AutoSys Workload Automation Reviews

The flexibility of being able to schedule the timing and frequency of different automation scripts makes it easier for us to meet our customers’ business requirements.

We use the WCC, which is an interface that sits on top of the application. That is pretty user friendly in terms of being able to see the status of job flows, job failures; and in the ability to manually intervene and fix issues. Essentially, the code you're running sends a return code, which you can configure to be read as a success or failure.

We're in healthcare. We need a way to automate loading the members and processing claims. Without a tool, we wouldn't be able to do that efficiently. It increased efficiency.

The most important thing is that duration is not displayed in the actual WCC GUI. I know they have some different add-on tools where you can get that information; but it would be nice to be able to see how long jobs ran, and the history for more than ten days. As is, the scheduler already starts to have performance issues when you keep the ten day history. So there are efficiency issues related to being able to keep more logs.

There are always issues with software. They have some improvements they can make. The way they're heading, I think they're on the right track.

Stability has been good since we took release 11.36. Before that, we had release 11.35. That was somewhat stable. We had growing pains because we switched over from a different scheduling tool.

It has been easily scalable. CA helped us build the Workload Automation infrastructure that we knew we were going to grow into. It was really a partnership between the two of us to make sure we were scaled correctly. We do about 10,000 jobs a week, a couple hundred thousand a month.

Early in my career, I was more on the technical side. Now that I've transitioned to management, I step in at times to help with it, but not as much.

The few times that I get involved, it's usually bad because it's an escalated incident of some sort. I think primarily my team's happy with the support they get from the resources that have been engaged; and works with them through the issues.

We were using Tidal Enterprise Scheduler. We switched over, and then had some growing pains during the transition.

My team owns setting it up, configuring it, supporting it, and all of those things.
The first time we set it up, it was a little overwhelming because it's something different and new. I had a newer resource on it, and there was a time constraint for getting it installed. We had somebody from CA handhold us through the process.

A couple of our customers use Control M, so we considered that as well, from what I understand.

Do your homework, and be ready for a challenge. Anytime you switch tools, it's going to be a challenge.

The ease of using the scheduling feature of CA Workload Automation ESP Edition for Mainframe is valuable to us. Also, being able to configure dependencies and trigger file related processing is a big thing for us. We're starting to get into some of the DB2 plugins as well. We just keep adding functions and learning more.

It has streamlined our scheduling and cut down our overall run time; not in half, but significantly. It's really been great.

We Received a 'Not active. "Scan Failed"; "The 'path/file' does not exist or not a directory" error message/email on one of our event level file triggers. Both clusters were down due to maintenance resulting in this error message. In order to make this active, we had to manually suspend and resume the event. We are requesting an automated process where no manual intervention is needed to make those event level FT's active again and/or preventing that error.
I’d like to have the ability to restart a failed file scan on the mainframe.

Stability has been very good.

Technical support has been great. They've always helped out. Even if it took a couple weeks or a month, they've always come back with a solution.

Our company was using a mainframe scheduler that didn't connect to the distributed systems. We were porting to Windows and we needed a job scheduler that was Windows compatible. I'm not sure what other tools management looked at, but I know this was the best solution.

When working with a vendor, I evaluate their helpfulness and the quality of their technical support. Also important is the ease of contacting them and getting an answer back.

For initial setup, we had a CA team there for several weeks ahead of time. Anything is a little complex when you're going from a tool you've been using to a brand new tool. We learned a lot from them, but once we reached a few months out after the initial setup, we learned much more. There was a steep learning curve. But, it's been a great product. It's better than the previous product. Our needs were expanding, so it was where we needed to go. It has been great.

Give it a try and call me if you need. I'm open to questions and helping. It's been a great workload automation tool for us.

Some of the features I like are:

• Ability to monitor a complex workload
• Easily see our batch flow status
• Deal with problems before they become bigger issues

As an example, we had a stuck file watcher we weren't aware of. Due to the alerts, we were able to reach out and get the file in time to still make our batch commitments. This happened instead of missing an SLA.

I think having visibility has improved things. Our managers can see what's going on as well. It's not just a single technician that's a bottleneck trying to find out where we are. Visibility into the workflow and ease of use to be able to schedule have improved our organization. I'm happy with this solution.

The main push is the web UI. We want to be able to give it to our business users. They don't want to have to log on to a mainframe to use the product. I would like to use iDash. If we can get iDash into ESP, it would be great, even though it first has to go to the DEs before it comes to us. That would be a big improvement. This is an option that we'd like to see.

