IBM FileNet is a scalable solution. We had a lot of data, and the searches were fast. We never had an issue with the solution's scalability.

My company has 200 users. I rate the solution's scalability an eight out of ten. 

The bigger products like IBM FileNet can handle billions of documents and thousands of users, compared to smaller tools that are not equipped for such scale.

Most of our customers do not want to move their sensitive internal data to the cloud. However, the solution's scalability within the IBM cloud has been very well maintained, and clients do not face issues.

The product is one of the best products that can handle high availability. It can work with distributed content and servers around the globe on the same cluster of content engines. We cater the solution to medium-sized businesses.

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

We have more than 500 IBM FileNet users in our organization. It is a scalable platform, and I rate the scalability a seven out of ten.

In terms of scalability, we started with about 100 relationship partners and now we have around close to 1,000 partners, so it's quite good.

It scales very well. We just keep adding on capacity. We have about 750 million documents in it, with no problems.

Scalability is fantastic. We did a major replatforming a few years ago. We moved to a newer platform of our AIX, WebSphere, etc.; all virtual. We are able to scale out, scale up. We were able to change the configurations and that has improved the performance of the system by 75%.

If you implement the infrastructures correctly at the beginning, it's a pretty scalable solution. The platform is scalable, both vertically as well as horizontally.

There are no scalability limits. The scalability is everything that we've needed.

We have customers with a very small user base, 50 users or so, and we have some who have a really big user base. But the scalability is primarily dependent on how long you are storing documents. The time over which documents are stored now has been extended far beyond seven years. In the past, often this was a financial necessity. But now, even though we do not have insurance companies as clients, we have customers where the stored documents are more than ten or 15 years old. The scalability is also more dependent on the count of documents than on the user-base interaction.

From my point of view, it's scalable enough. Today there are machines which are scalable, where you can put in additional processors and memory. In today's scenarios, scalability is not really an issue. FileNet can take advantage of today's technology for scaling. There are other products which cannot because the database prohibits it. When they use MS SQL Server Express, for example, there are limitations. And when you have windream and such solutions in the German market, which are also in the Austrian customer area, they show wonderful functionality and a wonderful GUI, but when it comes to the extensibility and scalability, they reach their limits relatively early.

IBM FileNet is very scalable, deserving a ten out of ten rating.

The scalability is infinite if you know how to use it in your software products.

It's absolutely scalable. It is scalability as far as the servers and systems. The physical systems can scale by being able to attach and hook into different automation that we create and when we link things together.

Scalability is really good. Earlier, it used to be a cluster-based solution. Now, with the latest versions over the last five or six years, we have a form architecture, which we produced. We find that it helps for scaling all of our systems to our service.

Scalability is also good. Although, I'll have to admit that with our use case right now, we have a very good prediction of the number of customers. So, we've been able to meet our benchmark. But, at the same time, if it has to become much more larger than that, I'm not quite sure about where we would end up.

Scalability is unlimited; it really is.

IBM File Manager is scalable and it is easy to do.

We have approximately 100 users using this solution.

My impression of the scalability of the solution is that it is not really good since FileNet is a high resource-consuming solution.

There are no issues with scaling. It's based on WebSphere Application Server so it's very easy to scale up.

It was very scalable. If we needed to add more processing power we could just add another server, turn it on, and then we had more power. We didn't have any scalability problems.

It gives us flexibility to expand it and grow it and scale it really simply.

We have an enterprise license. We've been able to scale it up to large groups, as well as very small independent areas.

We add stuff to it all the time, so it's scaling vertically all the time, and we haven't had any issues with it. We started out around 3GB, and we're up to about 5GB, and we expect to be somewhere at around the 10 to 12GB mark by 2020, just because that's the way our business is growing.

Scalability is so far good. We have great adoption with the tool. For the users that we are supporting to date, it seems to be handling the load and performing well. 

Scalability is excellent and actually, it has been really great. It scales really well.

No scalability problems at all.

Scalability is great. We have increased our size in FileNet. We have doubled its size in the last year and it is working well.

The solution is very scalable.

Scaling is easy. You can scale vertically because in front of the application server there is load balancing. You can put a lot of application servers behind the load balancing. It's very easy. We were using Oracle Database and we could scale the database very easily as well. You can upgrade and scale up without any downtime. That is very important.

It's easily scalable. We have multiple environments for FileNet, millions of documents. It's easy to scale and we don't have to worry about downtime.

The scalability is very nice. It is very scalable. We are in a high availability mode.

The scalability is phenomenal. It just keeps growing. I've often likened FileNet to a teenager at an all-you-can-eat buffet, where you can just keep on feeding it and it'll keep eating and eating and eating. You'll run out of food long before the teenager stops eating.

IBM FileNet can add and manage processes for a minimum of five and 1000 users.

The whole solution is based on IBM WebSphere, which is basically a complicated website. So all the applications are running on that IBM software and you can create a cluster, more than one server which is handling all those requests. So you can scale it up to as many servers as you need, which increases the performance significantly. Also, you have redundancy in this case. If one of the servers doesn't work, the rest of the servers automatically handle the workloads.

