1 Reply Latest reply on Oct 25, 2012 5:24 AM by Daniel Tharby

    Bladelogic vs. Control-M

    Robert Stinnett

      So hoping some of you guys can give me some insight here.


      I'm working with the BSA product, and have been using Control-M for a long time.  Recently we've gotten into some "fundamental" discussions about when to use BSA and its jobs/batch jobs/etc versus when to use Control-M.  I argue, strongly, that Control-M provides many features that BSA does not -- dependencies, ability to define and control resources, better output handling, better notifications, etc. 


      While Control-M cannot do everything BSA can do -- I believe we shouldn't be trying to force fit thing into BSA just because "it can run jobs".  I always say we need to work towards a single pane of glass.  Control-M I believe is that single pane.


      Any thoughts, comments or other input on the matter?  I'd like to see what everyone else thinks/does and where you see the line being drawn before BSA vs. Control-M.



      Robert Stinnett

        • 1. Re: Bladelogic vs. Control-M
          Daniel Tharby

          Hi Robert,


          An interesting subject.


          For Batch Running/Control/Scheduling then Control-M is the way forward without a shadow of a doubt.

          BSA is for Server Automation, not Workload Automation where Control-M sits.


          However there is nothing to say taht you cannot use both to their respective strengths.

          Though my knowledge of Control-M is from many years ago on Mainframes - I would probably use Control-M to initiate jobs in BSA where needed.


          At the end of the day, if the primary requirements are Workload Automation and Management then Control-M is the clear choice.





          1 of 1 people found this helpful