The solution helps with capacity management, enabling us to determine when we need to scale up the network. This functionality assists in identifying resource needs and scaling appropriately.

We have found the solution to be scalable. 

We are a team of 20 people, and we are using it with 300 customers with 10,000 plus users. We use it daily.

Scalability is very good. You can scale it pretty much however way you want to as long as you have the servers to throw at it. 

Scalability is great. It doesn't take a lot to do a deployment to a bunch servers, and you have multiple ways that you can do that. You can use native deployment method. You can use what the infrastructure team uses for deploying software. You can do a manual method. You have different options and that's awesome.

Scalability is huge. It’s not overly expensive, so I'm able to build upon it relatively cheap, which is a huge win for anybody, any company. As I’ve mentioned, we're running about 100 desktops right now in our VDI environment. We've scaled back. Even though that sounds like a big footprint, due to its advanced scalability within the actual environment, we were able to reduce the number of actual physical robots that we were utilizing from 400 to 100.

This tool scales very well in our environment of over 2K hosts and thousands of other profiles being monitored. As I said previously, only the VMware probe has scaling issues.

The scalability is very easy. We just went global and we scaled up to another about 2000 devices.

It is very scalable, and I rate the scalability a ten out of ten.

Our environment hasn't grown much over the last three years, but we have increased the amount of models that we're monitoring. And the one time that we did increase, it was as easy as spinning up a new server, deploying a hub, and attaching it to our current environment. So, it wasn't that bad.

So far scalability is wonderful. We're looking towards broadening the scope of UIM within our company. We're staying with the E2E right now, but I think not too far in the future we're going to broaden it and go with more in-depth features. From what I've heard here at the CA World conference, it seems I'm the only one doing E2E. So we're going to get into the infrastructure side of it, which we're not currently doing.

I haven't had too many opportunities to expand. We set it up such that I can expand in parallel quite easily. We haven't had the need to do so yet, but I imagine it would work out.

It seems to be very scalable. We have 6,000 servers, and we really haven't run into any scalability issues. We have thousands and thousands of monitors. But the number of alarms for event handling can be a little better. I know they're working on that. They may have another solution coming out that will help us with that.

I would say it’s OK. We’ve got our environment on it, and it seems to be OK, other than the failovers, dropping of probes, and connectivity issues that seems to happen.

With the UI problems, we don’t know if that’s a scalability issue, but as we’ve added more servers, we’re having a harder time seeing all of our alarms.

My team finds DX Unified Infrastructure Management scalable. It's good enough in terms of scalability.

It's really easy to build out as long as you know SQL. On the backend, we put it on Windows in 2008. We’re running 2012 SQL on the back end. It's pretty straightforward.

On the Linux side, we are up to RHEL 7. There is some legacy 6065. We are moving RHEL 7 now. It's already hitting RA. On the Windows side, there's not a lot of Windows out there for us. What is out there, they absolutely are very, very hesitant about it -- if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

We have not encountered any scalability issues.

We have not had any scalability issues.

I have yet to run into anything that it couldn't scale. We've scaled it massively since we've started using it.

In regards to scalability, I think that's a tough question. You really have to look at the implementation. If it's properly provisioned, then there's no issue. If you're sitting on a VM host and guests are competing for resources amongst that host and that host is not providing enough resource, then, yeah there's going to be contention there. As far as the system itself, it is very scalable.

We've had to scale a lot more than support tells us. They claim they can support X, amount of boxes per hub, and we find that's just not even close to true. We don't turn any of the data points on at all by default. We just monitor the CDM probe, the CPU disk and memory for alerts only, and we're not scoring any historical data. We're not capturing those data points, and because we're not capturing those data points, we're basically on a bare bones infrastructure for that box. It seems like support told us we could support 2000 boxes and they were talking fully-loaded with all the data points, and we simply can't. We're maxing out about anywhere from 300 to 500 boxes of robots reporting to a hub. Most hubs, they start to get boggy and stuff. We've had to just add additional hubs.

We also struggle with backup hubs and being able to coordinate the configuration between a primary hub and a fail-over hub for that stuff. We have backup fail-over hubs that basically sit empty and they're just waiting to take on the load. Coordinating the configuration files between them has become impossible. Well, we haven't put tons of effort into it lately, but they had a HA probe, but the HA probe only does so much. It turns a few things on, but there was nothing that would sync up configuration files for certain probes. Without that syncing of config files, it was impossible to keep up.

Our scalability will meet our needs. We did some performance and load testing getting towards implementation, where we pushed more than 250,000 messages in 15 minutes. So, expectations are pretty high.

Scalability is good. We have had to do some customized horizontal scaling solutions that we fed back to CA, which we think they are incorporating, but it is scalable.

No scalability issues encountered.

There have been no issues scaling it.

