Control-M Managed File Transfer

My main use case for Control-M  is working as an administrator and scheduler, setting up AFT jobs with respect to their AFT and OS jobs. Apart from that, I also work on connection profiles and their respective connection setup between two servers, troubleshooting Control-M  agents and their respective configurations.

For example, if I want to schedule a specific job for a specific day, Control-M is very useful, allowing me to schedule or set up a job with respect to either a monthly, weekly, or daily basis while considering specific holidays configured on that particular calendar. In addition, if I want to run some script, I can use OS jobs to run a specific script on that server. I can also transfer files between two servers using Managed File Transfer or AFT, transferring files by setting up their configuration on both ends. These are the major tasks I typically work with.

I use these scheduling and file transfer features daily as part of my workflow. I mostly set up jobs in production and non-prod environments, organizing the respective job setups in different categories. For AFT jobs, I typically transfer files from an S3  bucket to a Windows Server  or a Unix server to a Windows Server  or Unix to S3  bucket, using various platforms such as server to server, server to shared drive, or shared drive to server. In AFT file transfer, I set up connection profiles between two servers for host one and host two, ensuring both hosts communicate properly using Control-M Configuration Manager, also known as CCM . Once the connection is set up, I configure the job using the same Control-M connection profile. I provide details such as source and destination path using that configuration for proper communication.

Managing a Control-M agent is one key part; in case Control-M agent fails, I troubleshoot it using basic troubleshooting skills, such as selecting the troubleshooting option on the agent to reflect the initial level of error. Additionally, I check the library and error log for a specific agent. I also review the new day process (NDP) to ensure that all jobs load daily to avoid production failures. Calendar setup can also be beneficial for any job scheduling. I work on creating new Control-M jobs that operate under the planning and are created concerning the workspace. Furthermore, I track jobs that flashback from the regular cycle. If there are issues with different Control-M servers across my environments in the UK, US, and Asia Pacific, I troubleshoot any server outages or failures.

Regarding measurable improvements since using Control-M, when jobs fail due to specific errors, I am notified promptly, which is essential for handling issues in the production environment. Instead of manually checking all failed jobs, I configure notifications based on priority, enhancing my time-saving efforts across job management.

The biggest lesson learned from using Control-M is understanding how jobs get scheduled within minutes and can function independently without intervention. I have gained insights into configuring job properties such as command jobs, file transfers, file watchers, SAP jobs, and more. My extensive experience of over nine years with Control-M offers me great opportunities, and I look forward to improvements, particularly in AI features relevant to Control-M.

In my experience, the best feature Control-M offers is the File Transfer capability, especially useful for larger sizes. I am currently working on a project transferring files larger than 6 GB, which is easy to accomplish. Additionally, the File Watcher job type is valuable as it checks for files in a specific path and triggers actions based on file availability.

For the File Watcher feature, it helps me keep an eye on specific files, triggering transfers as soon as they become available. When setting up a File Watcher job, I ensure specific configurations, such as file availability time and run cycles. The job detects file availability on the platform; once the file is available, the File Watcher job triggers, triggering its successor job. This eliminates the need for constant monitoring of file availability, allowing me to focus on other tasks. Additionally, AFT file transfer for larger volumes is smooth and efficient; other tools take a lot longer for significant file transfers. Control-M lets me track the percentage completed during file transfers as well, enhancing my monitoring. CCM  allows me to track all Control-M components effectively, including agents, servers, and add-ons.

Control-M is exceptionally useful for building, scheduling, managing, and monitoring production workflows. It allows me to set up jobs promptly and test them collaboratively with input from my operations and development teams without delays. Control-M enables my IT personnel to refocus on critical operations once jobs are set up for recurrent activities such as monthly or daily runs. For example, one of my teammates established a payroll job that now runs automatically, reducing manual effort and allowing for more focus on different project requirements.

For improvements, there is some slowness in terms of logging, as Control-M can be a heavy tool that could benefit from reducing file size. Overall, the tool is great, but it would be helpful if it were lighter and easier to use in my daily operations. In my non-prod environment, I notice significant lag, making it difficult to work effectively. Enhancing the tool's speed and perhaps integrating AI-related features could significantly benefit daily activities.

I choose nine because once the tool is available in a lighter version, it would be even more useful. The features are excellent, but the heaviness of the tool makes it take longer to open and close, causing frequent hangs during multiple activities. For instance, switching from monitoring to history can cause significant delays. This impacts productivity, especially in a production setting where speed is crucial.

