The scalability of the solution is good. We can add additional firewalls and configure them without a problem.

We provide solutions to SMB and enterprise companies.

I rate the scalability of the Juniper SRX Series Firewall a ten out of ten.

The scalability is pretty good. We can scale a bit. I'd rate the ability to expand seven out of ten. 

We have about 2,000 users on the solution currently. 

We do not plan to increase usage. 

Juniper SRX Series Firewall is a scalable solution.

We have approximately 2,000 to 3,000 users using this solution in the enterprise.

If the Juniper SRX is deployed in a location where there is not enough room for growth or where there is a high traffic volume, such as when replicating data between two data centers, we may have to bypass the firewall to avoid capacity challenges. In general, the capacity is sufficient when initially deployed. However, if there is a forecasted change in the network usage, such as a customer's increased usage, we may have to plan for a swap or replacement of equipment that is near its end-of-support or end-of-life.

I rate the scalability of Juniper SRX a seven out of ten.

The scalability is good. The solution is best for small to medium size businesses.

It should scale well, in my opinion. We are not a large company, but I don't anticipate any problems with Juniper SRX scalability.

We have approximately 300 employees, whose roles are in typical sales, accounting, operations, and transportation.

I'm not sure about increasing, but we do have other Juniper products, such as switches, that we would use.

The solution is scalable. I'd rate the scalability seven out of ten. 

It depends on how big the project is and how many branch offices there are. We might need more devices if it is bigger. We'd also need to use templates for all branches so that it is configured uniformly. 

We tend to provide the solution for small and medium-sized companies. I've configured it for 30 or 40 clients. 

I am not very sure about scalability, but I believe that we were able to migrate a few of the lower models to the high-end models and it worked perfectly well. There was no problem.

It is scalable, but unlike some vendors, like Check Point, which allows connecting more than two devices in a cluster, Juniper only supports configuring two devices in a cluster.

It's scalable and reliable, but when using next-generation firewall features, the performance decreases significantly for Juniper SRX. In Check Point and Cisco, the performance decrease is less.

Juniper SRX firewalls are scalable. 

Juniper SRX Series Firewall is really scalable, but it depends on how you set up the network topology.

When it comes to scalability, basically Juniper is modular. The SRX architecture is very important. Say I am a small-time customer with 50 people in my company and I deploy on the SRX 300 Series. If my business grows exponentially and I now have 500 people in the company. My traffic has boosted significantly — say about ten times what it was. I do not have to really worry. Within one hour, I can just switch and get a new SRX box in place. Let's say I go with the 500 Series or the 4000 Series. This is my new capacity.

The change over is so simple, because the architecture is common. Whether you talk about SRX 300 or you talk about the service provider architecture, it is the same thing except for the capability to expand and handle the volume. That is very important from a technical perspective, which normally you only need one tech person to deploy.  

For mid-sized companies or even large-sized companies, you have a lot of clients from SRX 300 to SRX 5000 Series and the product line covers all the options. This is from a very basic server-level SRX box to the Next-Generation Firewall and advanced threat mitigation.  

But one thing that scalability should really take into account is that Juniper is an enterprise product. If you are really only talking about using the Sophos UTM or only want to use the product like a firewall, then you should consider a UTM box. If you then want to add an SD-WAN as an additional part of the architecture, the UTM is not the right choice. You just take an SRX box and you have SD-WAN on that. You can have a firewall on that. You can have a UTM on that. You can integrate with the cloud. You can integrate with Linux infrastructure. You can have network security.  

Today when we talk about Check Point, we talk about Next-Generation Firewalls. That includes the Palo Alto Next-Generation Firewall and Cisco Next-Generation. But no one talks about what the definition of Next-Gen is. The only difference about Next-Generation is that it has a staple firewall, by definition.  

If you are a small company and you only have five in your office, obviously you want a secure network. To do this you will buy a simple firewall. When you think of the most simple firewall, people buy a router. Then people buy a switch. Then people buy a firewall. Three devices. I would say, do not buy anything. Just buy one SRX box, which does all the three.  

