within your data center, whether it's a co-location or a physical data center, it's proven itself to be extremely scalable.

It becomes an Achilles tendon when an organization leveraging FlexPod does not build enough scalable resources. That's when layering applications does cause issues. I've seen that both from a security perspective, as well as an application performance perspective.

Initially, when we started downsizing our data center, we consolidated a lot of equipment into FlexPod. The fewer racks and companies to deal with: one vendor and one support. This sounded good when we were small. Initially, everything was certified, and read and worked beautifully. However, when we scaled up, because the business grew, we had real scalability challenges, as FlexPod is designed for a small to mid-size customers.

With FlexPod, there is a vertical limit for everything.

It is somewhat resilient. If your company has equally scaled growth in all area, then maybe FlexPod is good. However, if your network is growing 200 percent, but the storage is only 100 percent, or maybe the company is only 50 percent, then the apps didn't scale up right. This will create bigger challenges.

We can easily scale up or down, and add more storage instead of VMs.

We haven't done lot of scaling at this time because we have around 2000 to 3000 VMs. Initially, we bought the whole storage of compute needed for our VMs, so we haven't scaled up. Currently, we are looking at scaling up a little more. It seem pretty easy to add more nodes.

We use it both in the field and in the lab. In the lab, scalability means that my clients (which are all internal users) are building software, writing code, and building up new applications that we provide for them. We have around 26 million subscribers for Charter. Within the platform, we are able to leverage and give those individuals tenants the necessary tools to grow and build what they need to build to provide services to our external clients.

Scalability is fine, I'm on my third or fourth iteration with it. As far as I can see, I'm probably going to stick with it.

It should meet our needs. It is easy to add on to the tool. If we need to add a new switch, a new server, or a new chassis for Blades, it is easy. It is not disruptive. You just do it.

Very good so far. We haven't taken it to any extreme level, but anything we've needed to do, we've been able to scale out easily, and we've been able to extend it out to our disaster recovery sites and include that in the same architectures. We have a little mini FlexPod down there too.

It appears to scale well. We have racks and racks of them and there are no problems. We keep building and adding as needed.

It is very scalable. Since it's based off of Cisco UCS and all NetApp products, it has huge scalability.

The scalability is very good. I wish it was a more cost-effective, but you get what you pay for.

We haven't hit any limits as of yet. Our most recent purchase is actually a 3.6 petabyte raw system. It is a 360, 10TB drive, which, at the time, is the largest they could do. It is an E-Series, it is more storage then we know what to do with right now.

We are only using about half of it right now, so the scale out to the future allows us to get where we want to go. We use it for a CCTV solution, so video never gets smaller, it only gets bigger because there are more cameras. More cameras with a higher resolution and higher frame rates. We made sure that we purchased a system which would will grow with us and scale with us as we need it to.

It is very scalable. Though, I don't had any case examples of where we've had to scale it in terms of customer experience.

This solution is very scalable. You can increase the number of parts horizontally without affecting the production environment.

I think it can scale highly.

It is scalable. We can expand it whenever we want.

We're running a 7-mode right now. With CDOT out there and it being the current operating system, that's going to be a challenge for us. Our roadmap is to go to CDOT gradually over the next two years, so the scalability for us isn't as much of a factor. We're not adding shelves. We're not going wide. We want to be able to scale up and that, honestly, is a bit of a challenge because there's no direct migration between the two right now. That's going to be something that we'll have to look into within the next two years. That's on our roadmap.

I'm not up to date on all the options surrounding that migration right now, but CDOT and 7-mode don't translate. You can't just migrate or upgrade from one to the other seamlessly. If they come out with that, that's something I would look forward to. It's always been a challenge to go from one SAN to the other. There's newer technology, sometimes third party, that can help you get there, but usually it is not possible to have a seamless translation or transition.

The only other area with room for improvement is the interoperability matrix. Sometimes, when the newer versions of any of the partners’ firmware or software come out, there's still sometimes a lag of the partners to support all of those new components. Sometimes, when we are going to a newer version of ONTAP, not everything is supported. Therefore, we can't go to that because of this or because of that. For instance, with vSphere 6, we were held back some because of the hardware interoperability matrix not supporting all the components.

