AutoSys Workload Automation Reviews

We have used batch job scheduling and ad-hoc jobs in DEV, QA, UAT, PREPROD, and production for tier-one sensitive applications.

It helped us to avoid manual error. It helped us to reduce the manual efforts also. Helped us by giving alerts for long running jobs.

Virtual machine usage: It helped us to schedule the job to run on multiple servers based on the workload. It is automatically taking care of workload balance based on configuration settings.

Calendar usage is also very useful. It allows us to use our own calendar.

• It needs improvement in the high-availability side.
• It needs improvement in WCC console and EEM console to make it user-friendly.

My primary use case for this solution is for production.

This solution enables us to improve our daily processing times. We can do everything faster than before we used this solution.

The installation process is complex, and is pretty archaic. The people who developed this had very little concern with GUI interface and it is all command line. Everything is K-space, and if you misspell a task by uppercase, lower case, etc. you just completely think that the task is different.

It is a fairly stable solution. I have not had any issue with it.

It's pretty scalable, and ready for enterprise.

There is a slow response time. Unless, you say it's severity level one. That will give you a two hour timing window for them to call you. It doesn't really happen exactly in two hours, but they try.

The initial setup was complex. It had too many components. 

It is an overpriced solution. 

I would not say this is for a large shop, but for a small shop it is overpriced. 

We primarily use CA Workload Automation AE for batch management processing throughout the organization.

The tool provides added flexibility for our customers while maintaining our required control points. 

The web UI is beneficial and the granular security policies allow us to cover all of our audit requirements. 

Performance improvements in the UI would be appreciated. It lacks support and integration with cloud computing platforms.

We use it as an IT process automation solution.

We automate recurring processes, keeping track of IT processes controlled worldwide.

We often have to implement complicated processes. Automic Automation Engine provides us the ability to map logic using a scripting language. We have an advantage where practically all automation problems can easily be implemented within the Automation Engine.

We see improvement possibilities in the processing provision of predefined evaluations or individual objects, or in the Self Service portal, which can be used by any user to monitor objects or start objects.

We have had no issues.

We have had no issues.

Technical support is always very helpful, though we do not use it often. 

All our problems have been resolved so far. Tips have also been provided on how we can handle a problem.

We had scheduled jobs on a mainframe system. By replacing the mainframe with a Unix system, we also changed the scheduler.

The setup of the system was relatively easy. 

We had good local support from Automic.

Everyone has to decide for themselves which licensing model is best suited to their environment.

We evaluated between different scheduling systems. We finally decided on the Automic solution.

Consult onsite support for the first implementation. Errors made at the beginning can only be corrected with great effort afterwards.

Enterprise job scheduling.

It has helped to simplify cross-dependency between MVS and Open systems jobs.

Also adding new agents is easy, scheduling is easier and faster.

• Enterprise cross-platform scheduling
• MVS scheduling

We have couple of hundred thousand jobs scheduled monthly via ESP so it is critical.

Reduce the number of operational files. This would make the job of a system programmer supporting ESP easier. In the present design, there are too many operational files to maintain.

No issues with stability.

No issues with scalability.

I would rate them nine and a half out of 10. CA technical support is doing a great job.

We had to choose an alternate scheduling tool.

It is relatively simple.

Great tool, excellent technical support, stable product.

We use CA Workload Automation AE r11.3.6 to automate enterprise-wide scheduling and file transfers using an FTP plugin.

It has improved my organization by automating IT applications. The solution is used to invoke scripts and batches across multiple systems and the dependency is managed.

Administering with the command line: The feature creates similar jobs in bulk using the command line.                                                                                                                                                               

• Managing agents centrally (installing, changing configuration, starting and stopping, and upgrading).
• The WCC could be improved.

We use it for batch processing. We're a service bureau, so a number of our customers contract with us to use it for mainframe batch processing.

There are certain batch jobs that need to run on a regular basis in order for our customers to receive reports and updates, and CA-7 provides that for us. So that improves the function of our agencies.

The ability to create calendars, calendaring for batch jobs to run on a scheduled frequency.

The cross-platform arena, where you can run work on multiple platforms, needs improvement.

Stability is a 10 out of 10.

Scalability is a nine out of 10.

Technical support is a 10 out of 10.

We used punch cards back in 70s and 80s. This is the solution that took over from IBM punch cards.

I did not do the initial setup.

I certainly think the pricing is worth the value.

Evaluate whether it performs all the functions you need for batch processing.

Enterprise job scheduling.

We have worked with CA to better understand all of the security points, the ability to lock the product down so that it's not being abused or exploited in any fashion.

• Flexibility
• Ease of use
• The capabilities of the product to schedule on multiple platforms, multiple operating systems.

Also, over time the CA workload agent has gotten much better. For our organization it's important for us to communicate in a secure fashion between the host and the other platforms, and we are able to do that with our CA product, with ESP.

I would rate it a nine out of 10.

Scalability is a 10 out of 10.

We've completely turned over our scheduling area, and a lot of questions go to CA support. The people in the CA support for ESP have been there for a long time. I know some of them from the time when they worked for Cybermation, and they are very good. I trust their answers.

Tech support is a 10 out of 10.

Back in 2006, we were using CA-7 and we were looking for a product that would do better for scheduling off-platform. We found ESP, which was at that time owned by Cybermation, and we completed migration from CA-7 to ESP, and then shortly after that CA bought ESP. It had to do with scheduling on the distributed platform.

CA-7 was expensive and didn't do distributive work load very well. It was not that flexible. It didn't do everything we needed it to do.

We had Professional Services help us, and it wasn't really that difficult.

We did have onsite training and migration services and we paid for them. It wasn't hard to understand for our people.

I don't really get involved in that part of it. The one thing I would say is that people need to pay attention to how they use their ESP agents on the distributed platform. That's where some of the cost comes in, based on how many you need or how many you use.

At that time CA owned three schedulers and CA-7 was the one we were using. The other two did not necessarily apply to our environment. And there weren't too many others out there. I think we might still have taken a cheap route. We might not of actively compared with other products that were on the market at the time, other than comparing it to CA, and we thought we were getting a good deal.

I believe CA had been actively developing it, enhancing it, and attempting to make it easier to use. I think it's been a good product for us, and I think others would find that to be true as well.