Now I can also expand the same SRX 300 with a branch location. Let's say, I'm a bank customer. I have branches. Simple, I can now have the simplest of SRX 300 at all my branches or SRX 500. I just connect to my main SRX, let's say a 1500 Series with an SD-WAN topology. The project is done. Simple. I secure my network. I handle my routing. I handle my security. And I have an option for just enabling the license to get the latest threat mitigation.  

For comparison, let's take a very big enterprise network. Maybe I was the head of Informatica at APAC. I am in a situation where I have 6000 R&D developers in the organization. We monitor our total performance. Latency on the firewall should be as low as possible. This is especially critical with the current environment where people work from home. Everyone who is working from home now because of COVID has all their data still in the office and people come onto the network to get connected from home to the office.  

Imagine the load on my firewall in that situation. All the people from inside my organization are sitting outside of the office now accessing the data in the internal network through the firewall. Imagine all the data tracking is coming from all over like an external traffic base. You need to have the proper solution to handle the change in traffic and scalability is the most important factor in this case for successfully running a demanding environment.  

When deploying the cluster, we cannot create it anywhere, such as in Palo Alto or Check Point. We must scale appropriately, adding more devices with a load balancer or similar. Depending on the size of the area, it can be highly scalable.

Our customers range from small all the way up to governments.

We have less than 50 percent of our company using Juniper SRX.

We have approximately 10 people using this solution.

It's easily scalable.

The scalability potential depends on the customer. Some customers are working only on the edge with smaller systems and the other environment is connected to Cisco switches. Some clients mix up switches and use HP or Cisco. Some like ASA, however, that's more expensive. Many go with SRX as an affordable option. 

We're a relatively small organization so we didn't scale it.

All of the people in the organization are protected by the devices.

The solution is very scalable and I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. 

We are using a hardware appliance and we have to choose a size based on our business. It is not like a software application, like in a cloud model.

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten.

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

This is a scalable router. In our organization, there are almost 3,000 people using the Juniper product. They have varied roles.

We plan to increase our use of Juniper products in the future, although it depends on input from management.

We have something like 12 million customers (mobile data customers).

The scalability is amazing.

We have approximately 1,000 users in our organization.

Our usage is moderate.

Juniper SRX has scalability. Its current site has 1500 users and we can upgrade to 2 K users.

Right now, we have around 500 - 600 total users, but I think some sections are still under deployment, so all the users are around the 1700 - 1800 range.

We sized this solution based on our bandwidth, so scalability has not been a problem.

Juniper SRX lacks scalability. Juniper uses a switch car with different switches. We have some difficulties managing this kind of equipment and implementing some features, like Mac lock and Mac limiting solutions. It's difficult to get good support about this from Juniper. We have about 10,000 users across all routers and switches. I can say the same for FortiGate. We're currently using it extensively for all traffic, and we plan to expand usage.  

Overall, the scalability is very good. A company should have no trouble with scaling if it would like to do so.

We have about 2,000 users currently. They cover various roles in our organization. It's not just used by a specific team.

In terms of scalability, it clusters nicely so you can put it into a stacked mode. The size that it is meant to serve, it does very well. It is not meant as a large enterprise-type firewall. Rather, it is meant for a small to medium sized customer.

We currently have about seventy-five users, and we don't plan to increase that number at this time.

Juniper SRX could improve the scalability to compete better with other solutions, such as 
FortiGate.

We have less than 10% of our customers using Juniper SRX.

The model we have is very scalable. It's a fairly large firewall.

We did not encounter issues with scalability, but this depends on the environment. The DC class firewalls can scale vertically or horizontally.

If you have experience using the solution, it is scalable. 

The scalability has been very good so far.

We've got 420 staff using it, plus two of my internal team and two of my MSPs, four people,  working on the network stuff.

I cannot really tell if it is scalable because we are managing twenty gigabytes of traffic on the node. They say that it can scale up to almost one terabyte, but we don't have the capacity so I can't really tell.

This solution is used for all of our mobile customers, which is approximately twelve million. All of our 4G customers use it. This includes standard users who want internet access on their phone, as well as those who want a VPN connected to a private server.

No issue. We are only a 40 person company and only have 50Mbps of internet bandwidth.

We haven't encountered scalability issues.

The scalability of Juniper SRX is acceptable.

