It's not scalable, which is another reason we're moving. We can have BeyondTrust in Azure, AWS, and have hybrid connectivity.

Yes, we noticed that when trying to rotate 1400 privileged passwords with a single job, the results were not consistent. Support suggested we break the job up into smaller groups. We will likely have well over 200,000 managed accounts in the system when we are fully deployed. We should be able to submit mass password changes without having to break them down into groups of 50 or less.

We have not encountered any scalability issues; we have plenty of capacity for our environment usage. We only added appliances for new data centers and redundancy.

Based on the purchase that we made, we bought an awful lot of appliances. We are using only a small portion of it right now, because it can handle so much volume. We know we can scale up with what we have, and we probably will not need to buy any further appliances down the road. So, that is huge.

For scalability, we had some performance issues with the regular virtual jump servers. Therefore, to make the improvement better and all, we ordered bare metal physical servers. This way we will have better results and the performance will be good. 

At this point, there were no issues with scalability.

We had scalability issues, particularly in regards to the limit of CIs.

We have scalability issues. For our current stress test, it looks like the system is not able to handle a large number of users at peak times.

There were no issues with scalability.

I have not encountered any issues with scalability; this is a true enterprise expandable product for mid-market and beyond.

I have not encountered any scalability issues; it scaled easily.

There is enough power to support our whole organization and the scalability potential is very wide. We currently have between 50-100 users of the solution. 

It is a scalable platform.

There were no issues with scalability.

We have a relatively small implementation, but from what we've seen so far, it would scale pretty well.

It is very scalable. I know it's used in large organizations like banks and healthcare organizations. It's just a matter of swapping in. I recall on one of the enablement calls that I attended, they had a very defined set of parameters where if you reached a certain threshold, you would then swap in another PAM appliance.

There were scalability issues. The architecture forces us to add systems - similar to a Cisco model.

So far, so good. It is new. We haven’t had any issues yet.

Scalability is not an issue because of the architecture. The management piece just manages policies, so you can still go the system and are not handicapped.

It is scalable because we can add and remove all the models. We have onboarded around 500 users, and actual users are around 100 to 500.

The product is very scalable in terms of concurrent sessions that it can handle at a time, number of device it can support, accounts that it can manage, or number of nodes that you can deploy in a cluster. It comes in four forms.

1. Physical appliance
2. Virtual instance
3. AWS
4. Azure (just launched).

We did not encounter any issues with scalability.

It's pretty scalable from what we can see. We have four appliances in a single cluster across two data centers, and we can actually even grow that if we wanted to.

We didn't run into any scale issues at all. The more people involved, the more it was able to handle.

Now, it is scalable.

Scalability has been good. 

Not in my experience.

There were some scalability issues. Along with access manager, there's something called a credential manager. The way the CA PAM solution is designed, a credential manager is local to each of these boxes.

If you want to scale to multiple data centers and multiple end points, the credential manager is not centralized anymore. We need to have a way to synchronize that. That seems to be one of the biggest issues of scalability.

It has AD integration, but the way they do it is an issue, because it's not scalable. For every active directory identity, it basically creates a local user. It defeats the whole purpose of using a single identity store. That's not a scalable solution to manage identities itself. That's a big issue.

We did submit an enhancement request to CA on multi-tenancy and the active directory implementation, and we don't think they have released any updates. That's a big issue with this product.

There were no scalability issues.

Not yet.

So far, no.

I have not faced any scalability issues.

I did not encounter any issues with scalability.

Do not know as of right now, as we only have one instance in production at the moment.

There were no issues with scalability.

Scalability seems to be fine. 

There were no issues with scalability.

Not yet.

We have not encountered any scalability issues.

Yeah, it still does not support HA in Multi AZ subnets.

We did not encounter any issues with scalability.

There were no issues with scalability.

There were no scalability issues experienced, but we never went live.

Easy to scale with clusters.

No, but the answer is not always clear or satisfactory. In some cases, the answer result is vague.

I did not encounter any scalability issues.