It is scalable, allowing us to expand our workload capacity.

FlexPod is better than HCI because you can scale wherever you want. You can scale the compute. You can also scale network and storage apart.

It's amazingly scalable. It just works. It can expand to large MetroClusters and keep expanding.

We can scale it as needed. So, it's definitely a very flexible solution to scale out.

It is scalable. We could throw another host server or shelf in there. We have Nexus switches at the top of the stack. If the hardware survives, the product will probably last us ten years.

It is definitely scalable. This is a great platform that you can build from. If you need to think about scalability in the future, this is the solution because you can stay small and build it out as you go, as you grow, and stay ahead of the market.

From the name "FlexPod", you know that it's very flexible. You can scale up or scale out if you need more computes, if you have blade servers, or if you need more storage. You just add additional shelves and then you have extra storage. If you need more virtualization, you just add more licenses, and you can accommodate more VMware ESX.

On both the storage and the compute side, this solution is very scalable.

This is a very scalable solution.

This is a very scalable solution.

We have several NetApp systems and we know that if we run low on space that we can add a shelf. We just recently did a head swap on some older systems, and it went fine. There were not any big issues.

The scalability is tremendous.

We had contemplated getting multiple FlexPods, but once we evaluated them to fit our models, we determined that one would probably do. The scalability is there, but our exposure to it was not relevant.

We had it spread out across four data centers in a single geographic campus. Multiple departments would have had resources on the equipment if we had gone with the solution.

We are a consumer of Cisco UCS, we constantly adding blades into the infrastructure as needs arise and we're constantly purchasing storage multiple times a year. We know that the solution scales well and is very flexible in that regard. We can add SSD as we need. 

We have not had to scale this solution much, although our CAO has tasked us with being fully cloud by 2025. 

This solution is easily scalable, and we have scaled quite a bit.

We have a pretty stable workload, so we have not had to consider the scalability of the solution.

It's supposedly scalable. The FlexPod examples that I've seen in production are usually built and run from that configuration. I don't see people changing them that much.

We have had to scale the product. We set up one of our data centers with a single chassis and we've since grown into three chassis, all with no downtime.

It scales out and up, so you can go both directions depending on what the needs are on the NetApp side. On the UCS side, it scales out beautifully. Everything ties back to the fabric interconnects, and you can scale up to 20 chassis, so a ridiculous amount of compute power for any sized workload.

It does scale well. I do not want to infinite scalability, but it is no different than a traditional data center. Silos, network, and storage, and compute; it is all of those same components. It is just prevalidated and predesigned. 

I used an analogy the other day. Someone learning how to cook and someone else figured out the entire recipe for you, you just have to cook it. When you go to scale, you can scale whichever pieces of the infrastructure that you need, either collectively, or you can leave it.

I use FlexPod for small remote offices. I do not come across scalability often because I have a three node minimum, which is working out well. If we want to scale, we would need a lot of technical assessment. However, from what I have read and heard, it is easy to scale, so it should not be a problem.

Scalability is an area where NetApp has definitely grown, once they got out of strictly 7-Mode and moved over to cluster data on tap. The scale-out architecture versus scale-up architecture was more beneficial there and actually carried more weight within the industry when you started to see what some others were doing.

On the UCS side of things, I struggle with it back and forth, tying everything back through the fabric interconnects. I see that over time they're not going to scale out as well as they scale up, and you're going to have to replace them at some point. But it's still a much more scalable architecture compared to some of the competing solutions that are out there, like HPE Synergy.

I haven't had to cross that bridge yet, but I'm sure it's there if I need it. Don't get me wrong. Scalability's been a big thing because we suddenly needed to maintain backups for a lot longer and I needed more storage space. We went from a half a petabyte to a petabyte within months because we needed to and it worked fine, so I guess that's good, considering it wasn't part of the plan initially.

We haven't grown yet, but that is why we purchased it. It is to easily expand when we need it.

