The solution is very scalable. Every Application Server is scalable. Therefore, we will see that its architecture is the same as others.

This solution can be scaled with ease, as evidenced by our use of it with the IBM operating system. 

Scalability is good. We use clustering, and I haven't faced any scalability issues so far. I'd rate it a nine out of ten.

Specifically for my project, which is situated in America, there are approximately 10,000 end users.

We don't interact with it directly on a daily basis. Our interaction usually happens before deployments. We have discussions, test in the development environment, and then proceed with the deployment. So, it might be a few times a week throughout the deployment cycle.

I've heard that it is scalable, but the problem is that it takes up so much memory already. So, if you're going to scale, it will gobble up more memory.

Usually, the scalability is provided by the cloud rather than the web server by using load balances. You would need many instances of that, which means that you will need to multiply by hundreds of thousands dollars or pounds.

At present, we have engineers who use this solution.

IBM WebSphere Application Server is a scalable solution, but because it's a little bit more complex to configure, I'm giving the solution four out of five in terms of scalability.

You can't reduce what you buy from there. You have to buy the whole product. It is highly scalable and extendable in terms of extending the feature developed to be used in other areas.

We have two sets of users. We have the developers and the support people in different teams. There are approximately 12 developers in the Developer team. There is also a Support team with six or seven people. The support people are in the CTO organization, whereas, developers are in the forward-looking arm of our IT, which is the CIO organization. That's the way we are structured.

IBM WebSphere Application Server is scalable. You can add multiple nodes to the application server. 

The scalability is high due to its built-in load-balancing features. It allows applications to scale to handle high traffic and provide better performance. 

The solution is scalable to more number of concurrent users. Its ND version allows us to add more VMs. We have 3,000 users and we only need two WAS administrators. We don't have any plans to increase usage, but it's been very stable for long time.

I believe if customers want scalability, they can upgrade their WAS standard edition to the next deployment level, so it is scalable.

It is a scalable product. However, the IT team responsible for installation should have some knowledge of Unix operating systems since the platform runs on a Unix and Linux system.

The scalability of the solution is pretty good. I'd rate it seven out of ten. It's possible to scale a bit if you need to.

The main problem is the licensing cost of the product. The product can scale but the budget cannot. We pay for core utilization and so we have to consider and manage peaks in resources utilization. 

When we exited the contracts, IBM did an audit of the solution and there were licensing entitlements that we had no information about. The products themselves could only run on specific servers of specific configurations, which we worked at up until the audit was done. 

The scalability in terms of company full storage looks fine. What we've realized is that the DB2 disappears, as there is an amendment and build. Therefore the IBM DB2 database has been less than optimal as we've grown over the last two to three years. And we've started to see this as a little more of a challenge, in terms of the configuration for the build as well. It doesn't support the groups. The license entitlement rarely gives us a bare minimum for the capacity to process what we have now. So the scalability of the solution is very limited.

The scalability for the solution was supposed to be for about 800,000 users. We just coming up on 100,000 and we're already seeing performance issues.

We have roughly 100,000 users and the majority of them would be using the single sign-on service to access our client services. We have probably about 20 to 30 persons who deal with user administration and content of this onsite maintenance and management in terms of web posts, et cetera.

The rest of them are really just users - either web browser users or users of the single sign-on.

The solution's scalability is good, but there is a cost factor, which is a disappointing element. If you want to go for another node then you have to go pull up that code license model, and that produces another licensing cost.

I have found the solution to be scalable.

We have approximately 1,000 users using this solution in my organization.

This is a scalable product.

WebSphere Application Server is scalable.

No scalability issues at all.

IBM WAS is extremely scalable. It is easy to add additional servers and to divide the load over servers in all kinds of ways. If you want true scalability with persistence of EJB sessions then you have to purchase IBM WAS ND which can be more expensive than most companies are willing to pay for.