No problems with scalability. That's actually one of the competitive advantages with this product - the scalability and its ability to do the throughput we need without having any delays. We have scaled as far as we can grow. I've been talking to other companies that are much larger. I'm confident it could scale if we had a tenfold growth and we'd still be okay.

I have not used technical support. Other people in my area have. They seem easy to work with. You know, get the documentation to them; they get back to you in a couple days with what they found.

We were using CA Scheduler Job Management and I think they ended support. I wasn't high enough up to be involved in the decision making process. By the time this solution rolled out, I was happy with how I was able to get up to speed in the product, and support what I needed to support. But I was not involved in evaluating other products.

When looking for a vendor, I suggest looking for long-term relationships, a partnership. You want a vendor who is willing to grow, willing to listen to feedback, offers support, and help us do our job. Make sure you partner with them. Get buy-in from your business units before implementing. I think that's one of the biggest things to success, is let CA get the buy-in for you if you don't feel comfortable doing it yourself. Let CA explain their own product. Get the buy-in first, then move forward so you don't have the resentment of the business units thinking you forced the solution upon them.

• Top-notch scheduling features and functionality
• Reliability, performance and stability
• Advanced GUI to manage the batch, flexibility to schedule jobs on various business needs

• Improved batch processing with PROD monitoring to take corrective actions on batch issues
• Implemented scheduling predecessors/successors conditions

I would like to see advancement in predictive analysis, trending and reporting.

I have used it for 20+ years.

I have not encountered any stability issues.

I have not encountered any scalability issues.

Technical support is excellent.

We previously used a different solution. We consolidated into a strategic scheduling product because it is easier to manage and operate.

Initial setup is complex. It requires technical skills in various flavors of distributed/enterprise H/W, S/W, databases to implement, configure and develop high-availability options.

Review licensing calculation is based on criteria. I recommend not to license based on the number of jobs.

We evaluated other options, including Maestro, CA7, and Control M, to name a few.

Look for industry trends, overall deployment, scale and scope, features and functionality and vendor support structure/relationship.

It's a pretty solid product. The stability of it is probably its best feature. Also, the newer versions are going to have extended job numbers.

It's our hub for all our job scheduling, so basically everything we do goes through there.

Upgrades to the GUI interface would be probably one of the biggest things they could do to improve. With the up and coming youth of today, they want to be on a GUI instead of on a mainframe, so a better GUI interface would probably be the best upgrades they've had. Plus the CLI could be improved.

We've had no issues with deployment since implementing it.

One of the biggest strengths is the stability of the product.

No, not really. We've had no issues with scaling it.

Technical support is very good. They're always on top of things.

My advice would be to compare CA to BMC. We did, and found CA to be the better product.

I think the speed of it, the consistency of it and that it stays up all the time. We've not had any problems with it in the last year. We upgraded to the last version and I'm here taking a look at the newest version that they've released, 1136. We're on 35. It's promised to be a better product, it's much faster and just as reliable. They also have a great web interface that we haven't deployed yet.

We've had bad systems from other organizations that we've adopted or bought. Workload Automation used to be called AutoSys, and it is actually a better scheduler in my opinion because of the way it schedules. With a base on dependency, events and job triggers. It works on events and triggers. Some of them automatically create jobs and they reschedule them.

AutoSys has it a little differently and it's quite easy to use. It's very easy to set up and it just launches a script anywhere that we have a local agent installed on a server. It goes throughout the world in different locations.

It also works based in Houston, at one of our data centers. We also have some people overseas and we use it abroad. It's a worldwide application that runs over 160,000 jobs throughout our enterprise.

I see room for improvement, as far as monitoring the system and having a quiet data center, when you don't have to have people monitoring and watching jobs run or watching flows going and looking for something to stop or a job to fail. I want to be alerted when we have a problem. I don't want to sit and watch a screen or have a staff of people sitting around the world waiting for something to fail. By having a so-called quiet or lights out system, where we get alerted just on these exceptions. That's the direction I'd like to see the product take. You spend a lot of quality time and money on people watching simple things happen. Lights go green, lights go red or lights go yellow. If we only saw something when they went red, those are the kind of alarms and notations I'd like to have to give to a staff of people that can handle those issues and get it restarted.

9 years.

The problem has not been with workload, we do have some server outages. Also maintenance times of other products. Workload Automation is dynamic enough to put jobs in pending or put servers offline, until we get ready to bring them on. As soon as they go back online, the server's jobs start rescheduling themselves again. It's a dynamic product, it's been stable and we've never had a real outage with the product.