Scalability is good, I guess. I'm not sure I can comment too much on that because we haven't grown our environment too much since we set it up.

I can give you a perfect example of how this FlexPod solution is scalable. When we first put it in, we had our baseline activities WE wanted to do. Then shortly afterwards, the company decided to go to JD Edwards as a ERP system. We needed to buy additional compute resources. It was quite simple to buy another chassis, some more blades that were aimed for that solution, and buy additional shelves of disk and just connect it to our NetApp filer.

FlexPod allows you to scale as your business grows because they support a lot of expansions from the network sites.

It is very scalable. We actually started with only two blades in one system and four blades in the other, and we had capabilities for eight blades. Thus, it has allowed us to be very scalable throughout the entire life of the product as we owned it.

Scaling it was not difficult. The scale of the FlexPod for a company I worked with before was about eight nodes.

The only thing we have scaled are the blades within the UCS. The fact that they allow us to use the same chassis and just swap out the blades, that part was interesting for us. Same idea with the NetApp equipment in the FlexPod. We don't have to worry about the shelves. We can replace just the drives and go higher up on that side. It allows us to scale without doing a full-bore rack replacement.

We have a customer that has five chassis and it scales very well. It is very easy to scale up and wide.

Scale for us was really important. We were taking multiple data centers across the US and Canada and consolidating them into two regional data centers. We did not want all of the out-of-pocket expenses upfront. We knew with the FlexPod that we could scale out as we consumed more of those smaller data centers.

FlexPod is primarily built to scale up with your most important applications, but you can scale it out to some degree. There are a lot of different architectures: cloud, hyperconverged, etc., which have different attributes to them. However, when you have your most mission critical stuff and you need it to scale up providing consistent performance, that is really what it was built for.

It scales very well, absolutely.

It is definitely scalable.

There is a scalability issue with the FlexPod in terms of scale out. We always have to go and procure this piece in the data center. We always have to order a new piece of equipment for the FlexPod. That increases the cost.

In terms of scalability, we haven't really scaled much, as far as our most recent deployment.

There haven’t been any issues. Whenever we need to add capacity, we just add another chassis, fill out the chassis and blades, and then add another chassis if needed; or add storage as needed.

It’s very scalable. We've been able to connect different sites and add them on where we've need to grow and then shrink down and move things; I like that a lot.

FlexPod XCS is scalable and flexible. 

We haven't done much scaling yet on this most recent one, but in general, the scalability is very good. It's a 10 out of 10. It's very easy to grow very big.

We've grown and grown, and we've done it all online, so there are no concerns around scaling from a storage standpoint.

We can scale the solution really easily. We've been doing that fluidly. We were probably one of the first Cisco customers to come online when the UCS line came out. We have a lot invested in our architecture and we pass that on to clients.

Scaling is easy to do. We can pretty much have any one of our clients do it on demand.

We've been told from our sales team that it's going to scale really well, but we've never actually tested this. We only have one.

The solution is resilient, because it has good scalability, and other products in the market don't have this. It has scalable storage and service. 

The scalability is innovative for both compute and storage. With other products, we can't scale the storage space, we have to buy more storage. E.g. with Dell EMC, if we want more storage with VxBlock, we have to purchase another VxBlock.

I have multiple models. You can start out with one or two platforms, then scale it up. They have some great management tools that you can use to orchestrate the whole environment. So, you don't have to go to one server at a time. You can manage a multitude of them.

We haven't had much experience with scalability. We gave ourselves room to grow into the product. We've only done any real scaling at refresh time. 

We are constantly scaling. I just added half a petabyte of storage not too long ago to the storage site. Adding new nodes and making new UCS clusters allows us to scale any way that we want.

It scales very well. If we need to add additional virtual host server capacity, we can throw in another C220 server or additional storage with a NetApp shelf. It is fantastic for that. Our sites range from quite small to up to 3000 users.

It does scale. It scales very well.

We have already scaled it. In the last two years, we've already extended out with more hard drive space, with more memory, with more processing power. No problems whatsoever.

