Automic Workload Automation Reviews

We use it for assisted process change, and we are using it for basic operating system-level UPROCs or jobs, and there are certain jobs that it runs for the net backup.

The solution has been here for the past ten years, there is a definite business value-add; the batch/shell scripts running in the environment can be controlled centrally, SAP Processing; Backup Jobs and many more with no or minimal interventions.

In general, in any environment where there are more than 500 or 600 servers, each server will have settings and scripts doing their jobs, moving files, etc. There may be a bunch of scripts that run in a workflow. If you don't have a centralized tool for workload automation, it becomes problematic down the line because, as the environment grows, as IT grows in any organization, the number of scripts grows accordingly. If you have a centralized workload automation tool, you can completely control such jobs, or file transfers, or any job that is critical to a specific application/server. So it provides ease in handling scripts.

Also, it helps with manpower. If you have server admins to take care of those scripts, you need more admins, of course. But if you have one such workload automation tool, a single person can control, monitor, and see the behavior of the scripts in the environment: How well they are running and, if they are failing, which scripts are failing. That's the business value-add that I see in having any workload automation tool, like CA Dollar Universe, which is the one we have here.

The most valuable feature is the one for SAP batch processing. It's not just ordinary job processing. There are certain other mid-level workload automation tools which can handle the OS level, but SAP is something which is really very critical. Automic stands out from the ordinary tools because handling SAP processes is absolutely easy with it. Integrating SAP applications with Dollar U is very easy. It's just a few considerations and there you go. You can initiate your processing.

We are currently at version 6.7.41. One improvement area that I can see would be a centralized licensing part. I've heard that has been already taken care of in the latest version. I'm not sure how true that is, but that's one thing that should be there: centralized licensing.

Another issue is that at times there are certain jobs that are triggered one after another. It would be helpful to have a more user-friendly way of seeing how those jobs are connecting from one server to another. Suppose there is a workflow that is running between ten and 15 servers. It's always challenging to figure out which job is connected to which job on which server, for a newbie, if you haven't designed it. That has to be more user-friendly where you can see the complete workflow of a process or a job.

I haven't seen any issues regarding stability.

It's very scalable. It's easy. You just add on the resources and you are there. The management server doesn't get loaded up, it doesn't have to process anything. That makes it cheaper as well. Scalability is pretty easy.

On a scale of one to 10, with 10 being highest, I would rate technical support a nine. So far, I haven't gone unanswered for any of the queries, except one. Their response time is pretty fast. It depends on how severe the case is. If it's just a general query, they respond within a day. If it's really critical, where your business is impacted, they respond within half-an-hour or an hour. I have had a really good experience with the tech support.

I have been an admin on other tools as well. I was a contributor to and implemented BMC Control-M.

I haven't done the initial setup, but I think it's pretty straightforward from what I have seen in the documents. My feeling is it should not take more than an hour or two to get it up and running. If everything is ready, your database is there, and you have the right amount of resources on the server, it shouldn't take more than an hour or two hours.

In terms of an implementation strategy: 

1. You should have a database. 
2. You need to figure out what components you're going to go for.
3. You need an estimation of the number of jobs you are looking for to plan out the resources on the server. 
4. Finally, you need to think about how you will roll out access to the users: a thick client or a web console. 

Those are the things that need to be factored in before beginning the installation. The accessibility part can be dealt with later, but the resourcing of the database on the server and the management server have to be spec'd out before.

I understand that AWA is cheaper than Control-M, but I'm not certain about the numbers.

What makes it stand out from the competitors I have seen is it has distributed architecture. If you look at BMC Control-M vs Automic Workload Automation, the brain is the central, enterprise management server. That's where all the jobs reside. Every day, a new set of jobs loads onto the agent, and then the agent executes. If the central server is down, there will be no jobs executing across the environment.

However, when it comes to CA Automic, it has a distributed architecture which means all the logic, all the jobs, reside on the agent itself. Irrespective of whether the management server is running or not, your jobs will execute in a timely way. The only challenge could be that you will not be able to see their outcome. You will not be able to monitor them. That could be a challenge. But again, at least the jobs are executing in a timely fashion, as they're supposed to, in your environment.

It's the same for any end tool we implement: Be clear with the requirements. Apart from that, everything is pretty smooth and straightforward. You can look at the tool and understand where things are going. There is no rocket science that you need to be worried about. But you do need to be aware of what you're doing.

Regarding the number of staff for maintenance, it depends on how exactly you want to maintain it. We always keep all the UPROCS, all the jobs that we have in an environment, on a centralised server as a backup. The maintenance is up to the individual organization, how robust or how limited they want it to be on the day of a crisis.

In our organization, we have a team of nine people handling the tool. We have more than 12,000 tasks that are scheduled to run each day, and more than 100,000 job iterations happen every day. It's actually a really big environment. We have more than 1,400 nodes connected to it, and we are bringing in 300 more. At each of those additional nodes we are expecting four to five jobs. So that will add about 1,500 tasks. The number of iterations expected is still unknown.

