vRA 8 is really scalable. There are a lot of integrations that have been much easier compared to vRA 7. For example, Orchestrator is now built into vRA rather than being a Java-based application, like it was in vRA 7, which has been good.

In our organization, there are around 20,000 to 30,000 users. These could be project managers, application owners, etc.

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability 6 out of 10. The scalability has improved, making it easier to expand and maintain additional features in VMware Aria Automation.

We have to review some aspects while scaling the VMs due to the connectivity issue.

Internally, the solution is being used by around 10-15 people and 10,000-15,000 people across the globe. We use it daily because the application needs to be up and running for the whole day. Users are currently using Aria Automation.

I rate the solution’s scalability an eight out of ten.

We have three VMware Aria Automation users in our organization. It is a scalable product.

We have 89-90 VMware Aria Automation users in our organization. It is suitable for enterprises. I rate the platform's scalability a five out of ten. There could be automated features included for it.

I would rate it nine out of ten. 

We have medium-sized businesses as our clients for this solution. 

Hardware depends upon the volumes. I had small customers who had two to three clusters of eight servers each to an enterprise customer with 80,000 servers.

VMware products are meant for scalability. For example, today my environment is 1500 VDS's. We acquired a company with 300 users. To merge them, I didn't need to worry about anything like hardware because it was already there. I was able to do it on the fly in one shot.

It is scalable. However, you cannot increase the number of VMware nodes on the fly. For instance, if you deployed it to a three-node cluster, you cannot simply expand that cluster. Instead, you have to deploy a new cluster with a new set of nodes.

I work in a product-based company, so we have customers for this solution in a service-based company, where we have a direct understanding of the number of customers we're supporting, whereas, in a product company, we only have access to customer usage data.

VMware Aria Automation is easily scalable. My company has 15-20 users. 

You can deploy a single node or an enterprise cluster consisting of three nodes. 

We could scale horizontally with Automation but we're looking more at containers to scale some of our apps more horizontally. But yes, it does integrate very well with other vSphere products that allow us to scale horizontally as well.

The solution is absolutely scalable. 

Scalability-wise, this is a good solution.

We have approximately 100 people using the cloud-based part of the solution, whereas about 10 of them use the legacy system.

We do not currently have plans to increase our usage.

I would think that it is scalable. Our clients are usually looking for somebody who can deploy and configure their environments or provide some kind of managed services support. Around 10% to 15% of our customers are on VMware vSphere automation and vRA automation. Internally, there is a 25% utilization. We are planning to expand its usage this year, and we will see how multi-cloud automation can be utilized. We will try to implement things or use cases in a virtual environment, and then we can resell those use cases, provide support for those use cases, or give training to the customers. 

Scalability is probably the best part about it. You can take things that you've already defined, that you've already built once, and build them again multiple times, without significant effort.

Our most significant deployment is two clusters working with a single instance, and it's running perfectly fine. It comprises two clusters of 15 ESXI servers each, so it's a massive deployment.

We do plan to increase usage and deploy vRA for other customers, but we currently have a small number of customers actively using it. Then we have our internal segment of vRA that we connect to a few small customers. But the idea is to expand it and add as many customers as possible.

It is a scalable tool. We can scale it horizontally and vertically. Our organization has plenty of users, including internal and external customers.

VMware Aria Automation is a very scalable solution because it integrates well with a couple of leading products in the industry. For products that are not already integrated, there are plugins or adapters that can be used with customization. 

Because we are a large organization, we probably have more than 30 people who use the solution.

Scalability has been working fine.

In terms of scalability, vRA has connections to a lot of different systems. It's very flexible and an impressive product. It's almost scarily flexible.

It scales fine. We've been scaling on storage but we actually have two divisions. We just deployed it to another division to help them out. The company I work for grows by acquisition so the new acquisitions are now getting this pointed to them so they can provision faster, with basically the same standards, instead of doing stuff manually.

In terms of scalability, I would rate this solution at eight out of ten.

If you have a normal use case like a conventional enterprise and use it for yourself then you might never test its limits. In our case, our customers are creating a lot of business groups and this led to a lot of problems later on.

Scalability is very agile. You can scale it however you want.

In terms of scalability, this customer is looking to expand and they have to plan to buy and multiply their resources. After that, because they like vRA, they want to buy vSAN because they also want to automate the storage scalability and storage for the VM sites.

Scalability is good. We haven't had any real concerns over that because we have a data center footprint. We haven't had any real limitations on acquisitioning new hardware so, at the rate at which we're growing, we're making the right projections and we haven't really exceeded our availability.

It is a highly scalable solution.

Scalability, I have no issues with that as well. As long as I have the compute, storage, and network bandwidth to support it, the underlying infrastructure is there. It's pretty expandable.

We have no issues whatsoever with it. It's very scalable.