Scalability, with the ACI, is great. You can get up to a 15 chassis setup, depending on whether you are using 260s or 460s. That is great for us. There are limitations from the storage side that makes capacity management a bit difficult, but nothing strong reporting cannot resolve.

It’s very scalable.

I have not encountered any scalability issues. It's just great. We increased our space. We moved to flash disks from SATA and SAS. Again, no disruption; better performance; and it's all transparent to the business.

IT has a major problem when it comes to explaining where we stand to the business. All the business understands is, “I want to be always online. I want to have better performance” – whatever that means to them – “and I want it to cost me less.” It's an expensive solution, but when you compare that to what FlexPod actually does, and the performance it provides, it's pretty good.

NetApp with cDOT is a scalable, performing solution for us, so it has been awesome.

It's very scalable. 

The scalability is very expensive.

It's highly scalable. It scales really well, but that also comes back to how you want to scale it. In terms of whether you want to add more chassis and if you want to add anything more to that. Then, that comes under the costings of the data center because the chassis are quite big. However, the scalability of it is perfect. We haven't had an issues with it.

We haven't had to really increase its capacity, so I don't really know how scalable this solution is.

It scales easily. We went through an upgrade of adding additional chassis, and it wasn't a big deal.

We just added a new SAN onto our old one to scale it up and add new functionality.

It seems very scalable. We have had to scale out. We have actually doubled in size.

Currently, I think it's great because they support, for example, cluster. You can scale that beyond belief. Then, there's also the UCS domains, you can have multiples in there and expand it, so I think it has no problems scaling.

Unless you're talking a really, really large environment with, say, beyond the petabytes. And even then... Maybe you could run into issues with management, but still I think UCS Director provides value with that.

I can scale it east/west. I've added arrays to the system, and I've added storage within those arrays over the last four years with zero downtime.

Scalability has not been an issue for us in this environment, but in other environments it scales very easily by adding more storage.

I'm very impressed with the scalability of the solution. It can be expanded almost infinitely.

The scalability is one of the key features in this solution.

We started with three initial chassis. Now, we have six in Miami, ten in Toronto, and six in Europe.

It seems scalable. It scales more than we need. I love that we will be able to scale out into the cloud and utilize that when we need it.

It scales very well. We use this for all of our DR. We just spin it up at our DR location.

In terms of scalability, we've added/matched two additional shelves of storage with very little fanfare. There were no major problems. It was just a matter of upgrading an old SAN controller software, and that was it.

Scalability depends on the result that we will have from the one that we already purchased. I think the future will tell if we will scale well or not. I will definitely have this in mind as we move forward.

We get everything under one roof instead of just modulating parts.

It is scalable. I have seen the solution used on multi-site environments. I have also seen somewhere around 2,000 to 2,500 people using it on a single site. In other use cases, I have seen it being used in smaller environments, where the data capacity is assigned. Something that I discovered myself, the data relevancy needs to be really good.

Scalability is excellent. 

It is just a system that we can scale as we need.

The scalability is good. We're in the process of systematically replacing all of the desktop computing environment in our health system with the VDI. Our plan is to take what we have and grow it to meet that need.

Scalability is easy, and we can pretty much have anybody do it.

We can scale that really easily, and we’ve been doing that. We were probably one of the first Cisco customers that came on when the UCS line came out, so we have a lot invested in the architecture.

It is scaling to our needs. We don't have any issues.

Even though the automation is complex and it is stubborn, it scales to whatever the level that we want to performance-wise and availability-wise. 

Scalability is not something we have really hit. We generally deploy on the smaller side of things, but we haven't had any issues with size or anything like that.

We haven't had any issues with that either. If we have to add, we add, and it all works together.

It is very scalable. We are expanding a little bit. We're using one NetApp across multiple FlexPods. We're doing multiple domains off of one NetApp now. It is very scalable and very easy to do.

I know that it's extremely scalable, but when we purchased, we purchased a large amount. We haven't actually exceeded our usage at this point. We're still running at 70% of what we had originally purchased.