Right now, we execute jobs in three regions: Europe, Asia-Pacific, and America. We are only using AWA in the European region. We are taking it into Asia as well. That's the next expansion of the tool.

The admin roles include handling new requests for creation of the tasks and sessions, as well as the changes to existing jobs, including notification, and daily scheduling. In addition, there is the daily maintenance part. We check for jobs that are failing every day, why they are failing, and we will try to mitigate the problem. It could be the agent needs to be purged, or the agent is not running, or the credentials that were given for a specific job are not there anymore. Those are the sorts of checks we do on a daily basis to keep it healthy.

I rate Automic Workload Automation at eight out of ten. What comes to mind when I consider that rating is the distributed licensing, that every server has to be licensed individually. The second is the workflow of jobs connected on multiple servers.

• Workload and system automation 
• We run our batch schedules through the system and have also automated very complex processes to allow Operations perform tasks that were previously done by Sys Admins.

Allowed us to almost fully automate our batch schedule and to provide our Operations team with a single interface for monitoring batch and automated system processes.

• File transfer is excellent 
• Very intuitive interface (Java version) 
• Process flows are very easy to build.
• Events are useful to trigger process flows based on external factors.
• Zero downtime upgrade is a great idea!

• New web interface is not fit for purpose
• Users should continue to have access to the Java GUI 
• Support can be a bit slow responding to non-critical issues

The primary use case is scheduling business automation. Its performance is good.

It works to automate business processes over all the systems. You have a central point where you can automate everything.

It had a big impact on time, cost, and resources because it was the first product that we used which was supported all our platforms. The biggest impact is its central point of control. We now have one point where we can see everything: The whole workflow of a business process, if it is hanging or if it is still running.

The most valuable features are that a lot systems are supported. You can use this for z/OS, Windows, Unix, SAP, etc.

The problem is when you have a major update, afterwards you have small problems. This is with every software where you have to find some solutions for your problems after updates. However, after the problems are fixed, the stability is really good.

We have some problems with updates where some functions are changed, so you have to check your whole system to see if everything is still running. The update process for us is around two months of testing and one day of updates.

The stability is good. 

Scalability is great.

We have needed the technical support, especially after updates. We also needed technical support for problems. Though most of our problems in the last few years were not based on Workload Automation, but the database that we are working in.

It takes a time until you get the right person, but when you get the right person, they are really helpful.

We were previously using CA-7.

There are a lot of new features, but we do not use them because they are too expensive. The price point could be less.

You can't go wrong with Automic, because it is supporting every common system.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: 

1. Stability.
2. Support.

We build jobs and transfer data from A to B, then start SQL jobs and customize them for our customers, etc. We automate the system for our business.

The FTP agent: We use it excessively, and the connection is easy to handle between our company and the outside.

Up until now, we have to solve many problems from the business unit to handle the connections from SFTP. We had to shut down the FTP protocol, and we had to connect the business with external partners.

• To automate the business.
• The SQL agent

I am hoping version 12.2 has everything that we need.

We have had some problems with the SQL handling that should be fixed. The calendar also has some problems in it. There are some other little problems, but they should be fixed in 12.2.

I would like to see more stability in the product and have the transition between versions be more seamless. Every time we have the same mistakes from one version to the next version. It is terrible. You have to test it every time for the same mistakes when a new version comes out. 

12.1 is very stable. We started with 10.6, which was okay. 12.0 was terrible, then we switched to 12.1, and now it is okay.

Scalability is okay. We have tried to integrate it everywhere. My boss tried to get it on everything, so we have to stop him sometimes. However, normally, it can handle everything that we have.

Support has been very good. Unfortunately, every time we message support, they tell us to scale. This is terrible. While the support is good, I do not want to scale every time. It is terrible and makes everything complicated. I want support to answer me, then I am happy. I write them an email, and every time I receive the response, "Scale it," and I hate it.

The product is okay.

We do many basic things with it for the SAP system on Windows. We also use it with many with other communication systems. For example, we sell it as an iPhone 5. 

As a system, you can examine many pictures from the company. I must catalog these pictures with the names and architects, therefore we have many file transfers. For example, we take information from the SAP system and send it to Azure from the automation engine.

Our company uses it to connect different systems. That is a big feature of the system and platform.

We are a small company. The system runs fine. We have no performance problems.

There are too many functions and features in the system. The basic must run first. Refine the basics instead of adding more features.

Now, we have version 12 running. We do not like having the newer functions, because it affects the stability. The stability must be better, and the system must work with better functionality, as we have many bugs in this version. This is not good. CA must have higher quality.

The company can expand with this product. Every time I bring in new ideas for solutions, it is with this product.

Our systems must always run. I have ideas to stabilize the system a little bit, so I contacted technical support. They have for other ideas on how to fix issues. For example, if the agent goes down, we have no chance with a standard restart to fix it, and the agent is the service manager. No one in technical support understands this question, which is not good.

