From a scalability point of view, it is good. We did an upgrade for the memory, and it is stable and easy. We added some hosts in a cluster at the desk level. Scalability is fine.

I have been using it for the last ten years. In my current company, there are around 5,000 end users. 

But now, the users really want to move out of this solution. It's more difficult from a manageable point of view. We need a specific person with expertise to administer the environment. It totally depends on the cost. The users want to save costs, so they want to move to the cloud, either IBM cloud or Orange cloud. They want to move out; they don't want to expand further.

It's already made to scale, so you don't need to buy add-ons. In addition, you can use it to restore almost all your needs, not just for Cisco UCS B-Series. We have over 50,000 jobs running on our servers, which is valuable to our whole organization.

The scalability is good because it comes with Fabric Interconnects, and you can directly add more blades as you go. Therefore, scalability is not a problem.

It is a scalable solution.

Around three or four customers of my company work with the product. If I consider Cisco's collaboration suite, Cisco UCS B-Series is used by a lot of clients because most of the collaboration applications under the suite work.

Cisco UCS allows for good scalability through centralized management, enabling easy firmware and driver upgrades across multiple chassis from one place.

Organizations can purchase extra devices or appliances and integrate them easily with Cisco UCS B-Series. It has good scalability. We have more than 3000 end users for it, and we plan to gradually increase the number of users.

The B series is pretty scalable. You can have several chassis within an FI pair. Then you could have multiple UCS domains. Now, with the InterSite, you can have multiple configurations more so than the UCSB series with the InterSite managed solutions where you can have B series and you can have both UCS manager and InterSite yet you can't have both. With the UCS X series available, that's another game change.

Our customer base definitely intends to increase usage.

The platform is highly scalable, allowing upgrades on demand without replacing the entire machine. 

We have not encountered any scalability issues. We added blades and upgraded memory along the way. We had open slots in the chassis and added additional blades. We upgraded the RAM in existing systems for more VM headroom.

Until now, I haven't used the scalability feature of the product. I will have to use the scalability features of the product after five to six years of usage of the product.

If I consider the use of the solution in my company, I would say that there are around 600 endpoints in my organization.

There are 90,00,000 users of the solution.

The tool is scalable. We have 30,000 users.

We haven’t faced any issues with the solution’s scalability. Around 1,000 to 2,000 users are using the solution in our organization, and we may plan to increase the usage.

The solution is scalable. We have more than 52,000 customers using this solution. We have it installed in banking, government entities, and private sectors.

I especially like the scalability aspect because, compared to the HP servers that we had before, those were rack-mount servers whereas the Blade is just a plug and play. If we need more computing power, we just bring a new Blade and plug it in and auto-conservation setup in the profiler takes over the new Blade and it's that easy. We are a team of three admins using this solution. 

The solution is scalable.

The scalability is very portable and swappable. So we can add and expand resources easily. Dozens of people are using the solution in our organization, and six are responsible for managing the infrastructure as administrators.

Cisco UCS B-Series is more scalable because of the blade servers. It's one of the most scalable solutions in the whole world.

Cisco UCS B-Series is a scalable solution with a fairly advanced environment that can scale easily. It is not cheap, but it provides the ability to scale up in terms of computing, networking, and memory. Around 2,000 people are using the solution as our central computing. In terms of management, we're a small team of ten people working with the solution. The solution is being used daily in our organization.

I rate the solution ten out of ten for scalability.

This is a scalable product.

Early on, we encountered scalability issues – UCS was to support 40 chassis – but it only did 10, then increased to 20. 20 chassis (160 servers) is more than enough as Moore's law, increased CPU core count and higher network bandwidth all made for the ability to place more workloads in a pod than we were comfortable with. So, it rapidly caught up.

Both Cisco and HP solutions are similar in scalability, supporting up to sixteen blades. There are no significant differences in scalability between the two.

The solution is scalable by adding additional hardware.

It's been able to scale for our needs.

The performance, stability, scalability, and interface are fine.

This product is very much scalable. Once you are using active/passive devices, you can switch them depending on the needs of the infrastructure.

Only one of my clients has this device implemented.

The scalability of this Cisco product goes without saying because it is what the B-Series was designed to do. You can always add in additional blade servers to your existing chassis. So the scalability is really good and something Cisco built into the product.  

I would rate the scalability as seven out of ten. Other vendors also have easy deployment methods, sometimes even easier than Cisco.

Our clients are enterprise businesses. 

It is a scalable solution, but it requires a lot of the skills to be able to manage and expand the product.

Around six to seven customers of my company work with Cisco UCS E-Series Servers.

Cisco UCS B-Series is scalable.

I rate the scalability of the Cisco UCS B-Series a ten out of ten.

Scalability is very flexible, thanks to Profiling of the hardware on which you can transfer the profile of a system to another without any action or configuration needed.

It is a scalable solution. A total of fifty users are using the solution at the moment. 

In our experience, this is a scalable solution.

I rate the solution's scalability a seven out of ten. It could be improved.

At present, we have implemented it on Hyper V clusters. We have eight blades on two clusters and six blades on one cluster. In total, we have 250 servers installed from those clusters.

This is a scalable solution.

We have four people that work with it.

It is a blade system so it's fairly scalable.

Cisco UCS scales rather well and while all other systems are online, therefore allowing for in-place upgrades and updates. The system provides great scalability and versatility in regards to system growths and business requirements. You can easily add additional chassis and blade servers with no impact to the systems running in production.

The scalability has been great. We started with a small amount, and we started to test the solution. After that, we grew with it as we needed. It's been great and has fit our needs perfectly.

There are thousands of users on the solution. It's used extensively.

The UCS B-Series is easy to scale. We have approximately 1,000 people using this solution, and it is used on a daily basis.

No issues encountered.

The solution scales pretty well. We have not had any issues with that.

Currently, I'm the only one using the product in our organization.

Cisco UCS is very good with scalability, this is one of the ups of the Cisco UCS and I have used this a lot.

The product is scalable and my company has 5000 users for the solution. 

UCS originally promised to support 40 chassis per fabric – that has now been scaled down to 20 – which limits users to domains of “just 160” physical server blades. This has not proven to be an issue or obstacle. The release of UCS Central provides software to manage an array of fabrics so we can scale to thousands of physical servers.

Probably the RAID card really limits what the servers are capable of if you require storage.

The scalability is powerful.

None. Cisco UCS, to this day, has been the most easily scalable server product I have encountered. Hyper-converged solutions have potential, yet have not shown me that they are scalable at an enterprise level the way the B Series UCS are at this time.

It is designed to address scalability.

I have not encountered any scalability issues.

It's been able to scale for our needs.

We use Cisco UCS B-Series predominantly and have 50 end users in our organization.

I think it's very scalable. I have an opportunity to provide for more Blade Servers, and if I need more power or resources, I just have to provide the Blade Servers. Right now, we have two administrators.

I did not encounter any issues with scalability.

The scalability of the solution is good. 

I'm not sure how many people are actually using the product. In America, we utilize about 3,000 servers and we utilize 4,000 servers ourselves. That's a total of 7,000 servers.

The scalability potential of the product is very, very good. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so with relative ease.

This solution is scalable. 

The scalability is very good.

No issues encountered.

No.

I've had no issues with scalability.

I have not encountered any scalability issues.

In most of our deployments, no issues were encountered.

I have found the solution scalable.

It's highly scalable. With everything set up, downtime is never an issue when adding blades.