I would rate the solution’s scalability a nine out of ten. We have around ten customers for the solution.

Oracle Exadata is a very scalable solution, and I'm rating it five out of five in terms of scalability.

Oracle Exadata is good for transactional data within the limit of 50 terabytes. If your data is less than 50 terabytes, whether it is a small or large business, your data warehouse has to be around 35 terabytes, plus or minus, you can choose Oracle Exadata. Even with a full rack, and though Exadata X9 has come up, and you can keep increasing your storage, the reality is that memory, and other things are limited. If the solution's data is within 35 terabytes, and you want to tune and run analytics on transactional data, Exadata is a good solution. But you never hear of a company rejecting petabytes, so you have to think differently. It is for the warehouse I'm talking about, not the rate or big data, which are two different things.

Oracle Exadata is highly scalable. To scale the solution you contact Oracle for the scalability you want, they give you the details, and you set it up.

We have more than 100 people using this solution in my company.

We do not plan to increase our usage because here in Russia we have some restrictions and we will have to move on without it.

The on-premises versions of the solution are very difficult to work with, however, the next-generation cloud-based options are likely easier to expand as necessary.

We have about 800 concurrent users on the solution at any given time. It's a mid-sized company.

I'm not sure if we have plans to expand out own usage. It's a difficult time in Mexico, politically and also with COVID. We had plans to change some things last year, and they have since been pushed out. We're looking at different aspects of our entire system and we're reconsidering how it operates and if we should add partners or not.

The product is very scalable. We have more than 1000 users in our organization.

I give the scalability a ten out of ten.

My customer had 10,000 people on the box without any degradation.

There are no issues at all except when the code we were working with was not scalable (procedural PL/SQL and cursors). In fact, the RAC worked very well and we saw near-linear scale-up, and the license costs were dramatically less than a conventional solution. We were also able to consolidate hundreds of databases on a single Exadata rack.

We have not had any scalability issues. Oracle Real Application Clusters on Extended Distance Clusters is not supported with Exadata. So, basically, it is not supported to build RAC extended clusters on multiple Exadata machines. The good news is that RAC extended clusters will probably be supported with Exadata in Oracle Database 12.2 (12CR2). It is not certain yet, but it is expected, so we will see.

I give the scalability of Oracle Exadata an eight out of ten.

The key for scalability is selecting the appropriate disk configuration and the proper size rack configuration. The two options are High Capacity and High Performance. If ever in doubt, always go with High Capacity. The performance difference is negligible at best, however having the extra space allows for more consolidation. That's the entire point of Exadata, to consolidate databases. We've added a few databases to the Exadata since we originally started to use the environment and there has been no performance impact. In our case, a Quarter rack was appropriate but for larger environments, this may not be enough.

Oracle Exadata is scalable.

We have data engineers and data scientists using this platform, and in my team, there are 25 of them, and all of them are using this platform.

This new version of Oracle Exadata has improved scalability, which I find incredible. Its scalability is nine out of ten.

This solution is scalable.

It is a scalable solution, and I rate it an eight out of ten.

I have found Oracle Exadata to be scalable. However, you have to purchase more hardware, such as memory.

Everyone in the organization is using the solution in my organization.

This product is scalable. We first started with the quarter rack, and then we expanded to the full rack.

If you buy a quarter rack, you feel like you need more computing power, you upgrade to a half rack. You go to a 3/4 or a full rack. It's basically I guess we used to call it plug and play except a lot of us found it in the olden days, it was plug and pray. I think they've got that one licked to the max.

I would rate the tool's scalability an eight out of ten. Certain companies in my organization use the solution like the marketing, IT, and analytics departments. 

It absolutely scales to our customers’ needs. You can start with a two-node configuration, and you can go as high as eight racks, I believe, connected together with eight nodes, so you can scale up to 64. That number might have changed recently. You can scale it very well.

It's scaled to our needs.

To scale up with Oracle we have to purchase new infrastructure. I give the scalability a six out of ten.

Until now, we did not scale.

From time to time, we scale capacity up and out. In system engineering terms, we can scale up to limit. The kind of features we just set it up, I've been able to fit my requirements into that.

You should start with a small footprint (for example, a quarter-rack Exadata) and then grow to a full-rack or even multi-rack Exadata. The only challenge is that by the time you need to expand, the Exadata generation may have evolved (every one to two years, so far). You may end up with a full-rack of Exadata that contains multiple generations, each with a different CPU, memory, and disk capacity. This may not be a big problem, but you have to come up with a strategy to distribute the workload.

No; scalability has been pretty awesome.

The solution is scalable. Servers or storage can be added at any time. 

Exadata is scalable.

Nope not yet but we might have plans to move it to Cloud. we are not really sure. We have our own data center and we never had any problems with Scalability

Yes, memory limitations, 756gb limits the performance of databases.