We’ve had no problems scaling it; we're just over 9 PB right now.

Scalability-wise, we do like the features of the Cisco UCS pieces. We're just now learning about the NetApp piece of the FlexPod. As far as that, we haven't really scaled it much. We only have one FAS8080, but we're curious to see how easy it's going to be in the future.

We have not had any scalability issues yet. We're probably six, seven or eight months into it, and we don't really have an expansion plan for it at this point.

We have found it to be very scalable, and that it affords you a lot of options.

It's scalable, but it takes someone to make the right decisions in terms of planning and sizing.

The solution is scalable. I rate it a nine out of ten.

I don't have any problems with scalability. 

The scalability is good because if you want to grow your environment, then you can do it. It has compliance, stacks, and nodes.

We can expand using additional chassis and additional disk shelves.

The scalability is extremely good. It scales really, really well.

It has amazing power to scale.

Scalability is simple. It allows you to continue to grow out, compute, or store as necessary.

It can scale up and scale out, which is a big advantage.

It's good. I brought in the older storage as well, so that's let me keep my existing storage. However, it's a small system.

We actually did several upgrades. We've had to upgrade the compute, the UC, chassis. We've added storage, all non-disruptive. So, yeah it's very scalable.

It's great. I've done analysis and I came from a HPE centric mindset. We brought in UCS, and from a scale and price perspective there's a sweet point where UCS definitely has an advantage. Also, I'd add the additional advantage is throughput.

In terms of scalability, we are a highly visible company and we have ten to twelve days a year where there are eighty-thousand people in the stadium. You need everything to work.

On the whole, we are a small, to mid-sized company and everything's worked well. We've scaled it up slowly over the last ten to twelve years, and we've been using our NetApp system and our Cisco network. I know it would scale really large for us, but we're generally a smaller scale.

It's scaled very well for us. We were able to add filers as we needed more storage. We were able to scale out on the existing 5K Nexus environment that we had.

So over the last six years, it's scaled well enough for us to acquire banks at the rate of about four or five banks per year. Now, in 2017, we continue to acquire banks and we're going to move our FlexPods into core locations. So we're going to buy new FlexPods and continue to scale and buy banks off of those.

In terms of scalability, we have a project that is ongoing for the next few months. We are going to get into the scalability portion soon.

It’s really easy to scale out, and I feel like it scales very well.

Outward scalability is incredible. I did a customer site to help expand their development (a university in New York) and I helped them scale. They started with a large deployment, and now they have expanded out within a short time. They are experiencing awesome scalability from the NetApp model.

This solution is highly scalable. Because of the nature of flexibility on a solution, we can customize any component, which is great. Still, when we get off the documentation (cause is too flexible), we have to double attention to the limits of individual components.

The scalability of FlexPod is very good. We are now on a mission to get this product renewed. Also, we are exploring how to use it with other HCI. In terms of scalability, over the last three or four years, we have scaled up and added storage and scaled hardware. So it has improved and it works very well.

It's scalable. 

The solution is easily scaled. It is possible to integrate new capabilities and technologies which we have successfully done with no issues. It's a valid, viable model.

Scalability is quite good. You can simply use APT at the surface. There are no required dependencies. 

It scales very easily. We are able to go through and add individual components as needed, whether its storage computer networking without being locked into a particular sizing matrix, so it grows and shrinks as needed with relative ease.

Generally, our deployments are on the smaller side. We have been able to leverage the FlexPod express side for smaller deployments. I haven't hit any larger scale ones, but from everything that I have read, it would scale relevantly.

You can scale it. You can add more boxes and you can have more IOPS available if you want. It's very easy to add new hardware to the cluster.

It scales fine, all three components are able to scale. If I need to throw on another chassis, I throw on another chassis. If I need more storage, I expand my NetApp portion of it. It's been easy.

Scalability is pretty good. You can extend it out, extend out storage as well your guest systems. Yes, it is not a problem.

We currently have eight servers, and we just got another FlexPod with additional servers so we can scale up to another 11. We're looking at establishing a co-op that will allow us to have an off-site presence. We are working on that now, but it is scalable. We just haven't employed it fully yet.

