The solution is easy to scale. It's only the license that needs to be upgraded.

Not yet. We haven’t made that jump yet, but in a few months we may add additional nodes. It seems simple enough to add additional nodes.

The scalability of the solution is pretty good. You can go up to 50 terabytes.

The great thing about that is if we are hitting a performance issue or something, scale is built into that platform, you add additional nodes, you've got additional capacity, you've got additional IOP capabilities across your virtual array. So scaling within StoreVirtual is really kind of easy, just scale it out to another node. The trick, however, is each node really needs to be configured the same as the last - so mix and match in the future with new technology becomes more of an issue.  

My environment grows with me; I can expand it up to 10 TBs before I have to re-license. In addition, it is possible to build an all flash version of HPE StoreVirtual. One of these days, I look forward to doing just that.

Scalability is one of the reasons why we got it. Now, there is a limitation on how many nodes you can have on each measurement cluster, so we have to kind of figure that out - what the best number is to have on each one.

We have had no issues scaling it although upgrading a management group with more than 10 nodes can turn into a reboot nightmare...if the reboot even resolves the bug(s)/issue(s).

This solution scales well and it maintains very good performance as the storage increases.

Scalability is good, as well. We are certainly going to push the upper bounds of what it can do.

There have been issues with adding further nodes to existing management groups and clusters. The volume re-syncing and re-striping caused some performance issues. With version 9.5 of the OS there were high numbers of disk failures – these appear to have been resolved as we progressed through versions 11.5 to 12.5.

I have deployed StoreVirtual in single data centers and have not encountered any stability issues. Scalability is also reasonably simple.

We haven’t outgrown it yet, but if we need additional storage capacity in the future, we can simply add another shelf.

For scalability, I give it a 9 out of 10. It is very easy to deploy a new shelf of disk and add a pair of controllers to your environment for increased IO “Pay as you Grow”. You just plug in the network info and add it to the existing cluster. I can just throw another tray of disk into the mix and within a couple hours allocate disk space.

An organization, if they need to, will be able to scale the solution. It's possible to expand it.

We have had no issues scaling it.

The scalability of the solution is good. However, customers always want to know the cost per rack. There are other products that can give a client more capacity than StoreVirtual in terms of scalability.

The systems that I've installed haven't been gigantic. I know that it's supposed to scale pretty large. With each additional node that you add, you're adding additional horsepower, different things. That's another nice benefit to it, rather than just adding a disc shelf that has one or two heads, you're adding additional CPU and memory to go along with each one.

We have had no issues scaling it for our needs.

The limitations of two hosts and 10TB per VSA is acceptable for the cost savings.

It has on the fly scalability.

It is highly scalable. We have four links that contain nine servers, and the enclosure itself can go up to 16 blades. The infrastructure has many things, such as FlexFabric, SAN switches, network switches, storage, and the enclosure. If I need to increase capacity, I only need to increase the number of blades and to put in new discs into my 3PAR servers. I believe that with this infrastructure, I can scale for the next seven years.

One reason we chose this is because our test systems are not huge and, therefore, don't need to really scale. We have historically tried to reduce our compute needs to be simpler. So even the smallest ConvergedSystem has enabled us to grow. For our small-to-medium-sized customers, we don't need too many alterations. For our larger customers, we typically invest in higher specs. So it's a solution that works perfectly well for us for what we need it to do.

We are working on single node only. That is a limited edition for this solution.

We have several customers. There are 50 to 70 users connected.

We didn't have any problems. We scaled up a few years ago; the system was just fine.

We didn't scale it beyond four nodes as it never went into production.

There were no scalability issues. The 3 x 4TB license is a very good start for two nodes. We can add a third node for additional storage and compute power. If the performance demands increase, we can simply install or replace the current iSCSI network adapters with 10GbE. The system also supports SSD and auto-tiering with higher licenses.

We aren’t sure of the scalability yet but are aiming to find out soon.

The system is quite scalable, but extra storage means an extra box and, depending on your architecture, two boxes at once.

We've had no issues scaling it for our needs.

There have been no issues scaling it for our needs.

We're just getting into the next phase, but it looks as if it could scale. 

When it was deployed, we were just building our VM environment, and it's scaled out as our needs grew. We've had no issues with being unable to scale.

Using our current license we have just a 5TB limit. If we acquire a new license we can upgrade to the bigger storage. It can definitely scale to our needs.

I don't know the limits, but we can support all our customers with StoreVirtual.

They need to improve its ability to scale with bonded network interfaces.

The solution is highly scalable and does not lose any of its performance as it expands.

In the installations we've performed there aren't more than 1,000 or so users.

We've had no issues scaling it for our needs.

We've had no issues with the scalability. We chose this because, in part, it's easily scalable.

It has scaled to our needs.

It's better not to have big clusters or volumes, so we've avoided scaling it.