Scalability is where we run into some challenges because we use it to scale where most customers don't. Therefore, we sometimes have unique problems or find some product limitations that other customers don't.

Scalability is one of it strengths. It is growing pretty rapidly. 

We have not seen any interruptions, and I am not aware of any scalability issues right now.

Actually, high availability and scalability are related.

There is no longer a document limit. We can easily scale both the systems and storage areas, no problem, without any performance degradation, without any high-availability degradation. We can easily scale.

For scalability, we have a load balancer and the AIX systems, which really help us to handle the volume and the user input also.

Scalability is good.

It is scalable.

It is scalale.

It has scaled well based off the user community that we have.

It could be easier to scale, but in our implementation we can build up a new server and a whole new environment in about a day and a half.

It would be nice if they could make it like containers are working in Kubernetes to auto-scale based on demand.

Scalability is good. IBM is one of the platforms that we can upgrade. They have different versions and new versions and upgrades happen without a lot of issues. As a developer or partner, we can take advantage of the flexibility of the scalability.

It is used by large enterprises. It has to be scalable and robust for them to use. We have seen that on multiple projects over the years.

It is very simple to add any users that you need to. Implement it once, and so long as it works, you can add and train more people to use it. Scalability is absolutely there.

It is scalable.

Most of our customers want to expand their automation processes. They initially implement it in four to five departments and then they expand it to the rest of the departments.

Actually, right now, we are moving to the new version of FileNet. We are doing all the scalability right now to have more processes involved with the FileNet platform.

I have found that it scales well.

It seems fine, it's dynamic. It works with all the different business needs that we have for it.

It's an enterprise solution. Everybody, from coast to coast, is using it. It's not only departmental or one geographical area. It's enterprise, coast to coast, and it’s being used.

It is very scalable, and scalable enough for us.

It is highly scalable.

It is definitely scalable. Right now, we're planning to move most of our departments over and I don't see any issues at all, infrastructure-wise, being able to accommodate most of our departments.

Scalability-wise, we're really happy with that, as well. It's a system that we built with scalability in mind. We went highly available with it and we know exactly how to branch out for every single node that we want, every component that we've got.

My overall impression of scalability is great. The way IBM allows you to design object stores, and have cross-object store searches, and the quantity of documents that are supported per object store or within FileNet P8, far exceeds what we had with our previous vendor, with the legacy system.

The scalability is great, it's just there are a couple of places, and some of it is specific to features that aren't used by every customer, but there are certain features that, if it's not a scalability issue, it might be a monitoring issue, and taking action against a potential negative impact to the system.

The scalability is pretty good. We can scale horizontally at any one point of time, so we are able to scale pretty easily.

We have about 150 users on it. 

We have around six working machines. It has good capacity, so far.

Our design and technical departments use it for automation projects. The solution is being integrated and scaled into other departments. 

Business users are utilizing it day-to-day usage in the organization.

Scalability-wise and robustness-wise, it's awesome.

It's just amazed me how we were able to scale it, the size of it and its stability going along with that size.

Absolutely best in market for scalability. You can scale it, and it just keeps on going.

I believe we built it on that platform because of its ability to scale to whatever size we need to go to.

Scalability’s something that we want to consider. With the cloud offering, that's something that we can definitely leverage. In terms of scalability, cloud offers us something good and new. We discovered at a recent conference that IBM has an interesting cloud offering.

In my opinion, it is very scalable. We have couple of smaller solutions that are maybe 20 to 30 users, and then we have bigger solutions - we're talking hundreds of people using it at the same time. I think it's pretty scalable and stable.

It seems to be very scalable. We don't have millions and millions of documents, but it seems to be quite scalable and the performance is also quite good.

It's very good. We have millions of documents. We have no problems with scalability. It runs fine.

We are looking to expand and scale up quite a bit right now, because our current system is completely overloaded. We are looking at doing an upgrade and an in-place expansion. However, I do not know how the scalability is performing.

With the upgrade, it was a bit more improved.

It scales very well. We are housing 89 million records and 16 terabytes, and the performance is fine.

Scalability-wise, it's incredible, especially if you deploy it either on a WebSphere or application server. You can build it as big and as small as you need it to be.

I still don't know about the scalability yet.

It is very scalable. You can deploy multiple WebSphere nodes and use clusters to do all sorts of things. It is enhanced now with the support for containerization, like Kubernetes and Docker. It is highly scalable, which is great.

It's very scalable.

It is very scalable.

I was a consultant for 15 years and had several customers, who I thought were large at the time, until my current employment which by far dwarfs it. So, the capability and the size are definitely scalable. I have seen from tiny installations to my current library, which is 1.5 billion documents and petabytes of data.

In terms of scalability they are modeling it in such a way that, at any point in time, if you are thinking of increasing the user base or increasing the load, it comes in packages. That can be really helpful in an organization like a bank where the user base fluctuates quite a bit. We don't have many problems when scaling it up.

It is very scalable.

I think FileNet can integrate with SharePoint, with Microsoft Office, with OpenText, so it can work with any other system.

It works for all types of enterprise companies. For larger enterprise companies, there might be other solutions. In general, it should work for all enterprises.

Scalability is good. I don't know about the cloud version, but it's good.

We have not encountered any scalability issues.