For what we have done so far, it has scaled perfectly. We are by no means one of their larger customers, 100 to 450 devices, and we have not really had any issues with scalability from that perspective. I don't know what it is like if you are monitoring tens of thousands of devices, but scalability has been perfect for us.

We probably have about 20 or 30 internal users who log into LogicMonitor and do things within the tool. They are largely hands-on technical staff, and there are probably a couple of more management or service delivery roles in there. Service delivery is customer success, doing reviews with customers to make sure they are happy. Usually, they just use the dashboards feature for that. As a service provider, the majority of our staff are technical engineers who either support customer environments, therefore looking at alerts and things within the tool, or they are using it to access customer solutions. 90% to 95% of our technical staff are using it.

It is used across our entire business. It is probably one of the tools that we centrally revolve around. It's becoming a pretty core part of our business, and we do have plans to increase our usage. 

At the moment, we have a commitment of 350 devices. We are slightly over our commitment, but I just had a quote from our account manager to increase to 450 or 500 devices. We just wanted to see a quote just to see what the volume discounts would be on each level.

It depends on the sort of customer that we win as to how many devices that we might need. For one customer, we might end up needing five devices, but for another, we might need 50. At the moment, we are looking at ramping up to 450 to 500, but that scales every time we win a customer. Over time, I suspect it will keep going up. Hopefully, it doesn't go down. If it goes down, we are losing customers. 

Scalability is based on our customers. The process for scaling the product out, for handling the resources from the collector side, is very simple. The one thing we've had issues with is that, when it comes to certain widgets on the dashboards, there are limitations on how many instances can be displayed through a widget. That is something that has caused us to rethink the way that we do our dashboards. Not that that's a bad thing, because it allowed us to actually come up with building dashboards for the client, and that has worked out really nicely. But that is one area where the scalability of the product has been a headache.

Not counting our API accounts, we have around 50 people using LogicMonitor. A lot of them are our frontline staff who are using the system to monitor, alert, notify, and to assist customers with getting their environments back up and running. The other accounts are used by our clients to log in and see their dashboards and devices. There are also folks on the backend, like me, who manage the environment, add the devices, manipulate the devices, delete devices—housekeeping.

We use LogicMonitor quite extensively and we have plans to increase our usage. Any of our clients who were not using us for monitoring before, rather we were being used for other projects by them, are either onboarded now or they're coming on board. The percentage of our clients that we have within monitoring is growing day by day and week by week.

Scaling is a matter of adding more collectors to the environment. If you've discovered too many devices, you have to rebalance the collectors. However, if you add more collectors into a sphere, you don't need to worry about doing the load balancing by yourself. You let the mechanics do it for you.

LogicMonitor is a scalable product. My company has been able to deploy more devices on the collectors versus the old SolarWinds environment. LogicMonitor does a much better job for the collector environment than SolarWinds.

It will be good because whatever knowledge I have with LogicMonitor is limited. I have not been able to fully explore LogicMonitor because of the scripting and other overflow automation concepts. Even courses are not available on working data. So, basically, working on the courses is available for free. I really didn't deep-dive into LogicMonitor.

In our organization, the regional office, we have two major regional offices in the USA, Kansas City, and Mumbai. So, Mumbai's count is 2,000, and Kansas City's is 4,000.

Almost all use LogicMonitor, which would include branch offices as well. So, more than 100 branch offices. We are monitoring one key code universal, and the rest of the branches have separate networks and accesses.

I would rate the scalability of this solution an eight out of ten.

It is scalable out-of-the-box, which is good. The way that it is configured, out-of-the-box, you get a lot of good feature sets. There is minimal configuration required to get up and running. Obviously, the larger the environment, the more effort that is required. In terms of out-of-the-box feature sets, it is pretty comprehensive. You can essentially turn it on, tweak a few metrics, and be on your way. So, there is obviously some work to do. With this particular platform, it has been the most efficient that we have used at this stage. 

The scalability element of LogicMonitor is sort of built into the platform. From the very beginning, the platform is designed to be scalable, in terms of its automatic identification of different vendors. Once it identifies the vendor or system that it is trying to monitor, it knows which data sources to apply to that device. This is all an automatic process. If you have the right information configured on the device, then it will automatically identify what type of device it is and the metrics are for monitoring. Also, it has its own alerting preconfigured. For some of the metrics that are common across multiple vendors or systems, it actually knows by default what the expected result of the monitoring is. This obviously differs between different devices. However, for common elements that are considered successful or failures in terms of monitoring, these are pre-built into the system. 

Additionally, there are predefined remediation steps in some of the data sources. Not only does it alert you on the failure of some monitoring elements, but in some cases, it also provides you with some recommended remediation steps to follow to resolve the problem. That goes outside of the monitoring. From that perspective, it is quite insightful, especially to a resource who is using the tool. They may be able to obtain some insight from the platform, which may assist in resolving the issue.