We've really just scaled up the storage aspect of it. Each year, we add more storage.

It is absolutely scalable. We haven't scaled yet because we bought very large, but I'm sure it's going to be easy when we do it.

Of course, with NetApp, you can add expansion shelves. NetApp's very expandable, easily expanded. With the UCS, we can add blades, we can add chassis. We have 18 UCS domains, I think, right now, all with NetApp storage backing it, whether it be E series or FAS; we have both.

Scalability is great; we haven’t had any issues.

It just works, scalability-wise. We've been able to continue to grow the environment. We've tripled in size since initial deployment. We've not really changed the overall structure of the deployment. Scaling up was very easy.

It’s as scalable as you want to make it. We have not had an issue yet where we couldn’t grow to scale.

I would say medium – it’s hard to move between one FlexPod to another, you fill one up its hard to move off of it.

The scalability on paper is great. We know that it's scalable, but we have not scaled since we bought it.

The scalability seems to be a valuable feature to me; it's easy to roll out, as we just order another pod they install it.

It is very scalable.

For us, we were looking strictly at three different data centers. So as far as scalability is concerned, we didn't build one on top of another one. We went for stability more than scalability.

The scalability is awesome. With UCS and NetApp, it is very scalable. You cannot get more scalable than that.

Scalability is sometimes a challenge for us. The way we are growing, sometimes we don't know what the demand is going to look like. It's hard to expect what demand is going to come by forecasting through purchase, going through the cycle. I feel that there is a scope for improvement here.

Make it more like On Demand. Make FlexPod On Demand, maybe the compute piece or storage piece. Also it would be nice if they could know our datacenter footprint, so they know how much we can grow. That would help minimize the time for scaling, because those were some of the challenges we faced frequency around datacenter space and to figure out where things to plugin.

Very scalable. We're already planning how we're going to expand and grow it. They're doing a lot of exploration work so we know it's going to expand so we're already planning for it, and it's going to be easy to do.

So far I have not had any issues at all. The only couple of things I would like to see would be something, as I said, like internal tiering where you could automatically set up an aggregate spread across a 10K disc and have the controller automatically tier it. But now we're going all flash anyway so who cares? We've kind of brute forced our way out of the problems.

I find it very easy to scale upwards and horizontally, as well. It's very easy for us to scale up by adding either additional controllers or additional storage shelves.

Scalability has also been great. We have been able to spin up new virtual machines as needed. We haven't run into any bottlenecks.

Scalability's been great. We've actually added shelves, we've got blades, and we've added storage. We even extended our presence inside the environment because of what we like inside the FlexPod itself.

Scalability has been very good. There really has not been an application, with the exception of the Epic Cache Database, that we haven't been able to use with this solution. Anything that we run on the Intel platform, on the UCS platform, we've been able to use in order to scale.

Scalability has also been great. We have been able to spin up new virtual machines as needed. We haven't run into any bottlenecks.

It is very flexible and very scalable. We've grown our cluster, so we haven't had a problem.

For what we wish we could do, the scalability would be absolutely great. The limitation there is actually on the company itself.

It should be able to be full scale architecture, you cannot limit it to between eight and 14 nodes (approximately), and it’s a scale up architecture not a scale out.

Scalability is nice. With this product, you can just add more compute, buy another chassis, and it might be fairly inexpensive, but you plug it in and away you go. There is no more dedicating ILO (Integrated Lights-Out) ports or track ports or whatever, out-of-band management, et cetera. So, that makes the opportunities for scaling nice.

This solution is scalable.

It's scalable.

We typically add a new chassis about every six months, so it's very scalable.

We have had to add some disk shelves to the system over the last couple years. We have never had issues here.

Over the last six years, it has scaled very well.

It scales out really well. If you need compute, all you need to do, just add more blades into your chassis. If you run out of chassis, you can just add more chassis, then you can add more blades. Same thing with the storage on the back-end, you can add more storage shelves, whether it is SSD, SAS, or All Flash.

