Our K1000 currently manages 1,626 devices, 20 of which are Android devices.

It is very scalable. We've grown, and we've probably doubled our end-point devices since we started using this system. 

In terms of end-users, we've got about 1,200 system users in the city who use the help desk. There are 10 or 12 of us in IT that utilize the inventory, asset management, and software distribution side of things for IT management of those end-devices. It is being used very well, and we don't have any plans to increase its usage.

We're asking for it to be scalable for up to 10,000 end-user devices. When we purchased it, it was for 3,000 with scalability of up to 10,000. We haven't tried to scale up that much yet, but they say we're sized appropriately for that.

Other than needing to update our VM resources, it seems to scale very well.

I can't say I have had many experiences in making it scalable. With my businesses, I have never had to grow from fifty to a thousand employees.

We haven't had to scale it. We only have one appliance. However, when we have gone through several upgrade purchases to add more nodes and systems to it, we buy a license, then apply that to the appliance. Then, our systems can just check in.

We put the solution on every computer in our environment. So, we don't have plans to increase usage, except when we buy more stuff. KACE goes on every computer that we have. It is required for our organization. If we bought 5,000 more computers, then we would buy 5,000 more licenses. That is just the standard that we use.

I've never really had to scale it. It does have scalability built-in and I could have multiple repositories across the nation connected to this one machine if I wanted to. But I haven't had to because that use case doesn't make sense for us.

But we're always looking to utilize it more. We first look to KACE when evaluating any solution that might require third-party involvement. We ask ourselves if KACE can do it.

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. 

It is used in a global enterprise business. In Brazil, we operate as a third party, but in the United States and other regions like Mexico and Europe, particularly Germany, KACE is extensively used. 

So, our enterprise is vast, and multiple IT teams are involved.

KACE is incredibly scalable to many, many devices.

It's being used on every single computer that we have on campus, and we use it every single day, because we're always imaging or re-imaging computers. 

As of now, there is no plan to increase our use, but I would imagine that as things come back to normal, if we have more students coming to campus, we will add more computers and we will increase our use at that time.

We can buy new licenses for clients. There is no problem to import these new clients into the environment, which is pretty nice.

We are using SMA at its full potential at the moment. It is also possible to import printers, and you don't need any extra licenses for that. This is a nice feature as well.

We have four people who have been trained on both servers: 

• Two people are mostly working on the patching, KACE Systems Management. 
• Two people, including me, are mostly working on the Systems Deployment Appliance.

There are 10 people in my group using the server to image. In another department, there are another two users who know how to manage the server, but they don't mess with the server networking. They only manage their image that they have on there. When I put in a fresh, new image, I inform them, saying, "Hey, I have this new image tested. You are more than welcome to start using it so I can start deleting older images."

If they would make it easier and more intuitive, then it would be easier to show other people how to do it. Right now, I have to send them to training, which costs us a lot of money.

We do patching every four months, so that's our key project. At those times, we are using it every day for 16 hours a day. But the inventory base and the little bit of monitoring that it supplies, as well as the software distribution, mean that we use it on an almost a daily basis, although not that heavily, during those times.

We have about 12 administrators of the solution, but the beneficiaries from it number about 600.

We haven’t been scaling much. We don't have full utilization and are under 300 clients, and its scalability works.

We have two administrators and 140 users. Some users have two PCs, but most have only one PC.

We have KACE deployed on more than 9,000 workstations and approximately 1,300 servers. Scalability is an issue for us at the moment, and I don't know how much our company is going to grow in the future. One of the ways that we grow is through acquisitions. For example, we just acquired a little company that was about 20 people and acquired another one with about six people.

I don't know what's coming down the pipe. I am not sure if there's a company that's about a thousand people, how is that going to affect how I use KACE. I wonder if I'm going to have to scale things back, such as running a script once every other week instead of once a week, or stretching out my patching windows.

We have approximately 800 employees with 67 to 71 data centers.

We don't have a lot of machines in there for scalability. We only have about 300 or 400 people out of a total of 12 or 13. I can't respond to that. 

We had 7,000 employees in the last environment I worked in, and SCCM handled it all with the 300 or 400 domain controllers we had. I can't comment on this because we don't have a large enough environment.

We have 200 or 300 users in our organization.

It is not being extensively used because it is only hitting approximately 30% of the machines. Because this is pushing toward workstations. 

I don't believe that we have plans to increase our usage. That's why we started looking for a third party. I don't think they're heading for KACE. I believe they're discussing BigFix right now, but that's a different department, and we could be drawn into that.