We have it right now operating in something called dual server mode. If we lose one end of it or one processor, the other side takes over and it picks up from where it left off. It's an always up situation. If we have to throw it back to the primary then we take it down, do an amendments window, do a quick switch over to the primary and let it keep operating.

We never really miss a beat.

As I said, we have agents, our servers, in other locations in different cities and in different countries. We are able to contact with those, schedule batch runs on those and bring the results back to Houston as far as the successes or the failures of those processes.

Technical support from CA has been very good actually. We don't need them very often unless we have a problem with some integration such as a 64-bit application and something that's foreign we're putting on a server, such as BusinessObjects or Oracle, something we haven't seen before. We'll call them for some support. Otherwise our staff is pretty knowledgeable enough and we've had CA products for about 9 years. We're pretty familiar with it on site. It's just when some of the newer products come in, integrating with those, those are the times we've had to call CA support.

As far as the product itself, just learning about some of the new features, we'll speak with their support personnel to find out they operate or how they can implement it with our staff. Once they come on site and given us some information, how-to's, then we pick it up for ourselves. We don't need support as often as we used to with the prior products.

The initial setup, what we had, was called 35 then we went to a 45 version. Now we went from the 45 to what's called R11, that was a nightmare. R11 was a pretty difficult implementation for us. A lot of things changed between the two versions. After we got over those humps, CA put out another service pack and that relieved most of our problems. I think a lot of the rest of the industry suffered some of the same issues that we had.

They were able to quickly release those within 6 or 7 months.

I would give AutoSys a 10/10. Best practices are to plan your workflow. Try to plan where you have as less intervention as you can possibly use. Use the product and the triggers, the timing base events, use the calendars and try to make it flow as smooth as possible. Don't put something that's troublesome into your production environment. Work it out in tests and UAT or development. Even try it in your sandbox if necessary but don't bring it to production.

When it comes to production, if it doesn't work, send it back. You don't want these problems in production. At the shop I work with, we have a 99.91% success rate. When we don't have that, we go through and examine the jobs that fail. If they failed then we have a problem, we examine and get them fixed.

Important buying criteria: reputation, longevity, how is their product and other people's opinions of the product as well. After we've test driven a product, we usually bring something in-house, drive it and see how we like it. If we have use for it, we have enough people that would take a buy in on it, find it's useful, we find it's dependable then we probably want to set something like that in as a candidate. We need to have something that's proven.

Most of all it automates the processes we need to get done at night. We've grown into it. We have several thousand jobs in our production environment right now, about 40,000 altogether, and that number's going to be growing because with the success that we're seeing with certain applications that have submitted jobs to the workload automation, other groups in our company are saying "Hey, we want to get onboard too and automated our processes, too."

The benefits are that it's automated, reporting facilities are terrific, also when there is, let's say, a failure of a job, it's very, very easy to report that incident, that event, and we can certainly notify the appropriate personnel who need to be notified of that, very, very quickly.

I've wondered about certain features. Our release of iDash right now is 11.4. I have seen release 12 in the labs and presentation and I'm just blown away by the features that I see. Many of the things I was thinking about, asking about, they were already answered in the new release. CA has a roadmap and they have even more features coming in down the road which I like very much, so we're very, very happy with that, and that goes of course, for other products as well.

12 years.

No issues. Once we went from version 4.5 to 11.0 and now 11.36, we have experienced great stability as time goes on.

No problems with scalability at all. Our centralized AutoSys server are running processes, jobs on several hundred client machines without a problem, without a problem at all. We foresee a growth in that as time goes on over the next year or so.

We have great faith in the CA tech support website, and their responses to us every time we have a question, even if it's just a question on functionality, never mind it might be a problem that may come up, they respond to us very quickly; so we feel very, very secure with that. That actually is also true for many other CA products that we have at our sites as well.

If we did have a serious problem, which happens very, very rarely - we contact them by email; they've resolved every single issue that we've had.

We had AutoSys 3.4 which used to belong to Platinum Technologies, they became part of CA. I'm thinking right now compared to what it was like then back in 2004, the number of jobs was very, very small, but we knew that as we went forward with CA with the new releases that it would grow very easily with that and meet the demand, which it has done, and we don't see any problem, any limit to the software at this point.