It should scale out based on what I've seen.

We haven't had to scale out yet. We have fairly small environments, but many of them and they are all separated. But based on the solution, I think we could scale it more if we needed to easily.

Five years ago, it was very scalable. Now, the technology has changed so much in the last five years, it's not the most scalable solution out there.

The scalability is fine.

Scalability is great. We added a new shelf to it last year. There wasn't much down time to add the shelf to it and it was actually very simple. The directions that came with it were straightforward.

We had to grow and we've added blades. We upgraded our NetApp appliances in it. So we have grown as the organization required. It has been simple to scale up.

It is very easy to scale out the infrastructure, add more pieces to it as we needed; just kind of plug and go. That’s very easy.

Early on, we had scalability issues. Scaling size was an issue at the start. After that, it's been quite good.

It's very scalable, and able to grow with the business.

You can add more disks, and computer power, which is very simple to do. It takes care of adding blocks back into your data center and any upgrades to storage, hardware, or network.

For our needs, it meets them.

Scalability looks okay because it’s based on the capacity of the device, so I wouldn’t normally assume any scalability issue.

The scalability is good.

It is very scalable.

It is scalable. If you want to scale up merely with capacity, it is easy.

Scalability is also extremely easy. In fact, right now, we're looking at HCI for its scalability as well. I don't see another product out there that's as scalable as NetApp.

We've just started adding additional heads for clusters. We went to cluster mode last year. So, we've added in some cluster switches, and we've started scaling out.

Up to the point where we needed to replace our controllers on our storage, it had been pretty scalable. I think there is a time when we have to refresh some of the products.

We didn't buy the actual FlexPod as a unit. We got it verified as a FlexPod. We actually kind of built it piecemeal. We bought the individual components and then had it verified for FlexPod. We've actually had no issues expanding that, growing any portion of it, whatsoever. We actually added 20 UCC blades; no issues. Since I've been there, in two years, we've gone from 1.5 PB to 3 PB; again, no issues, no worries.

It's very easy to extend it, add more chassis, more storage capacity.

There are configuration maximums of each platform. I've yet to see an environment that we've hit those numbers on yet, but with the technologies that NetApp is releasing with All Flash, and the new blades from Cisco, we keep getting ahead of any kind of limits with technology advances.

Yes, we can scale. We are actually now scaling our environment, including FlexPod on our roadmap, and it does scalability.

The scalability has been pretty good. We tend to just upgrade components when needed, and just never had any issues with that upgrade process. We are the world's largest tire distributor, so it's been a big deal for us to be able to scale out.

In terms of scalability we can scale to a cluster in CDOT, but we had issues. The cluster CDOT and the evolution of that platform ensures that we had the right mixing rules, because there challenges around that piece of it. So scalability is a big selling point for our customers, and knowing that it's not "rip and replace" is a big thing.

It’s not a concern, it can scale to larger than my organization would ever need. We're not a huge organization.

I didn’t run into any issues with scalability, and although I haven’t looked at the specs recently, but I believe it scales to most environments needs, and I’m still considering it for my new environment. We have a 30-petabyte environment, and we're looking to FlexPod for our database infrastructure.

FlexPod is highly scalable. The advantage FlexPod has over some other solutions is that you can scale independently using multi-servers. If you want the scale up the storage, you can create a number of disks.

We're still working on scalability. We have to keep low price versions of the high-end equipment. I would like to see a little more data compression on the solution.

We have had to scale it and it's very easy. You just swap the component that you need to scale. For the storage you just add on a shelf; for the compute you just add another node and you're good to go.

Whenever it was initially set up, they had a small goal. Now we're using a lot of the storage in it, so we're looking into some expansion, whether we need to do additional pods. We're in the initial stages, we're still trying to figure out how much data we're going to retain and how big we need to scale it. That's the question that we're trying to answer right now.

It scales well. Obviously, with cluster-mode and ONTAP, you can scale nodes pretty much to what you need it to be.