With the Exadata, if I see an issue with scalability, it is typically goes back to being a sizing issue. The real question I have to ask is: did you get the right Exadata configuration for your database(s). If your Exadata configuration is sized properly, you should not have scalability issues.

If you let every database see every CPU on the Exadata compute node, you can potentially run into scalability issues. Customers who do not take advantage of database resource manager or IO Resource Manager (IORM) often run into performance issues in a consolidated environment. Likewise, if a customer tries to over-parallelize their application code, it can cause scalability issues. We tend to see more issues with improper management of parallel execution on the Exadata because it is perceived as something you can throw anything at.

Oracle Exadata scalability is a nine out of ten.

The scale is somewhat limited. The existing axis can only have four blades.  So, there are limitations. The storage is around 200TB to 400TB, which is not infinite storage.

There have been no major problems so far with scalability.

We have added more memory and additional storage arrays, and adding more memory is very easy, while adding a storage array takes some time, but it is not as complicated as I expected. We will be expanding our local file system soon not sure how complex this will be. Adding ZFS is fairly straightforward and has become easier since I first did it three years ago.

We have about 100 people using the product currently.

Our clients are quite sizeable companies.

We’ve had experience scaling it. We started out originally with an X2, the second release of Exadata. A year ago, we expanded that with the new X5. We were able to take our existing procurement and expand it with newer hardware too.

It can effectively handle a large number of users, making it a robust and scalable solution.

You can scale the solution. You can configure it how you like and buy more cells or nodes to add to it. 

There are many models of this engineering system, starting from X2 in 2011 to the last version X8M, you can choose a quarter, half and full, depending on your workload and budget. Starting with the quarter size you can scale it by adding more servers and storage until Full version or adding another box.

It is absolutely scalable. We have five enterprise applications of our own. They're all public-facing systems. Going back to the performance, on any given day, anywhere between 5,000-8,000 internal people use it, and we do have a public-facing system. People apply for benefits, and it's entirely public, so they can use it. Compared to our previous system, if you look at the performance metrics, some of them show almost 30-40% improvement. Some of the batches are almost 70% improvement.

If you look at the backend side – logical export backups, RMANs, and disaster recovery; all of those things – there is a tremendous increase.

The solution offers excellent scalability. It's one of its great selling features. We never have to worry about it not having enough capacity for our needs.

Currently, we have about 8,000 end-users on this product.

It is a scalable solution. I think it's going to meet the company's needs moving forward, without problems.

We have 150 people using this solution.

The solution is not scalable because it is on-premise.

The scalability of the solution is quite good.

Oracle Exadata is very scalable.

When one of our customers such as a bank employs one or more Exadata machines to handle database work, it means that the whole bank could be using it.

We had no scalability issues.

It has the best scalability of all our Oracle products.

It is scalable. 

This solution offers the flexibility to add more servers, storage servers, or a combination of both.

We've had no issues scaling it for our needs.

We have a half rack now. If we at all feel like we need more compute, we can definitely add on more racks. So scalability, definitely a yes.

There were no issues with scalability.

The scalability is a little bit difficult, actually. A lot of people advertise it as being easy, but what happens is: when you have a previous version and you want to scale that version, they're already into a new version. It's almost better just to buy the new X6 instead of trying to expand your X3. If you want to do scalability, you have to do it immediately within a year; you can't wait.

Oracle Exadata is highly scalable. You can increase the network and everything works well.

We have approximately 10 clients using the solution in the finance sector.

If needed you can scale it up. In terms of CPU and memory, we increased the memory and CPUs to accomplish this. You are limited from the hardware you have, increasing the performance of your hardware allows for increased scalability.

In my eyes, it is going to meet the company's needs moving forward.

We didn’t have scalability issues.

There have been no issues scaling it for our needs.

We find X5 to be very scalable.

No. It is quite simple to extend the configurations if needed, more databases can easily be added. With Exadata less memory is needed so we see clients running even close to 100 databases on a small 1/8^th frame. With large databases, clients can sometimes run out of storage, but additional storage can easily be added with the help of storage expansion racks.

It depends on each case, your use and the company. For us, it is scalable and working for our use.

For me, what we have right now is scalable and it is serving our purpose.

It is scalable, very much so. It will absolutely meet the company's needs going forward.

No problems with scalability.

We used to perform upgrades of Exadata from quarter to half in order to increase CPU/storage capacity. When Exadata hardware is too old (for example, if you want to upgrade from Exadata X3-2 quarter to half, adding x6-2 hardware), you should evaluate the possibility of installing a new Exadata and using Oracle Data Guard to move Oracle Databases.

It's a product which Oracle has built with scalability in mind. You can have Exadata hooked up with another Exadata. You have a really high bandwidth network, they call it Infiniband. So you can extend it horizontally as much as you want. So there's a huge, huge opportunity to upscale it and Exadata itself comes in two different flavors, like quarter rack, half rack, full rack. So you can choose and pick, based on your need of the scalability and the future need of how your workload and other things are going to be in future.

