AutoSys Workload Automation Reviews

We are using AutoSys Workload Automation for parent jobs and can create scripts for automation.

The most valuable feature of AutoSys Workload Automation is user-friendliness. If someone has some knowledge of the tool they can use it.

It would be helpful to be able to monitor and manage workload windows so we could minimize downstream applications. This would allow us easier access to the applications.

I have been using AutoSys Workload Automation for approximately seven years.

The solution is stable. 

We are able to view reports at any point in time

AutoSys Workload Automation is scalable.

We plan to increase our usage of the solution.

I have used the support from the vendor.

I have used other solutions similar to AutoSys Workload Automation. 

We can do the process with a script and it does not take more than 10 minutes. The environment can play a role in how long it will take and what type of script we need to use.

We paid to use the solution monthly.

When comparing this tool to others it is far better.

I recommend this solution to others. 

I rate AutoSys Workload Automation an eight out of ten. 

A strong aspect of our current use case is to provide integration with the Zeke mainframe scheduler and enable cross platform job dependencies between the two worlds.

Self-Service can enable the support team to move from being a bottleneck to being the go-to team for expertise and advice and to focus on maintaining the infrastructure.

Granular Security enables self-service role-based access. JIL language is always a big accelerator for creating/editing job flows efficiently.

Great at handling timezones and daylight savings adjustments.

Despite the commitment of the development team to improve the UI since version 11.3, the WCC module still lacks true quality. There are still too many screens and the use cases need to be handled in a more "compact" way. I have not seen the v12 product yet.

Note that this product is now a legacy product with a dwindling user base and support.

Do not consider for a green site implementation

We've been using v11.3.6 for years, and the tool in general since 2006.

We've had no issues with the stability.

We've had no trouble scaling it for our needs.

Customer Service:

The user conference used to be a great way to catch the attention of the development and product management team. Sadly, these are a thing of the past.

Technical Support:

Technical support has noticeably gone down since the Broadcom takeover of CA. A lot of the knowledge base is now on line and the expectation is that users self-support with that. The level of depth that the support organisation provides is not as deep as previously. We have not experienced any emergency situations though, so can't comment on that.

The initial setup was not hugely complicated, but do set aside four to six man-months if you are not using specialist services. The product does require some careful thinking around the High Availability and security sides. Thorough qualifications testing is recommended for a scheduler, too.

If you don't buy competence, you will need to build it internally which takes time. The recent versions of the product are a lot more complex than the relatively simple 4.0.

Legacy product with dwindling user base and support.

Get some specialist help if you don't have internal knowledge.

This product is now legacy.

Without this product we would have to manually submit jobs and it would take longer. There would also be a much greater possibility of jobs running wrong and/or not at the right time.

The scheduling feature allows us to know when jobs are going to run and makes sure they run in the order needed.

Because this product only computes processing days, it is hard when things need to be scheduled according to non-processing days. 

Some of the reports are either a bit hard to understand or don’t give you what you might expect to see.

No issues.

No issues.

Tech support is excellent, especially if you have a problem that gets bumped to level-two people. The level-two people are great at figuring out what happened and what you do next.

We switched from Burroughs to IBM, previously.

Complex, but we have a complex schedule.

I’m not involved in this aspect.

Yes, IBM’s solution.

Get on the community. Ask questions.

In our current environment, we have a large community of users. So Workload Automation helps us with our complex job scheduling with automating placements.

I believe it's a mission-critical application that is required within the company because everything requires to be scheduled. Everything needs to move. In today's economy, everything is 365-24/7.

In all aspects of the company, whether you're in the actual trading or in the wholesale or retail space, you're our internal client and we treat you like a customer. Ultimately, we're in operations.

It needs more complex scheduling capabilities on the end points. For that to happen, you really need the next version of AutoSys that has the ability to do that. We used it as an opportunity to test out what that next version going to look like, so when we deployed enterprise-wide, we had a little bit of understanding of how it's going to work.

Also, it shouldn't take longer than six months to do a deployment. I heard good things about being portable, meaning CA is able to introduce a lot of agents as packages on top of your existing environment that you're going to add. That's some of the good things that I'm hearing and I'm looking forward to seeing those because our business requirements always expand.