Once the solution is structured in a way that your requirements desire it to be, then the onboarding process is quite straightforward. It works on a very scalable inheritance model. So, you can have a top level configuration that pushes down all the way to the bottom, and you can override values at the bottom level. In terms of scalability, and onboarding specifically, if your rules are already configured in such a way that it allows you to just onboard, then no additional work is required, other than creating the customer, branch, or whatever you are monitoring in terms of a container and just adding devices. Once the device is added to the system, the inheritance model will actually push down different metrics and alerts based on automatic identification of vendor, equipment, and systems. So, everything is very automated. That is one of the key strengths of the platform: It is very dynamic and scalable out-of-the-box.

It reduces the time for onboarding customers. We have experienced that firsthand. It actually creates efficiencies when onboarding. The way it does that is by using automation, a sort of inheritance, and a sort of scalable architecture out-of-the-box.

The product is scalable since it is cloud-based. 

It is highly scalable. We have never seen any issues regarding resource crunch. It's an everyday thing. All of our services use it as a primary resource for monitoring infrastructure. So in my department, we have fifty-odd people, and the service desk is around twenty-odd people. Our company is significant. We are on the verge of deciding whether You want to use this for the entire organization because a bigger company has acquired us, and that company does not use LogicMonitor. And we are pushing that LogicMonitor is a good resource for us, and we should use it across the company. Right now, it is in one department, but we want to push it across the organization, then it would become really big. We would have around two thousand end users using it. So, currently, we have two, and if this goes organization-wide, then there would probably be more people getting on board for this.

We have close to 50 users utilizing the solution. It's mostly a production/operations audience. My Ops team has a couple hundred people, but I doubt that many of them would be consuming the dashboards on a regular basis.

The product is extensively being used. It's completely a part of our production environment. We couldn't maintain our environment without it. It's production-impacting.

I've never been presented with a scenario where it didn't scale.

I rate the product's scalability a ten out of ten. 

We're still a small business, but we've had no issues with scalability. We have added many new customers without any impact on performance. One of our key reasons for choosing this solution is the scalability when consuming a cloud-based product. We don't have to worry about our scalability. If we double, triple, or quadruple in size, we simply consume licenses as required. We're not worried about platform hardware and all the security challenges that go with that. 

Apart from the scalability, the security of the platform, and the functionality that's rolled into it, comes with scale. That includes connecting more customers, more devices, more collectors, and through more API calls. It gives us the ability to do that without even thinking about the impact of adding another block of 500 devices to it. It is fantastic. We just look after our customers and don't have to worry about the platform in the backend.

The scalability is excellent. I would rate it eight out of ten in terms of being able to expand as needed. 

We have an environment that covers around 2,000 servers. We may increase usage in the future, although there is no plan in place as of right now.  

The solution offers very good performance and can scale easily and flexibly. 

Because it's a SaaS offering in terms of scalability, onboarding customers is more on the LogicMonitor side. They are the ones who need to have the capacity to onboard these customers, and I've never had an issue so far. From my understanding, they are growing month on month in terms of their infrastructure.

There are definitely limitations with the sizing of the devices that LogicMonitor provides. It's based on the number of instances in general. A lot of the time, I have customers on a large collector who say something like, "It needs to be a particular spec for 10,000 instances." On the customer sites, I have the same spec device with 50,000 to 60,000 instances, and it's working perfectly fine. So in terms of the actual scalability, there are restrictions, but I think LogicMonitor has been quite conservative in terms of what they've published and say that they're actually capable of. In my experience, I've been able to push those boundaries a fair amount.

From our company's point of view, there are probably about 50 to 55 users who access LogicMonitor to use it in one way or another. Then, we provide logons for our customers as well, if they want to see their own environment. Service desk and NOC analysts are the main people who use the platform, then we have our service management team who log on there to get information for monthly reports or outage queries.

We do use quite a lot of the platform. There is room for growth, but it's just one step at a time while we're getting used to the platform and as and when we have a requirement for using additional features.

The impression we got when we provided information about the number of servers, the number of end-users, and the number of networks that were part of Nagios back then, was that LogicMonitor said they could expand and double that, if things were to grow. There is scalability in that environment to support a big data buffer. So there should not be any problem with scalability.

In terms of DR, discussions are still going on as to what would happen if there were a disaster. 

As a whole, the organization has to use a monitoring tool. It could be Nagios, it could be LogicMonitor. There was a phase in which most of the schools were using both in parallel. But one after another, they are all happy to be using LogicMonitor. Usage-wise now, it's only LogicMonitor. Nagios has been cut down, so nobody is looking for any monitoring system apart from LogicMonitor.

There are some schools that still need to tweak it and tune it, because they have not given it much attention or have not really been required to actively monitor their solutions. We know where the priorities are, which school is the top priority and which schools were using Nagios more actively. But all the major customers that were using Nagios, once we unplugged it, have been happy with the LogicMonitor implementation. There are a few schools which are not actively using any monitoring system. They may get to the stage of actively using it, but, university-wide, everybody is using LogicMonitor. There is no other monitoring tool out there.

