It is easy to scale. There are no limitations with scalability.

In a perpetual licensing model, scalability is a challenge. I ended up arguing Imperva when migrating to V6.50, which is a higher capacity than V2.50. They wanted to sell me a license for V4.50 and then V6.50, so that was too expensive. Scalability under the licensing model was limited. Otherwise, the platform itself can scale to accommodate your needs.

Imperva has the power of clustering systems. It automatically balances the traffic load. The scalability is really powerful. The product is suitable for enterprises. Small or medium businesses can use it, but it will be too expensive for them.

There are six areas that are using the solution, and each area has maybe three or four users, at least. Risk, compliance, operations, and internal security, for example, are some areas that use it and get reports. 

I'm not sure if we have plans to increase usage. I am covering all the databases right now. I have no other space to do it. Of course, if we are going to grow and use more databases, I'm going to use this solution. That said, right now, all the databases are covered.

It's a scalable solution. It's good. If we can just change the gateway or if it is a VM right now, we can upgrade the resources, or we can install many more agents in the server, in other servers, and we can take more servers behind it so that we can capture all the data for any of the server.

No.

Imperva SecureSphere Database Security is suitable for small, medium, and enterprise companies.

The product’s on-premises version is not scalable. In contrast, it starts scaling once deployed on VMs.

The scalability of Imperva SecureSphere Database Security is easy, and it scales well.

We have approximately 10 to 15 users using the solution. There are administrators and team leaders using the solution.

The Imperva solution is quite scalable. You can start by adding it to one device and then scale it to the whole organization. 

We've had instances where we added a gateway and the end user didn't notice. It scales fluidly.

As we are able to change our licensing to expand resources and features, it is scalable. We have not yet actually implemented the scalability.

The scalability is fine for our purposes. We are able to modify the product, and we are able to do things to suit what we need, so it's okay for us. If I were to rate them out of ten on scalability, I'd give them a six.

The SOM does not have all the functionality yet to manage all MXs centrally and, if you have a very large infrastructure, it is not so easy to manage it, as it requires you to apply updates or new configurations directly to agents or MXs 1 by 1.

Every manager and gateway has a predefined capacity. It is very easy to scale up to that capacity. But, if that is exhausted you have to burn the midnight oil.

No issues encountered.

I would rate the scalability of this solution as seven out of ten. It's scalable, but further implementation and development would make it even better.

The scalability of this solution is good. Compared to other products, this one is more scalable.

Currently, this solution is protecting approximately twenty thousand end-users.

We are deploying new web-based services and applications, so we expect the usage to increase.

When it comes to scalability, as I noted, there are two different tools, one for physical infrastructure and another for virtual infrastructure.

If I want to scale it up from a physical to a virtual platform, that's certainly not a feature at this point of time. That can be a drawback. You have to look for a separate tool from the same vendor because you already have an existing tool from that vendor which is doing well. And you cannot have tools from two different vendors running on two different platforms.

SecureSphere is very scalable.

There are some scalability issues. There was a hardcoded limitation in the number of MXs you can connect to SOM. In addition, the bigger the infrastructure, the bigger challenge there is to create a single audit report file.

Capacity management is a major issue with the application. There is no easy way to identify when new hardware is required, or if a modification to the configuration could solve the issue. This may have been due to our method of deployment though.

The scalability is good. 

Database security is highly scalable because depending on the number of sites available, you're able to assume that you have the running agent. You can then access the IP for the gateway, you can log in your logs which are managed by the NX, so it's all fine. It's highly scalable for the database. I think even if you have branches all over the country, you can manage them centrally where you have agents monitoring whichever database is allocated to whichever site. We have deployed over 60 projects all over East Africa. I currently handle four, which are two application and two database.

I think that SecureSphere is very scalable. Across our whole company, everyone is using it. We are 50 people. Right now at this size, we only require two people for maintenance.   

The scalability is okay. However, if you're going to set up a redundancy, it needs to be in the same data center, as the manager that manages the entire system needs to share the data, and therefore they need to basically work in the area where they have direct connectivity between the sites. In our case, we have multiple data centers, and we distribute the connectivity and we can't achieve that. 

The solution's scalability isn't based on users. Even if you have one person using it, you might have 300 databases. It's not about the number of users, it's the number of databases.

We haven't scaled it yet.

The solution is scalable. I would rate the scalability as an nine out of ten. We have used this solution since 2014 but have not encountered any scalability issues so far.

Within our organization, we have around 500 users. Our site protects approximately 70,000 end users.

Again, Imperva works great when you need to increase managed devices, add new gateways or even change the operational modes of the latter.

This is a highly scalable product. I'd rate it four out of five in terms of its ability to scale. 

We have 15 people using the solution.

I have not encountered any scalability issues. It's flexible.

It is very scalable. If a customer wants it for five database servers, he gets licenses for five database servers. Tomorrow, if they want licenses for two extra databases, they can just buy the extra two licenses. It is very scalable and very straightforward.

The scalability is pretty good. I rate it a seven out of ten.

There are issues, but it is supposed to be fixed in v12, which I have not tested.

Scalability is one of the most powerful features of Imperva. We have grown easily, once it was necessary.

It is easy to scale. I use only universal appliances and I know exactly how they work.

Three people use this solution on a single server for a few services.

None so far. Our solution has not had bottlenecks so far

I think that the product is scalable.

There are five users for this solution.

The scalability is dependent on the deployment surface. If you plan for scalability then you will have it. If you are going to a single, or one box solution, then you don't have scalability.

Imperva SecureSphere Database Security is scalable.

We have three people in my organization using the solution.

One of our customers currently has five hundred users.

We are not concerned with scalability because we do not have the need.

It is easy to scale technically, but it is so expensive. 

We have about five administrators who use this solution.

No I have not.

Imperva SecureSphere Database Security is both completely scalable and stable.

It is scalable.

We encountered some stability issues.

We did not encounter any scalability issues.