Regarding scalability, generally, it is simple, I would say, at least from my perspective. I wasn't the person that configured the devices, however. The reseller was. 

Before the Corona crisis, there were 250 users. Now we've got maybe 90 to 100 people.

It is easy to expand.

It's a very scalable product.

It is scalable. We haven't used the scalability up till now, but we know that we can extend it.

We have 150 users here, and then we have around 30 to 40 users in different countries such as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Norway. They're using some parts of it. They are using some smaller units to connect to the main office.

We don't have any plans to increase its usage as of now. Any expansion would be in terms of getting new offices around the world. We may install more of those smaller ones, but for the time being, as far as I know, we will not expand it in the office because it is already performing as it should. It actually did a very good job when we were working remotely because it allows us to connect to the office very easily and work remotely.

We are not a large team, we have 20 members in our company.

It's a scalable solution.

The hardware is scalable and we have about 500 users.

You can scale it well, but when you scale you need to take a product out to another one. On a scale level, it's a very good scalable product. It's a good firewall so if you pump it in high traffic, it will be able to adapt to it, unless and until you outgrow its throughput. Then you would either have to get a new model or maybe if you have to avert your firewall, you might have to upgrade it to a new version. So far it's a good product.

This was for a 1,000 user base.

You don't need extra staff to maintain the solution. Unless and until you have a problem of lags or circuit issues, I don't think you need extra staff. One SE should be fine with this product.

I think there will be future plans to increase usage and get more devices. We are also trying to leverage this into a cloud platform, so there would be some more usage.

The scalability is fine.

It's not very scalable because you need some experience with Juniper. I know that it's difficult for people who are familiar with Cisco to start Junos. Compared to Cisco, 
Juniper also has very bad documentation.

The solution can scale, however, it's often difficult to get a hold of the product itself. We're often waiting on orders.

The solution seems to work well in small offices. I'm not sure how well it would do in larger enterprises.

The solution doesn't have scalability due to the fact that it is a fixed WAN and therefore it's limited to its hardware. You can't scale that to attend to a bigger organization. It's limited. It was created to a specific size; it was not created to scale. It doesn't have this option. 

The scalability of the solution is limited.

No issues encountered.

Juniper SRX is a scalable solution.

It's scalable. Juniper Select has a solution to boot in high availability technology. We use the Juniper Select from low-end and high-end. In my position as a Senior Network Security Engineer, I handle the high-end suite of Juniper Select 5K.

Currently, the solution is being used every day. We have plans to increase usage in the future.

No scalability issues.

There are not many scalability issues experienced.

This model of SRX we use is not a scalable solution. It's near its maximum capacity for encryption, traffic, and features.

The product scales very well. It's not a problem if your company needs to expand it. 

In our office, we have about 120 people protected under Juniper. However, we have proposed it to many customers and some clients use it as well. Some of them are quite sizeable businesses. 

If users want to scale up the firewall, they basically want the cheapest firewall that gives them powerful features. Most users choose FortiGate rather than Juniper. Technically, Juniper's scalability is good. But when customers look at the overall price, FortiGate will come out cheaper than Palo Alto or Juniper.

The scalability is normal.

It is highly scalable for its target market.

We did not have problems with scaling, as we have less than 500 users in our organization.

Scalability is limited and you need the right sizing. In our case, our device has reached the end of life, and there are no more plugins that we can actually use.

We weren't using it in a high load infrastructure.

Some models are scalable but you have to have VMs to modify resources to get better performance. 

Juniper SRX is scalable.

We have 10 users in our organization.

We have clients of all sizes for this product, from small businesses to service providers. It is very scalable.

We have more than one hundred users for this solution. They range from non-technical, Level 1 users, up to administrators, technical support staff, and expert-level users.

There were limited security zones with each model.

No scalability issues at all, very good for scalability.

We deploy on SRX to handle 500 sites.

We will continue to use this solution in the future. We have no plans to change.

The scalability is good.

The clustering of a maximum of two nodes limited some architectural options.

Yes, fab interface doesn't support bandwidth aggregation

No issues encountered.

I don't know how scalable the platform is because we have not needed to scale beyond a certain point. Our clients are enterprise-level businesses.