It scales fairly well. I mean the key with scalability and I think this is true with anything, you have to be able to configure it. The challenges, I think some people will take on an enterprise piece of software and not bring on the people to get it tuned and configured right and then it consumes a whole bunch of data. Then there's this fear of like, "This product isn't scalable." It's like, "Well, you have to tune it to takeout all the default data that you don't want and things that aren't helpful. A lot of enterprise solutions are going to give you the whole kit and caboodle right when you install it and you have to know when to turn it off. I think people end up thinking that something isn't scalable only because when they take it to the enterprise level without tuning it, it doesn't.

We had, to be honest, some of those pains ourselves, we were generating way too much data in our reports, we were generating a ton of network traffic. Once we tuned it and figured how to get just what we wanted and get just the right amount of metrics, our storage numbers and all that came down very reasonably. Serious technical support gets the job done. I wouldn't consider it to be the strength of the product. I think there's a lot of really smart people who run CA. Their product is in other solutions, their products are being implemented by an army of consultants. CA is largely implemented, well from my own experience, not by the consulting team but by hands on guys who work there which means they know the product. I don't think there's as much dependence on the support.

You start with the product. I will look at the product, how you it’s managed, how it’s run, how it’s designed. I’m an architect by trade so and that’s what I did my graduate work in. I'll look and see whether they have an architecture that’s scalable and supportable that they’re modernizing, they are making investments to make sure that it stays current whether it’s with programming languages or new tools or new modules. I look for a strong community base so I want to see something where people are working together outside of their confines of the company to develop either solutions, plug-ins or modules or to share information.

Scalability in terms of how vast you can monitor, Nimsoft is a very useful product.

DX UIM is scalable.

Scalability is dependent on the probe that you're using. Some probes scale really well, some things don't scale really well. So monitoring VMware may not scale as well as monitoring a cloud architecture. You have to test what you're doing.

The scalability of the product has not evolved because it has been very good from the start. It's a very important point. CA UIM has a history of a lot of customers with successful ventures, so scalability is important for its customers. 

When a customer starts with a new product, they want to know it has scalability. They won't use all of the capabilities but scalability has to be there.

Even ten years ago, if a large bank or transport or trading company used UIM, they knew the product was scalable, flexible.

Scalability is good.

No scalability issues so far. That's been fine.

Since this solution is new to me, I don't know if it was properly scaled out for our environment to be as efficient and effective as it needs to be. A lot of the solution we have are single points of failure. I don't really have an answer about scalability. I would assume since we only have single points of failure, I guess scalability is something that wasn't taken into account.

I wouldn't say that there has been anything out of the ordinary.

There are potential issues with the flexibility for the number of devices that we have because the scalability-performance issue is not fully vetted. CA needs to work on a better API model for us to manage those devices in a larger enterprise.

We have over 20,000 servers, and I don't believe that the ease-of-use to deliver 20,000 should requires a lot of manual processing. Nevertheless, we've wasted a lot of hours doing manual processes to deliver the solution. So, there's an issue with scalability from that perspective.

We're monitoring our entire server environment using UIM, so that’s 5000+ servers, and over 300 applications, across the world.

Scalability seems great because they use hubs, so if your hub is hitting capacity on a number of servers, devices it's talking to, you can just add another hub. And it's a message-based system.

We've had no issues with scalability.

No problems with scalability right now, but I have a fundamental design concern—everything comes back to a central point, and while I haven’t seen it become a major problem yet, I can see that once you get over around 20,000 devices, it can become a problem, or if you increase your data too much, data just backs up and the system slows.

Right now, both processes of Linux-to-Oracle and Windows-to-SQL backend are similar at 2700 messages/minute, which is OK, and they go up to 4500, but I can see where that will eventually get to a point where the central point can’t handle.

NAS, single point – it allows for a lot of customization, but there are limitations in terms of scalability. You can distribute the NAS, but it adds a lot more complexity.

As I said above, scalability is one of the key parts to my deployments. I have had no issues in the past, but you must have an understanding of the systems bus and response metrics to really scale the product up to its full potential.

I do not know if I can speak to it.

We have not had scalability issues.

The scalability is great. I think they understand that it’s a concern because it's at the enterprise level. I think they're moving in the right direction.

I know that right now we're a little bit outdated in the product version that we have; but it's just part of the product, and we understand that. Moving forward, when we update, and when we do all these things, I know that the scalability has been opening up in different components within UIM.

Adding components, such as MCS, which enables you to configure your entire enterprise from one place, is a good thing.

Scalability is good. We went from about 1200 to about 5000, so we've scaled very large.

There have been no issues scaling it.

The scalability is very good. We have a lot of servers we call hubs, and we can scale the infrastructure without limits.

I'd rate the scalability at a five out of five.

We have around 1,000 users on the tool.

We have a lot of managed-service customers on the solution. 

In our initial roll-outs in the early years, the product proved to be quite effective in its scalability, but as we continued to grow, we have seen scaling limits. My team, the infrastructure team, are primarily the administrators of the solution. There are six of us in the team. Then there's our level one in our team with about 20 people, and then there's some SMEs that handle specific components within the system and there's probably 70 or 80 of them.

