SYSVIEW Performance Intelligence Reviews

We use it to control everything that's going on in the system. It's a very good tool to use for a system programmer and for a normal programmer.

As a system programmer I can see deep into the system, where nearly everything is at, so it's a very good tool for us to use.

It's quicker to get information, it saves time.

From the demo I attended it looks like all the features I would want are coming.

Very good, no downtime.

It's very good.

I haven't used technical support for SYSVIEW but I have used CA support and it's very good.

We were using SDS from IBM. We switched because SYSVIEW is a better product.

Straightforward.

You have this and you have SDS from IBM. You can compare the two products. We have an agreement with CA so we took SYSVIEW and it's good.

When selecting a vendor it comes down to the price.

I would recommend SYSVIEW. Use it.

• Easy Install
• One consistent interface for all components
• Many interfaces (VTAM, TSO, ISPF, Batch)
• Relatively easy to learn
• Interoperation with CA-OPS

• It's easier to diagnose problems, and find solutions
• Interoperability with CA-OPS allows for more automation.

Better historical reporting.

At least 10 years.

No.

No.

No.

Excellent. No problem with asking How-To questions.

Excellent.

No.

Relatively simple.

In House.

We used TMON before.

I really appreciate that actions can be triggered by thresholds. For example, when a threshold is reached, a job can be launched without having to use triglevel, capevent or another option.

Many SYSVIEW users have ceased manually performing functions.

Many sectors of IT appreciate and use the MVS display phase.

We can easily monitor any batch and CICS event, and this assures us in times of very high workload.

I think they could improve the frontend action stage and alert thresholds, for a better and more-usable job action or REXX launch.

Better management of the relationship between a threshold and the start of the response action, be it a job or a REXX, similar to the operation of OPS/MVS (in centers where there is not a SYSVIEW/OPS/MVS pair).

We have been using it for 6-7 years.

I have not encountered any stability issues.

I have not encountered any scalability issues.

Technical support has very good, kind people; they are available and prepared.

I did not previously use a different solution.

The first time I saw SYSVIEW, I found it straightforward and easy to use. I then encountered some difficulties when I started using it full-time. But now it's alright. In any case, when I speak to the service center, I still discover new product features.

Before choosing this product, I did not evaluate other options.

I can easily and highly recommend it.

Our data center uses this as the main product for mainframe system monitoring for hundreds of clients. The integration of CA OPS/MVS to alter and automate the action by threshold setup is the most valuable feature of this product.

We are targeting the standardization of our mainframe system monitoring product for clients and CA SYSVIEW is our first option, and packaged into our total solution for our mainframe service. Our client can use this product without additional cost while other products additional costs.

I would expect this product to be integrated with mainframe Linux system monitoring which is more popular in our mainframe solutions.

I've supported this product for about six years. My company has been using this product for 20 years. We're planning to upgrade to R14.1 in next half a year to support our z/OS 2.2 upgrade.

In general this product is stable and no major issues are reported.

It's been able to scale for our needs.

9/10 - I can always get quick responses for our request and for new release issues we get dedicated experts and coordinators to support our upgrades.

Our client used IBM OMEGAMON and other monitoring products previously. We recommended that they convert to CA SYSVIEW which is our global standard, and has a lower cost and full functionality of our standard mainframe solutions.

It is straightforward and we can bring up this product with most default values. We have packaged this product to our SOS repository and this makes it easy to implement to all regions automatically.

I am only technical support and have no idea on pricing and licensing. We have a dedicated team for this.

We are evaluating the IBM OMEGAMON product which many of our clients are using. We recommended that they consider CA SYSVIEW first with no additional cost. For IBM OMEGAMON, there is an additional cost involved.

I recommend this product to others due to its easy implementation, comprehensive functionality and good organization of documents.

Only the base feature is used.

It provides much more info regarding the mainframe and interfaces, with ease of use (menus); has many more options available compared to the previous product.

Perhaps the CPU usage: When SYSVIEW is accessed via VTAM, the CPU usage is higher than compared to when its accessed via TSO using exactly the same commands, e.g., Display active tasks.

I have used it for 12 years.

As mentioned, we did have issues with high CPU usage when accessed directly via VTAM but overcame it when accessed via TSO.

We have not encountered any scalability issues.

Technical support is professional and very efficient.

We previously used a different solution. The main reason we switched was the cost saving but it also provided much more functionality.

Initial setup was fairly straightforward.

I’m not sure about pricing but we have numerous CA products with an overall pricing and license.

We evaluated COMPLETE and OMEGAMON.

Do not hesitate; it’s invaluable.

Being able to see and to have oversight of everything that happens on the job is critical, and this is what we get with SYSVIEW.

It's really great to be able to compare historical reports, as it really helps our organizational functions. This feature is hard to find in other products.

I think we are going to 12.2 really soon. I'm looking forward to being able to use more than one job name to grab more information at one time.

We've had no issues with deployment.

It’s very stable and very fast. So far we are very happy about this and we hope it continues.

It is very scalable and has adapted really well over our years of usage.

We seem to get our answers in a timely manner so technical support seems to be working well. We have no complaints.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. We use the CSM to implement it time and time again, and overall it’s just extremely quick and very user-friendly.

It’s definitely better than SDFF and JCL as they are going nowhere. I haven’t used any other products, but if you want to keep looking back and to see historical data and find out about yourself, then this is the product for you.

• Job degradation and analysis

It gives an indication of potential performance bottlenecks.

The screen layout could be updated and be more modern looking.

The product has a 1980’s interface and it seems no investment whatsoever has been made in this respect.

It’s a green texted screen, the navigation is poor because you can’t use the cursor for selection.

Exiting the product does not allow for the standard ‘=x’ instruction. You have to Pf3 all the way out.

Great product...terrible looking interface

I have used it for 12 years.

Sometimes in split screen, it can crash.

We have not encountered any scalability problems.

Technical support is fairly good.

We have MainView but SYSVIEW is better for z/OS internals.

It was simple to install.

Before choosing this product, we did not evaluate other options.

Do it.

We find the predictive analytics to be the most valuable feature. We are using this a lot with CA Workload Automation iDASH and it is really making a difference for everyone involved.

I wouldn't say that it's improved the way we function, but that doesn’t mean it won’t and we really feel that so far it’s working well.

It's a complex solution, but we haven’t run into issues yet. I have heard of issues from others, but we haven’t seen them. Then again, we are not yet using cross-instance job dependencies in Workload Automation, so we're not sure whether there may be an issue there.

It seems stable enough at this stage, but we haven’t unleashed it fully yet. It seems like it will do well.

It is totally scalable. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t use it. Scalability is an essential requirement.

Technical support is knowledgeable and has improved greatly over the years as previously it wasn’t great. When we open even low-priority cases, they respond quickly.

We originally wanted to use JAWS, but we figured eventually that we would go with CA because of what they had to offer.

Initial setup was complex.

We compared it with JAWS. We chose CA because it just had everything we needed.

Have a good service contract. We can call on their engineers to come as we paid for a certain amount of time and you need someone to show you.