I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten because there are some limitations. 

It is a good tool for enterprise-level businesses. 

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. 

We cater to small, medium, and large enterprises. There hasn't been any challenge for us in terms of customer size.

Scalability presents some challenges from a cost perspective. The cost is quite high when it comes to scaling ArcSight. Smaller vendors offer better pricing and structures compared to ArcSight. ArcSight is quite demanding in scalability scenarios, and the cost factor is a major component when deciding whether to purchase the product. So, I think scalability is a challenge in comparison to the pricing.

No scalability issues.

I rate the solution’s scalability a seven out of ten.

If you have employees with knowledge, the solution scales vertically and horizontally. You can just sit there and say, "I'm ingesting this many more log sources, I need this much more processing, and this much more storage," and you can just drop and place. It's easy to scale because we're using clusters and blade servers, so we just slap in a new blade, add it for the cluster, and now it's scaled.

We have SAN storage, all high-speed disks for the 90-day storage, and then mechanical disks for the 188-day storage, and then you go to cold storage after that, which is disk as well, and it's a SAN, so we just swap in new JBODS every time we need more storage.

There are about 40 people using this solution from an analyst point of view within my company. We have threat hunters, endpoint protection research, vulnerability research, and security analysts on levels one through three. Pretty much anyone that operates in a security operation center is using it. We run three shifts, 24 by seven. Each shift is an eight-man team of analysts, and then we have endpoint protection subject matter experts, forensic subject matter experts, and threat hunting subject matter experts all using it Monday through Friday. At any point during the day, there's about 40 active users on the solution. All in all, I think we have 150 named accounts inside of it, but usage, there's about 40 at any one time on it.

I rate the scalability as an eight out of ten.

Scaling up ArcSight isn't a challenge.

ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM) is a scalable solution.

ArcSight is scalable. I started out with three data centers, and now I have it deployed at more than 48 locations.

Scalability is okay although if we had better typology, we could scale more and performance could be better. It's similar to QRadar. We are onboarded for security core processing or data disk core processing. If I wanted to add another 20 line of businesses under that, it should be okay. There's a trade off between the security and performance so the more secure your typology is, will result in degraded performance. We currently have around 2,000 users but hope to increase that number. 

It's costly to scale up ArcSight ESM, but it's scalable. You have to pay for extra storage, licenses, and log processing.

It has been good when it comes to scalability. As an MSSP, we provide services to other customers, and we have customers with different capacity requirements. It is good in terms of moving from one particular size to another.

We have integrated a couple of technologies into ArcSight, both on-premise and on-cloud. We were able to integrate the DNS and the firewalls. We were not able to integrate the EDR.

It is pretty scalable.

The solution is scalable. My company has 20 users. 

We have not had any problems with ArcSight ESM's scalability.

We've had no issues scaling it for our needs.

We did have issues at the start, but this comes down to having good HP ArcSight architects to start with, which we didn't when the project started.

On-premises is a challenge to scale, and we haven't tried the cloud but we've heard it's quite scalable and robust.

No scalability issues have been encountered so far. ArcSight's architecture is very scalable, especially when set up in a layered architecture.

This solution would be more scalable if the interface were more user-friendly. There are rules and alerts, and the user has to have the proper knowledge of all of these things. With a walk-through, I think that it would be quite easy to scale.

We have two people using this solution, and we perform monitoring on a daily basis. In our environment, adding users is quite rare. 

The scalability is pretty good. I would rate it eight out of ten. 

It's an enterprise solution. We have deployed the solution deployed to 30 or 40 clients. 

We do not have plans to increase usage.

This product is designed for easy scalability and can easily scale up without major challenges. However, we have a specific team which looks after the setup and maintenance of the tool.

We have had no issues scaling it for our needs.

The scalability of ArcSight ESM is very good.

On the client's bank site, there are approximately 1,500 users using the solution.

It is not always scalable.

We've had no issues scaling it in the last three years.

It's highly scalable. It works in small scenarios as well as the biggest that I can imagine.

Our initial sizing is enough for our needs. 

HPE ArcSight scales very well at the connector level, Logger level and the ESM level.

Our organization has 10 ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM) users. It is a scalable platform. We are preparing for the budget to increase the usage.

The tool is scalable. 

The solution is scalable and has approximately 500 users utilizing it for enterprise businesses.

ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM) is scalable, but you must size it well.

 ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager has good scalability.

We have three administrators and seven analysts using this solution in my organization.

There are more than six thousand users. However, because it is a log-based system, the scalability is limited. As such, our customer is looking for a solution that can scale better as the number of users and the number of devices in the infrastructure increases.

We didn't encounter any scalability issues. We were able to scale it as and when required.

We have had no issues scaling it to our needs.

The scalability of ArcSight ESM is good.

We have approximately 10 people using this solution. There are 1,000 devices using the solution. We are using the solution to its full capacity. 

The solution is easily scalable. If an organization needs to expand it, they most certainly can.

What we used to do traditionally, to scale, that each device throws up certain EPS and we size the solution accordingly. Once they have a cloud solution, it will be even easier to scale.

The solution works for any size of organization, from small companies to large enterprises.

No.

We've been able to scale it for our needs. We've had no issues with scalability.

We have well over 100,000 employees and we've virtualized a lot. Again, the problem is with getting support as we scale.

On our end it's pretty good. We haven't had any problems adding more sources.

There were no scalability issues.

Scalability was one of our main concerns while choosing a solution and, so far, it has satisfied our needs in this area without any issues.

We've had no issues with scalability.

HP has delivered for our company and its size.

We haven't had a need to scale yet, and maybe not for another two or three years.

It is scalable.

We haven't tried to scale the solution at this point.

We have about 2,100 people on within the company, and five of those are focused on this solution specifically. We don't have plans to increase the usage of ArcSight at this time.

It's a scalable product and the scalability is good.

Our clients are usually enterprise companies.

We encountered no issues with scalability. If needed, ESM can be setup in tiered form. Loggers can be scaled horizontally very efficiently. One box can handle a lot of events.

Scalability was not an issue. The environment was relatively stable and we filtered out non-security events using custom scripts.

This product is not easily scalable. We particularly required skilled personnel to do this activity and it also took a significant amount of time.

The ArcSight Logger is extremely limited when it comes to scalability. For a large deployment that could be handled by a single ESM, a dozen Loggers might be required. The cost of such an undertaking is prohibitive, and there are much more scalable solutions available (ES for instance).

The scalability options are pretty good although costly.

ArcSight can be extended to meet the biggest customers (large enterprise) needs.

There were no scalability issues. A single Express/ESM Appliance is usually enough to support most of the enterprise’s needs. Only package upgrades need to be purchased. No hardware changes are necessary.

As for the loggers for long retention, you can add multiple loggers and cluster them as one virtual appliance. This provides for an easy scalability feature.

For the connectors part, you can implement as many connectors as you need so you can cover all your zones/branches. At a later time, a load-balanced connector for syslog can be introduced to make sure that logs for sensitive UDP packets are lost.

It's very scalable.

The scalability of ArcSight ESM is average to poor.

We have approximately 60,000 users using the solution.

Arc Sight Enterprise Security Manager is scalable.

The number of people running it should be based on the organization's size. If you have a  company with 500 assets, you should have at least one field engineer for the ESM product and two security analysts to operate this software. This is minimum. One engineer and two security analysts is minimum to start if the organization is midsize.

It's scaled fine for our needs.

No. ArcSight is very scalable.

I've not had any problems with scaling into tens of thousands of nodes. I guess the biggest problem you're going to have with that would be actually the compute power to make the tangible decisions that's needed on large-scale environments where you have hundreds of firewalls coming in from different points of ingress. That would be a concern, but again that's not because of the ArcSight, it's just basically that's compute power.

The tool is scalable and my company has 20,000 users. 

The solution can scale if you need it too. It's just an expensive process.

Regarding the scalability, it was a problem that their license model was EPS. If you're familiar with EPS licensing model, events per second, it is not a very good idea as a model as you cannot foresee what's in 2021 or what will be in 2022. From our point, it causes a lack of proper budgeting due to the fact that it's very difficult to budget how many events per second you will generate in all your systems. 

We've had no issues with scalability.

We have had no issues scaling it for our needs.

This solution is stable and scalable. 

I did not have any issues with scalability.

We have not had any issue with the scalability.

We have approximately 20 users using this solution in my organization.

I am satisfied with the solution's scalability. 

Yes. Storage is an issue. Before deploying the product in the organization, proper scaling has to be done or else you end up losing the oldest data, hence failing to meet the audit.

I have not had any issues with scalability.