No, not complex at all, very, very easy. One of the products I'm working on which is CA iDash, a monitor for the automation tools, is extremely easy to use, extremely easy to install, to setup, to configure and run. In fact, that was one of our reasons for going with it this past year, that particular product of the whole CA Workload Automation package.

When it comes to advice I would say that obviously cost is one factor, I never get involved with that, but cost is a factor. That's a very good question because we recently purchased iDash this year, and it's intended to replace a third party competitor software which we're using right now, and even though iDash was about 15% more, because of licensing and ease of use, that 15% more is more than paid for by the flexibility we have, because the other software we're limited to how many instances we can have of it, and how many jobs it can see - iDash, no limit at all. As many iDash instances as we want, and there's no limited to how many AutoSys environments we're going to be monitoring, and that's a real plus for not only the users but also IT management and upper management as well.

Rating: at least 9.5, 9.6/10 for sure. I probably shouldn't say 10 because I want to give CA something to work at and work towards, so 9.9.

I heartily recommended them, even if they had software such as the Terma Labs JAWS or something else, to really very seriously consider looking at iDash for the lot of features, it's so easy to use, I said "CA will be very glad to a proof of concept test trial install for you, and then you can do a comparison." I didn't try to push people, say "Oh, iDash is a lot better." I said "I think they should decide for themselves." But I think it'll be evident once they get it in, look at it, and do a comparison. There's a good guarantee they'll go in that direction, I would think, based upon my own experiences.

You see a lot of automation tools right now in the market. Whenever we try to look at the products that clients are trying to use, we try to see which one is better matched for their requirements. Most of the times, we try to gauge their level of understanding of the products as well. Workload Automation gives a lot of insight for the client, to better understand how they can actually automate the process of scheduling the jobs within their environment. Workload Automation really plays a good role. If you see every product come with its own workload or its own scheduling product so if you talk about SAP, SAP rebuilt its own scheduling product. You talk about Hulu which comes with Uzi which is its own scheduling product. Having a different scheduling product scattered around in the environment, it is really a tough for the management to have a better in-scope of seeing what actually is happening in the scheduling area.

Centralizing all this into a single workload automation tool using the CA product has really helped a lot of customers. This has benefited most of the users to have a better understanding of the environment. It's pretty good compared to the older versions. It actually supports a lot of new features where you can also implement in our clustered solutions and also in higher availability with more of load balancing and everything.

One of my clients who has recently converted everything from the Architecture to what they are using to the complete iPad and solutions. Deploying those solutions and integrating with them was a little challenge at this point of time. We would definitely like to see some kind of roadmap with this workload automation product, having integrations with mobility as well.

It's pretty stable compared to the older versions I would say.

The scalability - it is really good. I mean there are other products which do play the similar roles but having this workload automation in place and having a different product integrating with it whenever there is a need, you have a Windows shop today and tomorrow now most of the clients are trying to migrate from Windows to Unix. When we have that shift change happening, adding more clients and having more support for this operating systems to schedule this systems, this is really playing a lot of help in the scalability of managing this product.

I would rate them a 9 on a scale of 10. They are really good. We had a lot of help at the time of migrations that we usually plan with our clients when we do implement a solution or when we try to do the upgrades. The CA partners usually help us in even mentioning that as a hard site, because of this hard site there will be a dedicated technician who will be helping us. In order that if there is anything working during the migration period or anything like that. We don't really run around with the different people in order to get our solution done. One engineer who is dedicated to our site during that hard site period will be helping and resolving most of the issues. Support is really good with CA. Set-up is depending on the client's environment, how big and how small they are. We just need to understand that better requirements and providing that solution in order to set up this product in their environment. Makes a lot of work that we need to do in order to better understand their requirements

Setup: we can say it's not that complex compared to other products. CA has a very user friendly environment where we can actually do it in no time. Moving towards the mobility because most of the clients are converting themselves from old school sitting in front of their desktops. Everyone wants to manage through mobile products.

Rating: I would say 9/10 because I believe always there is a scope of implement for every product. There is nothing like everything is really best in product so yeah there is still scope of improvement with workload automation tool.

So far what we are doing, we are really happy with this product. When they talk about the workload automation solutions, we definitely try to explain how better it can be having worked with the CA producs compared to others. It's pretty easy because most of the corportation do understand the requirement and what best that solves. The best part of the CA is it is open to integrate with multiple products. It is not that we cannot integrate or we do not have anything like that. The support has more scope where they can also work with us in order to do a third party integration as required as well. I mean it's pretty easy for us.