ShieldX Scalability

CIO0ee7
CIO at a comms service provider with 1,001-5,000 employees
Scalability is the key here. We feel that scalability is better than what we had with our prior vendor. We're in the process now of scaling this out though the infrastructure. Based on what we've done so far, the migrations looks very solid both in terms of its resource utilization, deployment capabilities, and licensing costs. All of these are very positive, and we expect this to continue through our deployment. Right now, we are protecting about 1000 users with the infrastructure on the enterprise side. We have somewhere around 20 million active users as we are beginning the process of protecting on the customer services side. All of this is being maintained by two to three people. With my prior vendor, we were looking at about eight or more people working with the vendor to protect at the same sort of scale. Basically, we're doing more with less and fewer people. We have three people working on deployment and maintenance right now. We have a senior designer and two individuals working on the configuration and operations of ShieldX. We also have a ShieldX employee who does our architectural design. View full review »
Brian Talbert
Director of Network and Connectivity Solutions at a transportation company with 10,001+ employees
There are two parts to the scalability. The first part is that for virtual firewall-types of platforms, virtual security controls, and virtual microsegmentation controls, they scale better than anyone in the industry. The key differentiator there is that they've implemented what they refer to as microservices. In a traditional, virtual firewall - a Palo Alto, Check Point, or Fortinet-type of firewall - if you virtualize it, in the event you need more capacity, you're just adding CPUs to the firewall as a whole. ShieldX has taken every single service that is required to protect workloads and instantiated them as individual services that can individually scale. That's really important because if, for example, SSL decryption - which is one of the most CPU-intensive functions - needs additional horsepower, we can provide CPUs just to SSL decryption, without having to provide CPUs to an entire monolithic firewall. That's really key to ShieldX's story and there's no one else in the industry that does that. I can scale horizontally as far as I can imagine. As long as I've got the CPU resources, I can continue to scale it. The second part is the downside. Compared to a traditional firewall, which isn't really a fair comparison, you're not taking advantage of ASICs. You don't have hardware-based firewall processing. You're dependent upon standard Intel CPUs, and that's where we want ShieldX to get more efficient in how they're using those CPUs so that we're using less of them. We have about 2,000 servers currently protected. We will continue to grow. It's in the heart of our data center, so as we grow our data center, the ShieldX environment grows along with it. View full review »
Branden Emia
Senior Systems Engineer at Larry H. Miller Management Corporation
The scalability seems good, so far. I haven't rolled it out that much, but I don't think it should be that difficult. Everything seems like it is scalable to what I need, though we haven't rolled it out to that many servers yet. I don't see it being a problem. We plan to do more soon. We want to implement this 100 percent in our environment, which is not large. Right now, we are at 50 percent. This will probably be done in the next two months, before summer. My boss and I are the two people in the organization who are using the solution. View full review »
Find out what your peers are saying about ShieldX Networks, VMware, Illumio and others in Cloud and Data Center Security. Updated: October 2019.
372,185 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Sign Up with Email