The product is very scalable. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten. I am completely satisfied with its scalability. About 20 to 30 people use the tool in our organization. Our clients are a mix of small, medium, and large enterprises.

You can easily scale it up without any disruption.

It has one limitation: you can only scale a single system to eight nodes, and they call that four IO groups. It's got its limitations. I would say scalability is for 99.5% of the cases in the business world the product is used for.

It is pretty scalable, as far as the storage which can be added using any additional storage units. We can get two individual storage units or we can add trays to the V7000s, since migrating from one storage unit to another is pretty easy. 

Regarding scalability, that's a good question. I haven't had to really scale it to any more than what we've done with it currently. Actually, I'm in that process right now and I probably will have that answer in maybe a day or so. I don't think there's really too much of an issue. We add the pools underneath the storage, and it seems to just accept what we give it and we move on.

We have not hit any limits. At one time, we had 8 POWER Frames, almost 400 alt parls, LTO tape in zones, a bunch of Windows, and ESX host servers. So, it is more than adequate for our purposes.

I could scale out really easy with the virtualized product in terms of how I do the tiering behind it. 

We will never probably have everything in the cloud at this point, not until technology can catch up on the from a telecommunications perspective. We have a hybrid type of environment. Right now, we have an on-prem cloud that manages our VMware environment, so the orchestration is centered around that. It's a VMware product, but we anticipate seeing cloud handle a lot of our needs from a file share perspective and collaboration. There are some Microsoft initiatives going on at the moment, and we use cloud for that. 

We are waiting to see where we might be able to fit in with some cloud alternatives, e.g., backup archiving. We are looking at a IBM's cloud products which handle the archiving side of things. 

We are not looking at platform as a service and infrastructure right now. We just have too much load and heavy workload that we just could not get the performance that we would want there yet. 

It is fantastic. It scales great.

We are SVC customers and we would like to see the ability to add more nodes. After some sessions that we've had this morning, now we're understanding why this hasn't happened, but we still have hope that it will happen. We will be able to go from an 8-node cluster up to maybe a twelve or fourteen. It would make us really happy.

The scalability is very good. It can handle anywhere from very small to large enterprise class.

It can handle our customers' future growth. The hardware behind it may get more commoditized, but the capabilities of Spectrum Virtualize remains the same. It still provides value.

There's a lot of flexibility to it, especially with the new hardware coming out. Software always comes out with new and improved options, features, or fixes. So they're doing a real bang up job.

The scalability is absolutely outstanding and we can scale as much as we want.

The scalability is very good. It is about even with the open system offerings.

Scalability is perfect. We're at the top of their scale though. Right now, the largest cluster they use is eight. We have eight very high performance servers running the software. That is good, but we added a second cluster to do more, which has worked quite well. You sort of wonder, “Would it be better to have a 10 node, a 12 node, or a 16 node?”

Scalability is very good.

Scalability needs some work in some areas. The number of volumes needs to be increased drastically.

It is scalable, especially the VH8 and the SV1. You can locally attach storage to the SVC nodes. It's now more like Storwize. The scalability is head-on.

There are some caveats with scalability, such as volume count. We are highly limited by volume count at this point in time. We have to grow wide rather than grow tall.

The scalability is actually one of the great things about the product. It is designed to be able to give you scalability with the virtualization of multiple storage systems. It's very easy to scale.

At this point in time, scalability is excellent. It's very scalable.

Scalability is limited, but it meets our needs.

It seems like scalability is OK. I mean, it's kind of hard for us. We're on a four year refresh cycle. So we stay pretty current with the hardware itself. We are adding in things like compression accelerators, and now with the new SV1 nodes, more cache, and we are going to more adapters. Of course, we're always willing to split out workloads onto separate stacks. So it scales pretty well.

It is very scalable.

No issues with scalability encountered.

Scalability is also good. It could be improved, but we will see if they will improve it.

Scalability is good. And of course, it works across multiple, different technologies including flash and regular drives. Scalability is definitely good.

Scalability has been really great. We've done refresh cycles every three years and the technology is usually ahead of where we need it to be, as far as scaling up is concerned.

IBM Spectrum Virtualize loves scalability.

We've also been very happy with the scalability.

Scalability is good.

The scalability is great too. It scales from a single I/O group to up to four.

It is immensely scalable. It allows me to start small. It can start at a very small footprint and then it can scale up.

Regarding scalability, it depends. We had some problems with performance on all-flash storage. We don't use Spectrum Virtualize to offer storage, because they are too intensive for this environment.