Stonebranch Universal Automation Center Scalability

Brian
Sr. System Programmer at a retailer with 1,001-5,000 employees
It has high scalability. It's easy to use, it's easy to run with, it's easy to get it turned on and going. View full review »
Earl Diem
Manager Performance and Automation Engineering at PSCU Financial Services
We're yask-based, so if we get to a point where we need to run more monthly task, we can scale our license to monthly task. We haven't come anywhere close to having performance problems or capacity problems running the jobs that we're running at this point. But if we needed to scale larger, because we are transaction-based, it's a matter of scaling up or scaling out the Stonebranch Controller. With the 450 jobs that we're going to be running, we're running on a single Universal Controller. We have DR, we have it in another data center as well, the databases are replicated. But with the one Universal Controller on a good size virtual machine, and being transaction-based, being able to run 400 to 500 workflows is good. We can scale horizontally or vertically as we need. View full review »
SeniorTe1d8f
Senior Technical Analyst at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
What I like about it is the configuration that they allow you to get to, how granular it can get. Something that we used to struggle with - because we farm out the work to the applications and say, "You run this, this is just distributed cron for you," - was that people would run their scripts and sometimes do something silly like send their debug to standard out, and standard output is two gigs. Usually, our old tools would go capture that and send it back to the controller. That two-gig amount of data is huge. It's going to break either the agent or the transfer or take the controller down when it gets there. Stonebranch lets you tweak that stuff to say things along the lines of, "How much of the standard output do you want? Do you want 100k, 100 lines, 2k?" You decide. Scalability depends on that. If you want to run 100 million tasks a day, you have to figure out how much data you want to retain, and that's the power of this tool. Other tools don't let you do that. View full review »
Find out what your peers are saying about Stonebranch, BMC, IBM and others in Workload Automation. Updated: October 2019.
370,827 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Frank Burkhardt
Application and Database Administrator at Blue Bird Corporation
We have 17 servers that we're running in production which Stonebranch is communicating with. We have over 800 tasks running on these 17 different servers. I get the feeling it could scale to 10 times this amount with no problem. It does not seem to have any issues with the amount of jobs or data that it is handling. We do plan on increasing it as new servers are added, but as of now, we're holding off on adding new servers. We have done as much as we need to right now. As new production servers are added, and if the Stonebranch capability is needed, we will add it. We do have more licenses, so it's not a license issue. I am the admin. We have six to eight users who are developers utilizing it and looking at tasks to ensure they have run or obtain data from failed jobs. Management does have the ability to look at it, but I don't believe that they are. Overall, we have approximately 10 users in the company. View full review »
Mike Booher
Systems Programmer II at a insurance company with 501-1,000 employees
It's very scalable. You can run as many agents as you need, depending upon how many servers you're monitoring or integrating into it. We're running about 10,000 tasks every day. I've heard of other companies doing hundreds of thousands. I'm not concerned about scalability. Usage is increasing at a steady rate. It's heavily used. It's a very integral piece of our batch processing daily. View full review »
Doug Perseghetti
Consulting Systems Engineer at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees
We have not experienced any limits, so it should be scalable. View full review »
reviewer952863
Application Manager at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees
Its processes are easily scalable. View full review »
reviewer948096
User at a insurance company with 501-1,000 employees
reviewer948099
User at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
reviewer958350
User
The tool is consistently executing large batch jobs. Issues that we attempt to correct are more often than not within the application itself and not UAC. View full review »
reviewer958344
User
It is easy to scale the environment by adding new clients to the server pool. However, you have to do some manual work. View full review »
dwalin
DevOps Engineer at a financial services firm with 501-1,000 employees
scalability is good however it is lacking alternative to extend controller cluster's node numer. View full review »
reviewer951501
User
Can be scaled. View full review »
reviewer948087
User at a financial services firm
Find out what your peers are saying about Stonebranch, BMC, IBM and others in Workload Automation. Updated: October 2019.
370,827 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Sign Up with Email