The scalability is fantastic. You can add to it and there are lots of things that you can do but it's overkill for us at the clinic.

There were two of us administering the solution and there are about 274 endpoints. Since the other administrator recently quit, it is only me doing the job at the moment.

We have one SDA and one SMA and it works for all 1200 of our devices that we have listed. I don't think we would ever need to scale out to anything larger than that.

The solution can scale. The product can be a help desk ticket system, all the way up to the entirety of your virtual machine environment - making updates and changes at a click of a button.

Scaling it is easy. Last year I increased the memory because we got a lot of new computers in our company and we added some new locations. I saw it was getting a little bit slower, but I added some more memory and it was easy to scale. If you need more RAM or more CPUs, just add them and the KACE will say, "Okay, I'll take them."

Currently, we don't have plans to increase our usage.

It has scaled for us. We are not using thousands of machines, but we are definitely double what we were, and it wasn't even noticeable.

We have hundreds of people putting tickets in. There are six help desk admins who are using it to administer and handle help desk tickets

Scalability is very good. We've been able to expand several times, expanding the number of devices covered with ease. We have also utilised the cloud-based MDM solutions, however, this isn't something we've maintained a licence for due to internal staffing resources.

We have successfully moved away from a hardware-based solution and moved into a virtualised VMWare estate. This has allowed us to integrate the backups of this product within our organisational estate, plus allowed us to migrate the services across various parts of our network, without having to physically change the location of the hardware. This is a great solution for us and removed any hardware blockers that were in place previously and to take advantage of the virtualisation advantages without any major changes to our client estate.

KACE is very scalable.

We started with 700 clients and today we are at almost 2,000 clients. There hasn't been a single day where I have been concerned about the scalability or the of KACE. 

It was really just as simple as buying the licenses as we needed it. As far as man power goes when I first started there, there was four technicians doing roughly 3,300 machines.

Scalability-wise, this product is great.

When we first implemented KACE, we had approximately 80 computers that we needed to install it on. We now have 170 computers.

We will continue to use this solution going forward. Every time we stage a computer, we make sure that we put KACE on it. Once we do that, we pretty much don't have to worry anymore. We're setting up more PCs and we're going to be hitting the 200 mark, probably at the end of the year. We have been hiring a lot of people and I expect it will continue.

There are three people who use KACE but I am the primary one. I'm the only person that makes changes and monitors the system regularly.

The tool is perfectly scalable. 

It's definitely easy to scale out. We've had to add licenses as our environment has grown. We haven't had any problems there. We haven't hit our heads on any capacity issues.

We're using it to the capacity that we need to. We do most of our software deployment through it and we do about 150 to 200 tickets a month through the Service Desk.

It supports a huge network for us and I would assume that that network has grown exponentially over the time that we've had it. There have been no implications as far as network use. It just works.

We really heavily utilize everything already. Moving to the cloud is probably the only thing that we can do differently, other than implementing the mobile device management or the file distribution. We have other solutions for those things. There isn't really anything else to expand or improve or to utilize within it because we really are using it all.

Scalability is available. I have not experimented much with some of the options. For example, you can have a system at this site and have another site that doesn't have an entire KACE, but just a file share where KACE can put patches as well. Instead of servers at that site going all the way to your primary site, they just pull the patches from that local repository. Theoretically, that helps. So it can be scalable if you so choose.

In our environment we manage 237 servers. 

As our company and environment have grown, scalability has not been a problem. The scalability of the tool seems to be good. We currently manage 639 endpoints.

For the most part, this product grows with our needs. Back in the day, when we first got it, it was owned by Dell. All of our equipment is from Dell, including our servers and our laptops and computers, our workstations. It fits together very nicely.

All of our end-users use it, if they need to put in a help desk request. As far as the daily use of it, the ins and outs, I'm the administrator and I make sure that all the updates are done. I check on the patch schedules.

In IT, there are three of us. Aside from me, we have an IT admin that uses it to track his projects, as well as some tickets that get assigned to him for reporting requests.

On top of tracking these items, he uses some of the scripting functionality, when it's server-related. As an example, last week, he used it to handle changes that we had made regarding a print server. We changed our print server over to a new one, and he utilized scripting to remove the old server and add the new one. That's what he mainly uses it for.

Our IT director doesn't really use it for much of anything, other than his project-tracking and being able to look at everybody's queues, like mine and my IT admin's, just to see where we're at during the day in more of a supervisory role.

We only have three people using this program in our company, but I believe it is scalable. I don't think we will increase our usage soon, though.