HPE Apollo is a scalable solution. Around 150 users use HPE Apollo extensively in our organization.

In some ways, we think it may go beyond what we need moving forward. We don't know yet. We're going to buy another Apollo 6500. We may configure it with half the number of GPUs because that may be all we need. In a sense, we can see the Apollo 6500 being so powerful that we only need half the GPU capability that we have now. But that's what we think we're going to end up seeing as we continue to go through this process of machine-learning.

HPE Apollo is a scalable solution. I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten.

Our clients' sizes vary. We have large government and private sector customers, as well as telecom.

It is a moderately scalable solution. There are a few hundred users using the solution and our clients are all enterprise. I rate the scalability a seven out of ten.

Scalability for us is limited only by budget. Using Omni-Path, we can scale our topology out with great flexibility. And so, scaling out workloads across Apollos has been seamless. We're running various protocols across them. We're running a lot of MPI, and they do spark their workloads. So the scalability has just been limited only by the size of our system.

We have probably some 6,000 or 7,000 physical cells already and are planning more.

It's going to meet our needs moving forward, it is scalable. Having said that, our algorithms are very compute-hungry and storage-hungry, so more is more and there's no limit as to how much our algorithms can use. The more compute and the more storage they have, the better they will perform.

The scalability of HPE Apollo is good.

We have approximately 10 clients using this solution.

With the Apollo systems, we initially expected it to be of PB size. The great thing about the Apollo servers using Scality is that if we need to add more disks to those existing systems, that disk will instantly be usable to the ring. If we need to add more servers to have more compute power and more storage, we can do that as well.

It is easy to scale. We are on top of it. We have an application from a specific vendor. We, as well as the software vendor, are happy with it.

We tend to only use a single rack-mount server for what we're trying to do. The ability to keep it small, reduce the footprint and reduce costs are the most important things that the Apollo 4200 gives us.

It will meet our needs, definitely, going forward.

This product is scalable. A large team is currently using it.

Especially if you use software defined storage, for instance, scalability is just great.

Scalability is fine because with this kind of service we can easily scale horizontally. We are more or less satisfied.

It is stable and scalable, but the new product has some advantages which we like. However, we cannot switch because we have an issue between non-supported and supported devices.

We have six racks and we can fit another. At the moment, we have sixteen Apollo servers and we're going to put 40 in as we have the space for that.

We are not using it in that manner. We are not using it for the scalability. So the size, one Apollo for each branch, is perfect for us. We are not thinking about scalability.