Scalability has been fine. As the new servers are brought on with the new MCS tool, it allows us to get configuration on the servers put on in a faster time.

Scalability is one of its strong points. A manager server (hub) can manage a lot of nodes. Adding another hub is really straightforward. You just need to make sure you have plenty of storage for both the database and the primary hub.

That shouldn't be a problem. We only have about 2000 systems in it, which isn't really that large in the grand scheme of things. It's doing fine, and we are losing far less resources than we were told we would need to have, so we've got a lot of room to grow in what we've allocated to it.

The scalability is good, because of our diverse locations and the large number of applications. However, getting the right components in the right area, we just have to think through it and engineer it.

We've been able to scale it across 20 platforms in 3 different data centers. It doesn't mean it's simple, but once you've got your thresholds down and your methodology, your strategy of what you want to monitor, it works pretty well.

There were no issues with scalability after re-designing. After years of experience and PS we found the tiered design works best for scalability.

Scalability's gotten better. When we first were using it, there were some challenges with that, but we were able to work with CA and scale it up to an enterprise class.

I would say it is scalable. We use it in a multi-context environment. What I mean by that is, as a service provider, naturally we have customers who scale horizontally. So, for us, we've got a template-driven approach now. With the advent of virtualization and cloud, that's also allowed us to scale out much quicker.

No

It is an easily scalable product.

It's very scalable. We have no issue adding on additional clients because of just the way the product has been designed, it allows us to scale very heavily.

Depending on the amount of data you intend to collect, the database to store it all may get large. Other than that, the product supports big numbers regarding scalability.

We've increased the product's footprint twice and it's rose to the challenge each time. We've integrating multiple other companies that have been acquired with this product. It's just been a fantastic solution.

There have been no issues scaling it out.

It does seem that it is flexible; as we grow with our service offering it does have the flexibility to scale the architecture. No problems so far.

We just have to watch the group sprawl.

No issues encountered.

We have setup this solution so that we can easily scale up as necessary. It is a multi-tenanted arrangement, so if  new companies come on board, we will then deploy it to them.

We have not run into any issues. I will not know until we deep dive into it later, when we get everything up and running. We only have a few racks online right now. Until we get it fully deployed, I will not really know if we would be able to easily add or remove devices as needed.

There have been no issues with the scalability.

Scalability for redundant data centers is challenging.

It does scale very well; we have had no issues here at all.

No issues encountered.

No issues were encountered.

There are limitations on how many queues you can use inside the HUB probe. This limitation causes you to add frontend HUBs as a solution.

I have not encountered any scalability issues.

There were some issues.

No. This is one of the best designed products for stability due to its message bus concept design which makes its hub lite in processing.

We have not encountered any scalability issues.

We've had no issues with scalability.

I see performance issues when I’m in UIM and it’s due to the amount of hubs we’re monitoring.

I think the product is quite strong in this regard, but maybe not so much the underlying database. If the deployment is going to be extremely large than a clued up DBA is a must.

No issues encountered.

Capacity management must be done on a regular basis if your IT environment grows too quickly.

No issues with scalability, the product can be used in a large enterprise. Different admins can manage their scope of devices and their hubs without interfering with main servers.

Our issue comes in scaling. We're hitting a point with our customer base where we brought on enough clients in using the software that we're starting to hit some interesting connectivity hurdles. As a result of that, some things can take one or two attempts for it to work the way we want it to; maybe probes closing out or a connectivity from our primary infrastructure right down to one of our client sites. It can take two or three approaches, but overall its pretty good. There just are those occasional hiccups. 

There were no scalability issues.

It's very scalable. We need scalability. We are pro-rating and putting it in multiple sites.

It's great. We're considering large scaling, but at this point we have a vision to be much larger and we think we can utilize that functionality.

We encountered scalability issues in some areas such as bandwidth monitoring.

No

The scalability has been good. We take extreme advantage of polling and monitoring in multiple data centers as our footprint has gotten bigger. The only concern is with the database, but they have improved controlling data retention.

So far it’s adapting to what we need. In the future, we hope it can keep up with us.

No issues but the architecture must be well designed.

It is scalable.

Out of the box, there were no scalability issues. However, this product has poor integration with ServiceNow; introducing unacceptable bottlenecks.

It is scalable. In production, we have about 600-700 servers.

Yes, we addressed them internally, again due to lack of vendor support.

It is one of the only products, which you can do multiple tiers or multiple proxies. No other product can do this. You can monitor it on a high scale of devices. 

It’s very scalable.

It’s very scalable, and has been able to handle our growing number of devices.

Only in database configuration. It needs a lot of planning before the initial install, and our database is over 2TB in size, and was not installed correctly, although this was my fault, and not that of CA.

No issues encountered.

No.

I have not encountered any scalability issues.

No.

Great. It's easy to push out across numerous servers. Very scalable. 

Scalability is good, but it could be working better.

I did not encounter any scalability issues.

It has adapted well over the years. No issues here.

No scalability issues.

We have not had scalability issues yet.