The solution's scalability depends on the demand of the users. There are different ways to make its structure. You can add more servers depending on the location and the activities performed. Scalability can be more elastic with cloud options like Jabra, Azure, and AWS. You can prepare the documents or configure the servers accordingly, allowing automatic activation. This facilitates the utilization of another front-end or back-end server. Users may require further refinements without incurring additional charges per day.

I rate the solution's scalability an eight out of ten.

The product is scalable. We are service providers catering to various customers, including leading manufacturing and automobile companies in India. My company has around 1500-2000 customers. 

I did not face issues with the product's scalability.

I work as a developer in my company, so I used the product for development-related purposes.

We have not experienced any scalability issues.

I rate the tool’s scalability a six or seven out of ten.

It is quite scalable if it is implemented correctly; at least within our environment.

I don't know the server model enough to know if it is scalable. I have brought up the topic with a Micro Focus sales rep and did not get much of a response. 

For our organization to fully utilize HPE-CM, we'd need a more robust server farm. 

We have not encountered scalability issues.

We have not had any scalability issues.

It is difficult to backdate the separation of your document store and the database. So, if you wanted to split your document store and then transfer older (and less used) content on cheaper storage, it is quite difficult to do so. This means planning document store/data tiers is advisable prior to implementation.

As our document stores have increased in size, we have a desire to split a document store into multiple stores. This has not been successfully tested with our current version. While this is not a pure scalability issue at this time, it does make it difficult to manage large document stores.

We now have 2 proxies, 5 distribution servers and about 40 IDOL engines with tons of data on CEs. It is a scalable solution, but we see performance degradation and maintenance nightmares. Design could be improved to allow vertical build up as opposed to the horizontal approach, which is what HPE proposes now.

They need to support the processing by adding CAS servers, etc to manage extra loads. Also there is the importance of creating an active/active redundancy topology.

We have not had scalability issues.

The system is very scalable with the ability to add infrastructure as required.

We have not encountered any scalability issues.

The solution is scalable. The technology allows for the scaling of different modules. Unlike SharePoint, the scalability is fine. There are different modules that can be scaled within the technology. 

We have plans to increase the usage. 

I did not encounter any issues with scalability.

We have not had any scalability issues.