If I need 1,000 more servers, it is just plug-and-play. There are no problems with that at all.

We are an MSP in the Netherlands, and we have a lot of small companies that we are managing. They mostly don't have their own IT persons, so they're all managed by us. We also have customers who are able to log into their own monitoring software and see their own environment.

It can handle scaling. It is like any other cloud service. There is a cost associated with scaling, so we currently don't monitor all of our environments. We monitor just the customer-facing production environments. It would be nice if we could monitor our dominant environments, but we will have to pay a lot more due to the scaling issue. So, there's a balance there between what we would like and what we are willing to pay for.

We have had issues in the past with data collection. Maybe it is due to pushing the limits of what LogicMonitor can do, or even the devices its monitoring. For example, we have a couple of F5s that are heavily used with a number of data sources on them and the SNMP couldn't actually pull all the information back in time, which was causing blind spots.

We have probably close to 100 users who use LogicMonitor, not all of them on a regular basis:

• We have infrastructure engineers who maintain the infrastructure of our environment.
• We have product engineers who maintain the IT server environments for the products. They work closely together with the infrastructure engineers.
• We have our automation team and DevOps team who use LogicMonitor to do performance modeling on their environment and learn the automation processes that they have. They also use the API fairly heavily. 
• We have software engineers on the teams who are monitoring specific server processes.

There are heavier and lighter users in all those areas. We have primary admins who administer LogicMonitor, and we're the heaviest users of it.

Scalability is actually one of the reasons that we went to LogicMonitor from our own internal tool sets. The scalability is as big as you want to go. I've seen other customers that have thousands of endpoints in there without any issue. We certainly have not run into any scalability issues in our environments.

We have a variety of users who interact with LogicMonitor on a daily basis. We have our managed services team who work directly with the customers and are in there on a day-to-day basis doing remediation of issues as they arise. We also have our implementation group who take care of onboarding new customers, working with them on any custom data sources or custom monitoring needs that they might have. Then, our customers are able to log and see their own environment along with the dashboards and things that we built for them. It really has been a great tool for our team and customers to be able to see all of that. 

The role-based access control that LogicMonitor provides is very robust. We are able to provide single sign-on for our users as well as multi-factor authentication for our customers. Therefore, the role-based access control and authentication components of the LogicMonitor product are excellent.

Our use of LogicMonitor is constantly increasing as we roll our managed customers into the platform. We definitely plan to increase our managed services, and directly as a result, increase our utilization of LogicMonitor.

The scalability seems fine. Every time we've had to expand and add elements, we've not run into any delays or issues with it. It seems to expand with us as we've needed to use more features. We haven't had any issues with delays or timing. It's been able to handle what we've thrown at it.

There are at most 10 users at our company, who do everything from application monitoring to platform engineering to some developers who have access into the solution for some monitoring pieces. Varying segments have been able to get in and they all seem to have had pretty good luck with accessing and using it.

We are using LogicMonitor pretty extensively. We're using it from low level environments, development, quality assurance, all the way up to user testing and production. We have leveraged it in as many segments and parts of the business as we can. It has been really helpful to have it be able to handle different workloads, but also be customized. This way, we're not getting triggered at 2:00 AM because a switch is on in the office reporting an issue, instead we can adjust those timings to report for specific times of the day rather than any time during the day.

We have about 1,000 totals including VMs and physical devices.

LogicMonitor will be able to scale to many more devices, if we need it to.

We're monitoring about 1,200 devices currently. That's a bit of a misleading number because there's so much more stuff we monitor, like virtual machines that don't really count as licenses, or even phones. We're also monitoring Meraki devices and cloud stuff. We're monitoring almost 30,000 phones with the tool, but they're not really devices in terms of licenses.

I don't see any challenges with scalability. Whatever my product is capable of delivering, LogicMonitor is delivering that too.

The users of this solution include my team members. They use the LogicMonitor Portal for customer account creation and credentials, such as changing a password or creating dashboards. Also, all our customers have read-only access for their dashboards.

We monitor close to 100 devices. We have plans to increase that usage in the future.

It scales well; no concerns whatsoever.

It is easily scalable.

We have about 20 users working with the solution who are mostly systems engineers. We also have some DevOps engineers and a few software architects who use it.

We have 1000 resources that we are monitoring with a couple hundred websites. As our company grows, we do plan to increase usage, but nothing major. It will probably be about a 10 percent increase over the next year or two.

LogicMonitor is a scalable product.

In our company, we have 5,000 users.

It has pretty good scalability. We have added several servers and I haven't seen any problems or issues at all.

The topic of increasing our use of LogicMonitor is being discussed, but it's mostly my manager discussing it with the group of managers and the owner of the company. I am not aware of any plans, but it has been mentioned that there is a possibility of expanding.