It seems to scale up pretty well. If you're talking about how many classes it manages, the older version, the 6.0 series, we actually have it managing all of our clusters across both of our major datacenters; we're talking about being able to build in to dozens of different clusters. So, it's scaled very well.

You can do quite a few at once. Usually, it's more the order of what it's getting back from an independent service. Sometimes, they can step on each other if you put too many off at once, but that has to do with the fact it's trying to request a sequence number; you're trying to get two sequences at once. But that's not really as problem with vRA. It's the way that it was setup to retrieve stuff from these other third parties.

We haven't hit any limits yet, scalability is good. 

Scalability is perfect. We haven't had any issues.

I haven't run into any scalability issues with it yet.

Its scalability still has room to improve when supporting Google Compute Engine, Google Cloud Platform, and Azure.

No issues currently with scalability of the product or its uses cases it was implemented for.

We have not had the opportunity to scale - instances where we need to scale up or down - but I believe it's quite scalable.

We scale, we have 180 plus customers in the environment and we have courts with as few as maybe four servers and as many as 80. So it's a very diverse range of systems and they absolutely love it. It scales great.

We grew our deployment upwards of five sites and the system functioned as desired.

This solution is used by six sysadmins.

Scalability is good. We also use other solutions and we are still beginners with these products. We still have to set the time to configure it so that we can maximize its benefits.

We don't have any problems with scale. We are running VRA at a very big scale with multiple deployments and don't have any issues with scalability. 

Scalability is good enough as it is.

The scalable is okay.

It seems to scale well. We haven't really had too many problems. There have been a couple of issues, but they have mainly been with our external systems, not the solution itself. It has been able to handle the churn workload.

It is very scalable, at least for our environment. We have thousands of ESXi infrastructure, and for that, it works well.

We have one customer using the solution. The solution is best suited for enterprise companies.

The solution is scalable.

We have scaled up. For me and my team, it's very easy.

Scalability is good. We have extended its reach out into our DR site and out into the hybrid cloud. The extendability is really much better than it was in the early days of vRA.

It scales.

It's scalable. We're such a large company, we would never even consider using it if we didn't think it had a lot of room to grow, for the capacity that we utilize.

We have not yet had to scale it but I understand that the product does scale.

Right now, we're also installing a vRealize Automation in India and expanding. The fact that we're moving from the US to India just shows the power of being able to add capacity, CPU to it, as much as we need. If we need to grow that fixed capacity, we can.

It scales horizontally too with users, more systems, it's easy.

Version 7.3 seems to be more scalable than previous versions.

Scalability is excellent.

Because we're on the older version, the scalability is a lot more complex than the newer version. We actually built bigger than we needed when we deployed it. I do know from testing it in our lab that the scalability in the newer version is pretty robust.

It’s definitely scalable, and does a lot that we’re not doing yet, but we’ll eventually be there. We’re capturing logs from all over world, and everything is in one location, so we can scale to meet that need.

Right now, it doesn't scale for us, but it will once we move into the new environment. It will probably scale five years out, especially with the way that we can integrate different endpoints.

Its scalability looks good, but we have not experienced it yet. 

Scalability is good.

Scalability is good. It has been fine. We have been using it for quite some time and haven't seen any issues.

We do not need to scale it. One instance is sufficient.

We left room to be able to expand in the future. This was the job of our consulting company.

Scalability is one of those things we haven't used or needed. But it's there when do. We have confidence that it will meet our needs when we need them.

Since we are looking at public-cloud scalability, as long as that model works, I think we should be good. We're not too focused on the scalability on-prem but we want to see how it scales out to the public cloud.

We have not had any problems with scalability. We're not pushing the boundaries on the number of deployments with it, but no issues.

We can scale it up or down. We haven't needed to yet, but we can.

It is very scalable. We are currently using some 20,000 workloads across multiple customers.

It should be scalable. We have left room for it to be scalable. But right now we have a target area that we have it set at, and it's perfectly set that way.

Scalability is great. They allow you to deploy in different situations and scale up. If you want a bigger vRealize Automation installation, you just spin up more of these appliances.

It gets a rap for being an incredibly complex product to deploy, specifically because it's a highly scalable solution. You have to know how to set up all these different pieces, deploy Windows boxes, set up IaaS, configure your load balancers, whether that's in NSX or, say, an F5, which is what we use, or whatever else you're going to use.

We tend to do smaller deployments than huge deployments of it because we're usually targeting multiple groups.

We did not encounter scaling issues because we had a limited release of the product since it was a POC.

We haven't had any scalability issues. We're nearly 10,000 virtual machines that are registered to our vRealize Automation deployment. With Orchestrator, we did see some scalability concerns, but we clustered it and added some additional resources and we were able to scale it up. We haven't had an issue since.

It depends, because you are still dependent on the Windows machine that does all the requests and pulls from other agents. It can scale out if you size it right the first time.

