We're yask-based, so if we get to a point where we need to run more monthly task, we can scale our license to monthly task. 

We haven't come anywhere close to having performance problems or capacity problems running the jobs that we're running at this point. But if we needed to scale larger, because we are transaction-based, it's a matter of scaling up or scaling out the Stonebranch Controller. With the 450 jobs that we're going to be running, we're running on a single Universal Controller. We have DR, we have it in another data center as well, the databases are replicated. But with the one Universal Controller on a good size virtual machine, and being transaction-based, being able to run 400 to 500 workflows is good. We can scale horizontally or vertically as we need.

We have around 400 people using the solution right now. We likely will increase usage in the future. 

I'd rate the general scalability seven out of ten. There is room for improvement.

We have not experienced any limits, so it should be scalable.

What I like about it is the configuration that they allow you to get to, how granular it can get. Something that we used to struggle with - because we farm out the work to the applications and say, "You run this, this is just distributed cron for you," - was that people would run their scripts and sometimes do something silly like send their debug to standard out, and standard output is two gigs. Usually, our old tools would go capture that and send it back to the controller. That two-gig amount of data is huge. It's going to break either the agent or the transfer or take the controller down when it gets there. Stonebranch lets you tweak that stuff to say things along the lines of, "How much of the standard output do you want? Do you want 100k, 100 lines, 2k?" You decide. Scalability depends on that. If you want to run 100 million tasks a day, you have to figure out how much data you want to retain, and that's the power of this tool. Other tools don't let you do that.

Stonebranch is scalable enough to meet all our requirements so far. We could automate 30,000 tasks without issue. 

It has high scalability. It's easy to use, it's easy to run with, it's easy to get it turned on and going.

It's scalable and robust and it can be used or any customer worldwide irrespective of the complexity of the Customers. 

Our production Stonebranch server is interacting with 27 different systems: Unix, AIX, Red Hat, and Windows systems. It's firing off about 1,000 jobs an hour and there's no problem. I don't see it taxing the CPU of the box we've got it running on it. It's incredibly scalable. I cannot imagine what it would take to start getting it overheated.

No issues.

It's a very scalable solution.

It's very scalable. You can run as many agents as you need, depending upon how many servers you're monitoring or integrating into it. We're running about 10,000 tasks every day. I've heard of other companies doing hundreds of thousands. I'm not concerned about scalability.

Usage is increasing at a steady rate. It's heavily used. It's a very integral piece of our batch processing daily.

scalability is good however it is lacking alternative to extend controller cluster's node numer.

No.

Can be scaled.

Its processes are easily scalable.

The tool is consistently executing large batch jobs. Issues that we attempt to correct are more often than not within the application itself and not UAC.

It is easy to scale the environment by adding new clients to the server pool. However, you have to do some manual work.

It's good.

The solution is very easy to scale. If a company needs to scale the solution out, it can do so.

So far, the projects we are working on are for a small company. We haven't tried it for an enterprise-level company just yet. That may come in the future.