Pandora is scalable.

I would rate the scalability of this solution a nine, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

Pandora FMS is very scalable. For example, we migrated a lot of virtual machines that were monitored in Nagios or Centreon. The migration to Pandora was so easy.

We currently have 58 users.

It is fine for us so far. It probably scales well. We have almost 350 agents with about 2600 checks running on one server, and it is still running fine. I don't know when we'll reach a point where we need to expand.

They definitely have the ability to have multiple servers and redundancy. We're looking at setting up a second one so that one is running in our second data center.

It is mostly used by our IT back-office team. We are the ones most interested in its alerts. For some check we have our Maintenance & Facilities staff alerted like temperature sensors in the data centers. You can just find the OID for temperature sensors on your network switches to get those metric in addition to pointing directly to the CRAC units for even more data (humidity, ...)

The solution is very flexible. It allows you to deploy servers individually, even in remote locations.

Pandora FMS is very scalable due to the great facilities it provides for it. I think it depends more on the servers that host it, as opposed to the product itself.

This solution is very scalable.

The solution is scalable, we have around 70 users in our company. 

I notice that it is quite scalable.

The solution provides for full scalability, including a schema for a High Availability Database Cluster.

I've seen Pandora FMS setups monitoring five thousand unique endpoints without any kind of optimization. That is crazy!

This is a high-performance solution and is easy to scale any size.