Control-M acts as a single, centralized interface for monitoring and managing all batch processes, which is helpful because nothing gets left unattended since it is all visible in one place, and therefore can be addressed in a timely manner. I like that Control-M includes a proactive management that is extremely useful in the event of production failures. In addition, Control-M makes it easy to identify bottlenecks, using their Forecast feature along with production simulations. It also has a solid GUI that is capable of efficiently handling more than 80,000 jobs in a single day. In addition, the use of the alert system they offer makes it possible to act in a coordinated and efficient manner when solving problems. Their self-service feature is powerful, allowing jobs to be set up and available to users via the web. Another useful feature is the workload change manager, which provides developers with the ability to implement Control-M into the coding and design stages beforehand instead of after the fact. This is a huge time-saver because you are able to see results immediately without having to wait for a scheduler to make changes. One thing I find to be cumbersome about Control-M is enabling its secure mode, which could be the reason why some customers may be reluctant to adopt it.
AutoSys Workload Automation is fast and easy to install and use. In terms of deployment, it is a great solution. Integration with SAP is great, too, and I have found that only minimal maintenance is necessary. I am satisfied with it because it has proven to be an excellent tool. The only thing that bothers me is I feel that the reporting and notifications could be slightly improved.
Conclusion: Control-M and AutoSys Workload Automation have many varied capabilities. While Control-M supports file transfers and batch file executions and can run SQL queries or stored procedures, I think it may be unnecessary for smaller organizations or particular environments where backend automation or utilizing a large infrastructure isn’t crucial for an organization. Having said that, I personally decided on AutoSys Workload Automation. At the end of the day, what you choose will heavily depend on your specific organization’s needs.
We are in process of evaluating best scheduler tool for our client. Currently we are using ASG Zena. We find it complex to administer and no technical documents are available to self learn. I have gone through various articles and posts and seems like Control M, CA and Tidal are most widely used. Can you guys please share your experiences/thoughts which one would be the best choice?
IBM Hybrid Cloud Solution Leader - Core and SO Accounts at IBM
11 July 17
If IBM is not a possibility, BMC then.
Try to allign with an IBM or BMC business partner with proven installation/setups already made "recently".
If customer has "Mainframe", IBM for sure.
Tidal i do not know but with CA, historically there was always too much scheduler engines to go for and no one in particular to get focused.