I have been using Control-M for around eight to nine years.

Control-M is indeed stable.

Regarding scalability, Control-M scales well, allowing me to operate in four different environments across four regions without concerns.

Customer support from BMC is excellent; whenever I create a case, they respond promptly, ensuring there are no issues. I would rate customer support a perfect ten.

Positive

Previously, my organization used tools such as OPC and Tivoli before switching to Control-M, as my organization recommended it. The GUI in Control-M is significantly more user-friendly for managing daily activities and job setups.

The deployment of Control-M servers takes about one to two hours on the AWS  platform.

For deployment and maintenance, I find that two to three people suffice for maintaining a single server. However, if I need to manage multiple servers across different environments, more staff will be necessary. The requirement really depends on the configuration size and deployment needs.

Although Control-M is costly, it does yield a return on investment for larger organizations, but it is not suitable for small teams or individuals. The pricing is quite high, which can be a disadvantage for smaller groups, although the efficiency gains do save time and money overall.

Regarding pricing, setup costs, and licensing, I am not heavily involved in those areas, as that falls under my network team. However, the pricing for Control-M seems high compared to other tools, and licensing can be complex, with annual renewals required. The cost has been substantial compared to similar tools I have encountered.

Before selecting Control-M, I evaluated other scheduling tools such as Tivoli and Mainframe job track but decided to stick with Control-M for my long-term needs.

For those considering using Control-M, I would advise it is an excellent choice for managing workflows and orchestrating jobs as per project demands. I have been using Control-M in various roles over the past 10 plus years, and I recommend it, provided you understand processes and setups. I give this review a rating of 9.

I work with Control-M  from a commercial aspect and engage with IT and operation teams across different industries, which gives me direct exposure to how Control-M  is used in real production environments. My role is to deliver tangible value to these teams.

The valuable features of Control-M depend on the specific customer needs. Some customers have business-critical processes, strict SLAs, and hybrid or multi-cloud environments where Control-M provides end-to-end visibility of all these processes. Control-M also offers different modules, such as MFT , which allows users to transfer files with the tool. As a commercial professional, I cannot personally attest to specific features since I do not typically use the tool directly, but I can share what customers have told me they value about the product.

As a commercial professional, I think one of the downsides of Control-M is that not all people know they can use a tool such as Control-M, and they think that Control-M is going to be very expensive, which is the reason why they don't want to use it or seek more information about it. However, when they are accustomed to using this type of tool or Control-M as a scheduler, they feel better with it and with their role inside their enterprise. For example, if they don't have any scheduler, they don't know that they can use a scheduler to automate different business processes. When they recognize that they can use this type of tool, one of the objectives is to reduce costs. They may spend money in the short term, but in the medium or long term, they will probably have more benefits than risk.

Control-M has everything that a person needs because the problem is not high cost. Control-M is available on-premises and in the cloud, and they are having more apps every week with the app integrator. I don't have anything that I dislike about Control-M. Possible areas for improvement could include documentation, configuration, and pricing. Being more flexible and having out-of-the-box reporting for business stakeholders would be beneficial. Continuing to simplify licensing and packaging for smaller customers would also help improve customer conversations. Reporting  is often mentioned as an area where Control-M could continue to evolve. Many customers would appreciate more out-of-the-box business-friendly reports. Control-M has operability with SLA-focused reports, but developing something with less customization would be better.

I have been using Control-M for more or less two years.

I think that some instability is normal because everything is in the cloud, and I can remember a few months when the AWS  cloud crashed. If you see the SLA reports or responses from different customers, they are very happy with the tool. Control-M achieves more or less 98% or 99% uptime in the cloud, which is a fantastic rate. I think 100% is impossible to achieve, and 99.8% is a good number.

Control-M, developed by BMC, which was previously part of BMC Helix and is now BMC Software, is focusing on Digital Business Automation processes. They are developing many different modules in Control-M, and the scalability is fantastic. Probably in a couple of years, Control-M is going to be the best scheduler. Currently, they are competing with other schedulers such as Redwood, Broadcom, and Stonebranch , but in a couple of years, maybe one or two years, Control-M is not going to have any competitors.