Everything is much improved, especially with vRA's automation 7 and newer, as they move more things into virtual appliances and out of Windows. That's a win for everybody. It's a win for the customers. It's a win for us deploying it. It's a win for manageability, scalability, everything.

We recently went through two or three upgrades, and now we're doing an upgrade for the most recent version. In that regard, it's pretty scalable. The way we can actually manage our virtual machines directly through the interface is somewhat of a gain as well.

You can scale out deployment so that's good as well. You can just tack on more Windows servers. That's good for scale out.

Scalability is endless. What I would like to see in vRealize Automation is an SMB version, a simplified version, but still have the advanced options. For example, we use a lot of fenced deployments. We have five virtual machines deployed to fenced environments, which is our most common scenario. 

We are a small office with only 600 people and about 16 technical support personnel.

It's scalable. There are a lot of different things you could do with it. Really it's whatever you want to do. Whatever you want to put your mind to, to make it scale, it'll do it.

I feel vRA is scalable. Being able to develop it more, and get more installations, more things to use it for, will be able to help us scale it out and use it for more people.

We haven't had any scalability issues yet, but we are approaching that potential, whenever we get larger customers. The customers that we do have on, if they do use it, they're just testing the waters with it.

• It's scalable. You can scale it to whatever you want to do.
• It's customizable. You can tweak it to how you want to use the tool.

Our developers and IT consumers use it as well as other infrastructure teams.

vRA is the means for 90 percent of our infrastructure requests. There are use cases where things, like big data or bare-metal, don't necessarily provision this type of stuff.

This solution is very scalable.

The scalability is fantastic. It's there.

We're starting small, but we see the ability to scale quickly and easily.

We're actually not that big, so we do a simple deployment.

It is scalable, I haven't see any problem. I haven't done much, but I know that the distributed model is highly scalable and I have deployed that. In the simple model, something like 10,000 operations simultaneously, which is more than enough for most people.

The scalability is fine when you go with the high availability deployment.

The scalability is okay. You can't, to my knowledge - and I could be wrong - tell it to deploy like this: "I want 20 VMs all configured this way," and have it go ahead and spin them off. You have to do them one at a time. So, from a scalability standpoint that's not great, but it could also be that we're just not using it correctly. We don't actually have the need to do that very often, but from time to time we'll get a request such as, "We need five SQL Server VMs." It would be nice to be able to do it once and be done with it, rather than repeat that process five times.

I'm extremely happy with the scalability.

Scalability hasn't been a problem. For the agency where we have it deployed, there are 4500 to 5000 VMs.

As of now, it seems like it does scale. However, we haven't hit the point where we are deploying in a large scale.

It's extremely scalable.

I would say great. For different solutions, it allows us to scale.

No, it's very scalable. It's fairly easy to add the numbers of servers to allow it to scale up. As I've said, we've seen it running hundreds of concurrent deployments with the right design and the right number of devices. Obviously, while supporting the platform, it's very scalable.

We have not yet looked into scaling out the solution.

The scalability is not good. It is slow to scale to our needs. 

I have found the scalability to be good. We share infrastructure with multiple machines and infrastructure servers. 

It's easy to be scalable on it. You're as scalable as the infrastructure you have behind it.

It has met our needs scale-wise, in that environment.

It's scalable, in terms of adding Blueprints.

It's scalable. It's very good in scaling.

The scalability is very good. That's one of the reasons we like it. Is scales great.

Scalability has been excellent. It scales well horizontally. Vertically, you'd have to do a lot to make that happen. It will scale both ways. One way is easier. Horizontally is way easier to scale. It's just the nature of the way the product is built.

No. The product is very scalable.

There were no scalability issues.

We've only used it within our lab engineering environment, which is up to 1,000 VMs at any point, so it's been pretty solid.

We have tested a little on how to put in some operations metrics.

For example, if say, "This will run that script, deploy up some more virtual machines, and/or if this will automate that." We haven't had to expand on that yet. We're trying right now to use Automation Center more for development purposes only. We haven't utilized it in a production environment scenario yet.

Scaling works quite well. I have vRealize Automation and on the Cloud I have IBM Blue Mix. So I have scaling of my environment and I can scale my storage.

We have 30 virtual machines.

No issues.

It has some limitations for scalability, especially for remote data center management. For some components, everything need to be centralized.

We have it deployed in a highly-available environment and scalability is nice because we just add another ESX host and then we are able to increase the capacity.

Not as good, but there are some components in vRA that you can scale out a lot more quickly than other pieces.

We're satisfied with the scalability of the solution.

New versions are quite scalable, but when it comes to managing a Telco environment, it has bottleneck.

Not really.

No.

I'm very happy to see the partnership with AWS.

We faced no issues with scalability.

Sometimes, we encountered scalability issues but they were negligible.

We don't use the scalability.

It is scalable.