I would say it's the best solution in terms of scalability.

I think the scalability is good, but it can be even better. With the newer editions of Exadata, they are changing some features to meet the needs of growth and scalability, like access to additional disks in the storage environment, and they've upped the memory, too. But I don't think it was central, or essential, to the Exadata offering at first.

The strategy of the company was not to pay a lot, because we don't have much money. So we began with the scalability approach. We bought enough resources to sustain the demands of all our clients.

If the demands increase, we can also increase the resources and close off the cabinets. We can scale this machine anytime that we need. We can go until the version that they allowed for scalability. Then, if you need to maintain this technology, you can scale out and have two machines working together side by side.

This is a database machine. We have a system that hosts more than 20,000 citizens. So most of the time we have more than 3,000 transactions per day. As a service company for the government, every database resource is on this machine. We have at least three or four databases running on this machine and we have many applications that are running through this machine as well, so it serves all the countries.

It is a very scalable environment.

There were no problems with scalability at all.

It scales well for our needs.

Scalability is good.

For as far as we've gotten with it, it has scaled to our needs; so far so good.

It's been fantastic. With all the additional flash, with the faster CPUs, the faster disks, it's really come a long ways. The introduction of the X6 is also going to be an interesting avenue.

We've had no problems with scalability.

I don't think it's so scalable because Exadata is a box. You can't do anything with this. It's a box, use it, that's all.

It has scaled well.

There were no scalability issues so far.

It has scaled well to your needs.

There were no scalability issues. In fact, scalability is one of its prime features, it is very flexible.

So far, we don't have a big problem with scaling because we are happy with two node clusters. When we really need to expand, then we will need to cross that bridge when we come to it.

We are still moving. So far it is satisfactory, although we are not getting our work locked under.

If it's done with the right specs in mind, it seems to scale pretty well. We haven't really had any scalability issues.

I have not been playing with the scalability, but I know they can scale pretty high. Especially I know they use it within their own MiniCluster product, and a lot of their appliances. I have no doubt it can scale.

No

Well, they give you a box. We haven't come to a case where we need to add more servers or nodes to it. For the moment, what we have is what we're using and it's doing what it's supposed to do.

Our main issue is the CPU; they can't cope with what we want. The application is CPU-bound. They have to find a way, talk to Intel, design something, so it's fast, so it can provide more CPU, more bang for the buck. It's expensive.

We had some challenges on scalability. That time the only choice we had was to upgrade to a full rack from a ½ rack. However the newer version of Oracle Exadata has flexibility to upgrade. It can add database servers or storage servers not require to add ¼ or ½ racks.

No issues encountered.

Have worked on expanding racks with multi-generation racks, the promise of start small and grow over time is delivered fairly effortlessly.

I work with the PeopleSoft systems on the databases and it's doing just fine. I don't have to scale out.

The product is scalable.

In my management, I have no say as what to buy. I'm just doing the work. They keep buying it, so we have to keep supporting it.

It is scalable, given the way you can add more and more Exadata to your configuration, but it gets expensive. However, I'm not the right person to comment on whether it provides enough value for the money.

I did not encounter any scalability issues either.

I have found the solution to be scalable.

We can extend the data without any trouble, just put something new in and go on. That's great. There's no problem of that kind with this solution, for us.

There were no scalability issues.

It is an absolutely scalable solution.

This product does not scale like we want it to.

There is another company that we use for this purpose and it does a much better job.

Oracle Exadata is scalable.

Our clients are mostly small to medium-sized companies.

No, it scaled linearly as claimed by Oracle pre sales.

We have had no issues with scalability.

It's been able to scale for our needs.

No issues encountered.

There were no scalability issues.

No, this is one issue we didn’t encounter. We decided on the appropriate
Exadata configuration and we deployed and consolidated. Moreover, Exadata
has Elastic configurations as well. Nevertheless, there are some internal
areas where the admins need to set and rationalize perception. Some SQL
is poorly written and even Exadata can’t fix that. The perception is that
Exadata is a single “red” pill to cure bad code, that’s just not the case.

We had an issue where we had to increase the storage and we got the new cells from Oracle. Then we scaled outward.

We've had no issues with scalability.

Oracle support provided the necessary information to scale the system.

Scalability is really tough because it's scalable as much as an appliance is scalable. If you want to scale it, you need to add an appliance itself. You can buy one-eighth of a rack, one-quarter, one-half of rack. If you still want to extend capacity, you need to buy another module that is another eighth or quarter or half and you need to install it into a rack. It's quite complex. This is one of the reasons why appliances are not that popular anymore because modern databases are on hardware and you just put on another server, another node. It's quite expensive, compared to the commodity hardware.