I have used technical support from BMC when we need to do demos for instances in the BMC tool. The technical support team are very good professionals and they do their jobs excellently. Since I don't use Control-M directly, if I have a problem with Control-M, the technical team from my enterprise would need to talk with the technical team from BMC. I usually talk with the commercial team from BMC rather than the technical team. I talk with the technical team when I need to make a demo, proof of concept, or proof of value, and we need to customize the future instance for the client. If I need to rate the technical support from BMC, I would give them a 10 because whenever I want to do something with them, they answer me, and I am very happy with them.

Positive

I don't use any alternative schedulers. I know that you can talk about Redwood, Broadcom, or Stonebranch , but I don't use any one of these schedulers.

I don't have a lot of contact with deployment. Probably if I think about some customers, they tell me that there is also interest in simplifying upgrades and environment standardization, particularly for organizations with multiple Control-M instances. If you talk with a small customer, they are going to be happy with deployment, upgrades, or the environment.

Control-M has an upgrade more or less every year or every two years. If you want to use the latest upgrade, you need to upgrade your tool.

The implementation team depends on the person doing the deployment.

The current pricing is good. Other vendors such as Broadcom are increasing their prices, so right now, Control-M is not one of the highest-cost schedulers. My customers have never told me anything negative about the pricing or licensing. BMC can be very amenable with the pricing of the tool. I have small customers, and I think that is a good point of view because they think they can't have the budget for a tool such as Control-M, but they do have the budget. Control-M is a tool for every kind of customer. You can sell Control-M for 15K on-premises and you can sell it for 7 million or 11 million. I think that people need to change their thinking because Control-M is not just an expensive tool. It is a tool for everyone, for every enterprise.

I would rate Control-M at nine.

Control-M  is used for scheduling, specifically scheduling application jobs. We have always been using Control-M , as we inherited it. We work with all technologies within the business using Control-M, including WebMethods, Axway, and IBM MQ . In the managed file transfer space, using Control-M, I find that it is not as user-friendly as other products available for MFT .

The best features in Control-M are its ease of use and robustness; it is very feature-rich, which is what we use it for—scheduling. It is easy to integrate Control-M with technologies for our DataOps and DevOps processes as things change. The integration aspects of Control-M are out of the box, so they are straightforward to use. From using Control-M, I have seen improvements as they grow with the versions; with the newer versions come enhanced functionalities, such as the latest version allowing access through a web GUI instead of the client GUI that you have to install, which is quite helpful because you can access it from anywhere.

We are not on the latest version of Control-M; we currently have version 20 and 21.

I have been using Control-M for 10 years.

Regarding stability with Control-M, I would rate it nine out of ten for downtime, bugs, and glitches.

Control-M is very scalable, and I would rate it a nine.

I would rate the vendor's technical support for Control-M as a nine.

Positive

We have tried to look at other products, but there is no other product out there that does what it needs to do as Control-M does, which is why it is still around—it simply does what it needs to do.

The deployment of Control-M was quite complex to get in, but once it is in, it does what it needs to do. It took weeks to get Control-M deployed.

Control-M requires maintenance from our end, as we have to perform patching whenever needed, but that does not happen very often—probably once a quarter. Patching for Control-M is easy.

I have definitely seen a return on investment with Control-M in terms of time and resources, but I cannot speak to the financial aspect—I do not know. I would estimate that I have saved perhaps 20% to 30% on time and resources using Control-M.

From what I know about pricing, I would probably put Control-M in the expensive category, but you do pay for what you get; you are paying for a premium product.

We looked at AWS  products for scheduling with Control-M; I cannot remember the actual name of the scheduling tool at AWS , but it is nowhere near as advanced as what we need.

Approximately 100 users work with Control-M. They are not all Australia-based; some users are from India, so we have offshore resources as well. My relationship with BMC is both transformative and transactional. Regarding the transformative aspect, I have impressions of BMC as both because we partner with them; we might not be strategic partners, but we value their advice all the time—not just product advice, but sales as well. We consider ourselves a partner with the vendor, but I do not know if we are officially a signed partner; we are a partner at the base level. When I refer to our relationship with the vendor, we are considered an entry level partner; we are not a reseller, so we cannot resell their products, but we are partners and we consult while using their products internally and with customers to support their customer base. Our clients are generally enterprise businesses. I would recommend Control-M to other users; I know they are going all web-based, which they believe is the best way to go, but I can tell you that everybody I have spoken to has said the contrary—they actually prefer the client GUI that you can install, which is easier to use and more feature-rich, while the web GUI is very hard and difficult to navigate through. I have rated this review a nine out of ten overall.

Neutral

Positive