The initial setup is easy and straightforward. I did it over 20 years ago.

We used CDs to install it over 20 years ago.

My boss says, "It is a little expensive." For example, I must pay a lot money if I need to have a DB agent. This is too expensive for us as a small company, so I use SQL *Plus. This costs us nothing. 

We cannot use all the functions because they are too expensive.

I must have a tool which works. I have a new version, but I have problems. That is not good.

However, if we have no problems with the quality, we will probably use the product a long time. I like this product. I know what it can do.

We are using it for batch automation and protection. We can control and check it, which is the main thing. When the batches must be run, we need a perfect system for it to run. It must run 24 hours, seven days a week, with no interruptions.

Its benefit is time. When you have the automation going, it just runs. We have no problems with any of the automation. 

We have costs for an Oracle database, and it is a high cost. However, we think we can do this on a Windows database, which is cheaper. We will do this the next few years, so it will be better. 

We have long-time planning and forecasts. In the forecasts, we can change our workloads in the future to save us any problems. Whether it is three days or three weeks, we will regularly change our processes if that is our problem. Therefore, we can do a long time planning, if necessary.

The features of the calendar are the most valuable, then the scripting. With the scripting, we can script all things, which is a first. As far as our schedules, if we have problems, we can create our own process in the automation, which is good.

The forecast and long-term planning could be made a little better when you work with it in the future.

At the moment, the stability is good. We are experiencing a technical problem with the system, in regards to the VPN, which we hope will be fixed in the next few years.

We can expand it. We have products and software in the firm, and we do the risk management. Risk management from Atomic could be in the next year, and this will be a difficult change for us and the product which we run at the moment.

We have used technical support in the last three months. They are good. If we have problems, we can get an answer in three hours. Support is very fast.

The initial setup was complicated and difficult.

It has helped us reduce costs.

Compared to our other products, it is a good price.

We evaluate vendors every year to see if it is possible to change. We look everywhere.

We have had Atomic since 2005. It was the only software with scheduling on the mainframe for clients. 

Look at it and test it, because it is a very good product.

We have different applications. We can schedule our pickup or applications (mainly MFT for financial services) and provide file transfers only to customers. 

Automation helps us. It makes our lives easier. Anything that can be automated is automated.

Stability. It works without issues.

The web interface needs improvement.

Compared to other products, the stability is remarkable.

We do not use some of the special features. We use a very plain level of it: just starts and stops, calendar functions, schedules, and events. We have no add-ons on top of them. 

We have had no problems with the scalability so far.

It is a bit of a problem, because they like to do email ping-pong via their web page. Sometimes, it would be much easier if someone would call you on the phone. For example, it takes three or four days to obtain the same answer that you can receive with a phone call within a few minutes.

I was not involved with the initial setup.

I would recommend Automic, because it is easy to set up and use. The whole system is complete. I have not had any issues with usage.

It is completely sufficient. We are still on version 10. We are upgrading to version 12, because we have to do it. However, we do not believe there is any missing functionality at the moment.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor:

• Support
• Price
• Functionality.

I do not care about the name of the vendor.

• Check-out
• Check-in
• Promote
• Demote

Just that the basic functionality works.

It saves State assets, for starters. Saving State assets is part of my job, and it's important. So that's how it's improving State work. We have a tool that secures and controls State assets.

Certainly, the Visual Studio plugin has a lot of room for improvement.

We need to improve communication. It's a mistake to send all the work over to India, that's my personal opinion. I think there's a real problem with communication in India. I've been on the phone with these folks and wasted my time, where we don't even understand what they're saying. I think the development of this tool should be brought back to the United States. I think it's a mistake to have it done it in India, where a real communication problem exists.

20 years.

Absolutely.

The scalability is not as much of a problem.

Escalation comes from the technical team in the United States to Level 2 in India.

We switched over 20 years ago.

Setup was complex due to the complexity of the tool.

If we had a choice to choose again, we'd choose something different.

We've been plugged into the product for 20 years now, so it's a little difficult to do that, although I have teams or agencies now, that are breaking away and they're going and using other tools now. I got one agency using TFS. I've got another agency using GitHub, so I'm seeing the breaking down of this whole process. A lot of it has to do with the stability of the Visual Studio plugin, which has not been very good.

Don't use the Visual Studio plugin. Go and use TFS. It's more seamless and it's a bigger tool. It will cost you more money, but you won't have some of the complexities, in terms of folks being able to do check-outs and check-ins. This Visual Studio plugin has been very complicated for the State of New Hampshire. It's caused a lot of problems. It's made me lose a lot of customers. I lost 81 customers last week alone. They don't like the product and I understand why. They have people in India developing it, who don't understand English, most of the time.

Even when you try to convey your message to them, there's all kinds of problems with dialog and interpretation that sometimes you get what you ask for, and sometimes you don't. Most of the time, you don't. You end up going back and forth, and back and forth to get any fix, then you get another re-fix. Then, you get another re-fix.