It's really scalable. UCS domains, you can just continue adding more if you need to. It's all based on how many you can plug into a set of fabric interconnects, so it's very scalable.

The scalability is very good.

There are some upper limits that we're never gonna reach. I don't have any concerns about scalability or increasing it.

It is very scalable. We've had to expand the storage infrastructure a few times, and have had no problems with scaling it out.

Scalability, obviously, is phenomenal. Once you have your base system in place, and you've got your architecture the way you want it, being able to add additional compute or storage is about as simple as it gets.

We've actually grown it. We've added more nodes to it and the scalability was awesome. It was piece of cake to scale.

It's not a scalable solution. I don't see any scalability occurring. We have 30-40 controllers. Controllers are not there so we can just sit there. I don't see that they are enough to scale out a solution. We have essentially bought AT&T, so we will see how it goes.

We didn't need to scale ours.

That's the challenge. Scalability is the challenge; running out of network ports, running out of storage. If you have very unpredictable workloads, then scaling is a big challenge.

We haven’t had the need to grow it, but based on how scalable I know the three vendors are, I don’t see any issues.

We’re a fairly small shop so it will scale beyond what we need for it.

Our department is pretty small.

Our models are pretty small. So, we'll be able to expand additional chassis in place, then additional disk shelves.

Scalability is good. 

Once our current issue is fixed, it will be good. Then, we will not have any issues on it.

I think its pretty good. We have been able to grow our environment without any major reconfigurations.

It's very easy to grow and very simple. There's nothing major to add more chassis and blades, or storage if you need to.

So far we have not had to expand it, but are expanding shortly so we will find out.

It is pretty flexible. We are able to deploy faster.

Scalability is very good. You have better horsepower solutions which are great. It is very easy and very scalable. FlexPod itself is pretty scalable. I am pretty happy with the solution itself.

No issues encountered.

It's very scalable, and its horizontal scalability is great.

The scalability is really good because it's not a silo. You can expand both storage-wise or network-wise or even servers, and if we pick another convergent infrastructure, it's difficult or they are locked. So you can scale either way, either vertically or horizontally.

It's very scalable so you can add more server, networking or storage infrastructure, or just add more FlexPods. You can add another FlexPod and have the same features, reliability and scalability with no issues.

It’s extremely scalable, which is excellent. Either adding storage to the existing cluster, or more nodes, and then the same thing on the Cisco side – more blades or chassis – all of it is extremely easy.

It’s extremely scalable. We’ve gone through growth cycles, especially with clustered on tap, and it’s a very easy process.

Scalability is even better – you can expand it very easily with the clusters.

We started out with one chassis and have now increased because the first one worked out so well. Even though we bought a brand new NetApp head, we were able to use our old disc shelves, which helped us.

Very scalable, and we’ve been very pleased. We had a hard time planning for the future because of projects that we get. But, it scales very well and we can plan with it, impressively so. We often do things in emergency situations, which means adding storage or additional shelves, and we can do that with FlexPod.

The fabric interconnecters with our older version is fine.

The benefit of it being a pod is you have a lot of flexibility in terms of the hardware and platforms that you choose to have in that validated design, depending on your particular needs.

I love the scalability. It is scalable.

It has been very scalable – our guys scale it across six sites right now.

I would say that its very scalable, as it meets and exceeds our needs.

Fantastic scalability. You can scale each component separately, which is very useful.

It is pretty scalable. It has allowed us to add more stuff very easily.

It's scalable up to whatever you need. We can integrate it up to 160 servers.

Scalability is great. All three parts are real scalable. If you want to add more things to your VMware, you just add the ESXi host. To add to more to the UCS, you just add more blades. To add more to the NetApp, you just put more controllers or shelves under the cluster. The scalability is the same with all three products.

Awesome – adding a chassis is very easy.

You just add racks as needed.

It is very scalable.

It's very good as well.

With cDOT, it's very easy to scale out, and that's the reason we went with it in the first place.

Pretty good. I think there is some room for improvement. It depends on how big of a company you're at, but we outgrew some of the solutions that we had installed and then we ended up having to custom-build a different solution.