I'd also like to see iDASH integration with monitoring, which I think is up and coming.

I've used it for almost 3 years.

I've had no issues deploying it.

We've had stability issues, but CA's pretty prompt about fixing things for us. We've had commonly-known bugs that are fixed after an upgrade.

It's been scalable. Architecture-wise, it's pretty robust, and we've been able to work it out with CA. We run over 10,000 jobs a day.

Technical support is relatively on the upper hand of some of the companies that we deal with because we do have dealings with our account management team. When we have a major deployment, the support team is made fully aware of that. If, for example, if we're doing a deployment on the weekend, we have a 1-800 number that we can call. It's been great.

For the original implementation, I wasn't involved, but we are moving to a newer release. We have built an environment where I was involved. Complexity-wise, it's more or less a specific business requirement that we needed.

At this moment, we've been pretty long-term customer with CA. I don't think there's any product out there that we're going to be willing to switch out at the moment, given what their customer base is, what the capabilities of the product and how it fits into our model.

Mostly its stability.

With requirements, they have "always" and "skip" on them. That would be nice, for them to have it on triggers also. So, if a customer says, "I want to demand this output, only these certain triggers," the scheduler could shut it off.

It's very, very stable. We've never had any problems with it.

I would give scalability a 10 out of 10.

We've used it for a couple of questions when we didn't know the answers. They were great, and very informative. We've even used it for CA Datacom. And since I was a newbie doing upgrades with that, they pretty much held my hand through it, and gave me different suggestions. So, thumbs up to them.

The one that we actually support is the CA-7 Edition for the scheduling package. It's very, very stable, always has been. And we rarely have any problems with it, so that's great.

The important criteria when selecting a vendor include

• that it works with other products
• stability, definitely
• and that it works great in DR.

If I were to advise someone who is looking at this kind of solution, I would say always look at multiple products, and decide from there. I would tell themabout the staple we've had with the CA-7 here, some people may say it's old, pre-historic, but it works great for us.

Our challenge is having a centralized schedule on a single pain with 180,000 jobs each day. We are looking to move to iDASH with predictive analytics. We don’t have many SLA’s. We're looking to do better with predictive analytics and we want to further integrate.

We were using a lot of homegrown stuff. This solution provides us with more details on jobs failing. It also gives us restorability. For the last 10 years, it's become more complex, but it's also bridged our platforms and gave us the ability to recover.

I'd like to see automation pushed even further, giving us greater looks into other systems. I'd like more enhanced process automation and have it manage a few more platforms without relying on another orchestration platform.

We've used it for 10 years.

We've had no issues with deploying it.

It's stable. It’s so busy finding maintenance windows, and we are currently going through exercises.

We can leverage multiple servers with ease.

Technical support is knowledgeable and I don’t have a whole lot of complaints. We don’t get the run around.

We had already had some other CA technologies, so it was a good fit and we knew what we were dealing with.

Initial setup and upgrades were straightforward.

Understand your needs, don’t complicate it, and understand what you are looking for. You don’t want to create an automated mess.

• Automation of patch process
• SQL integration
• Reporting

It has improved our organization by automating processes in a centralized platform. We are more productive and we can provide a better value to the business.

SQL server clustering is not supported.

We have been using the product for seven years.

Maintenance to the database must be performed to prevent stability issues.

We did not encounter any issues with scalability.

The technical support is good.

We previously used SQL but that solution is very limited.

The setup was straightforward.

Validate how many agents you need beforehand.

We evaluated JAMS.

I recommend that they evaluate a high availability infrastructure.

We use it for running jobs of workload automation, specifically bad jobs.

The flexibility and the scalability that it can be used from the back-end. It is very user friendly.

It is more scalable. We run around 100K jobs on a daily basis. To manage that much workload on the system, it is very reliable in terms of the uptime on the system.

The scalability could be improved upon. According to the roadmap, this should be addressed in upcoming features.

The emailing feature that we have, when there is a figure, you fill it in. This should be an emailing feature that is enabled.

It had downtime, but Sevis has been very supportive in that aspect.

We run about 100K jobs on a daily basis, so this adds up to having more critical customers in terms of reliability.

We have used the Techno Global support when we have had issues. 

I was not a part of the initial setup.

I would recommend this solution.