BMC TrueSight Server Automation Reviews

My main use case for BMC TrueSight Server Automation is utilizing its features of provisioning, compliance engines, jobs, and scheduled automations.

When I create a task and schedule it for future runs, I can put the compliance sets in place so that when I provision any VM, those jobs should be immediately run after the provision setup, which will help me have complied VMs.

The overall role of BMC TrueSight Server Automation in managing configuration drift brings return on investment through its automation, which helps save me the time and effort of my operations team.

I have seen benefits on-prem specifically, as it provides a scripting kind of concept that allows me to write my own scripts, define destinations, run those scripts, and get outputs back, enabling me to take calls on what to do next. I can automate routine operations such as log shifting, temporary file deletions, and DB log archiving.

BMC TrueSight Server Automation provides me with a centralized management console that depends upon the customer environment. If they want a single setup controlling all, they can have that, or they can have a distributed setup where a single instance controls different teams. For example, in our mission, there are three modules, and they can control their own infrastructure using the same tool, supporting both centralized and decentralized setups.

Regarding the patch management feature, I find it perfect in BMC TrueSight Server Automation; however, the only problem is with application software, as operating system patch management is perfect.

What I am trying to have is application software running on the server segment. Sometimes they use browsers, PDF readers, and Java, so patching these application or utility software is a challenge due to the large number and the different versions.

I have some concerns regarding BMC TrueSight Server Automation that could be improved, particularly in the reporting part. The pending patches report generated after the analysis only reflects the job executed, but in a distributed environment where multiple teams manage servers, central governance requires server status updates driven by servers rather than jobs.

Regarding support, I am satisfied with the support provided by BMC, as they have perfect support. This product is one of the most stable in the market, and there are no significant issues or bugs, with any problems mostly resolved within one or two days by the OEM.

Positive

When comparing pricing, I don't know the pricing level between BMC TrueSight Server Automation and OpenText, but from a feature perspective, I can say they are on the same level, approximately 90-20, with not much difference.

I find it difficult to remember the key reason I decided to go with BMC TrueSight Server Automation versus something else on the market, such as OpenText, as it was five years back.

I only work with management on on-prem; it is on-prem only.

It has helped me improve performance by reducing patching cycles, which previously spread across 30 to 60 days are now reduced to 15 days.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate BMC TrueSight Server Automation a 10.

Our use case is for managing Windows patching processes used in SCCM. I'm a system analyst and we are customers of BMC.

The ability to standardize patching and deployments across affiliates is a valuable function. I also like the ability to access server information and file systems directly through TSSA.

Resource management on the base servers could be improved. We're using a site that's supposed to cover all of our affiliates. I don't know what is causing the problem but we've had to increase RAM and CPU processing in order to alleviate some of the sluggishness during patching. I find the solution to be rather cumbersome. It's supposed to be able to support 50,000 or 100,000 servers. We only have 5,000 servers and during our patch processes, it gets very sluggish. We wanted to automate our patching, and not be stuck monitoring patches for three-quarters of every month.

We have a main site and then multiple repeaters at each of the affiliate locations. Theoretically, patches are supposed to be delivered to the repeaters and your affiliates are supposed to pull the patches from those repeaters. We've noticed that doesn't always work and it pulls transfer patches from the main site rather than going to the repeater.

TrueSight brought some standardization across the affiliates, however, it has also increased workloads and has made some things more complex. The requirement to have a local account with no password (password is random in TSSA, but not able to be changed through Windows) has caused some grief with our security team, and many complaints across affiliates. There are several features that appear to be very good but they don't always work as expected.

I've been using this solution for about two years. 

The stability isn't too bad, some of the reporting features work some of the time but not all the time. We haven't had many issues with the console interface, but it's been sluggish. If we have a lot of patching going on or in the middle of our maintenance we know we're patching 500, 600 servers at once, there'll be times when you'll notice a degradation of performance on the console and slowness getting the patches out even with the repeaters and other affiliates.

I don't think they've listed their scalability appropriately for the configuration of the servers they support. It could probably scale better if you were using more robust systems than they tell you to set up. If you buy their minimum, you'll only get support for 300 or 400 servers, although they say it can support 1,500. Scalability could definitely be improved. We're looking at moving to Ansible for patches for Linux and Windows systems. We have five people out of a team of 10 who spend around three-quarters of the month doing Windows patching. 

I haven't had direct contact with their tech support. Some of my colleagues have mentioned that it can be frustrating at times and then sometimes it's okay. I guess it depends on who you get.

Neutral

Some affiliates were using SCCM, and others were using BigFix. We switched in order to standardize across affiliates.

I wasn't involved with the backend build but carried out deployments for some of the repeaters. It's pretty straightforward, but you have to be careful with your license keys for Red Hat and make sure your systems can talk and you have the licensing to do the Microsoft patching. It sometimes seems like the documentation is a little inadequate. We've actually had to put in several calls to BMC to have them make improvements in the processes.

Implementation was through a vendor, they have expertise, but it does not seem well managed to me. It could have been handled much more smoothly than it went for us.  It took almost an entire year to setup and work through the initial startup, and we still run into multiple issues.

With the number of hours we put in each month for patching, I think we lose out in terms of a return.

I'm not involved with licensing but I believe they tied the purchase of TrueSight into a discount with Remedy. It was quite expensive, it took us a year to get it deployed and we've had problems with it ever since.

The change was implemented by management and I do not believe any other solutions were evaluated by the people responsible for maintaining the product on a daily basis.  

Due to the nature of the product and the possibility that it could be done to a much higher degree than we encountered, we don't have a large team. We had to bring in outside assistance to get everything set up. I believe it could be a great product but at this time it's not. On the Linux side, they're already migrating the systems to Ansible due to the frustration of patching all the servers.

I rate this solution seven out of 10. 

The use cases depend on the customer's requirements. Most of the time, the customers are interested in the deployment of patches. And with respect to Orchestrate, there's a use case for chain management and auto-deployment of patches, as well as vulnerability management through the automation console. Vulnerability management also involves scanning and integration with Qualys and Nessus.

Overall, the BMC TrueSight Server Automation product is very strong. It allows you to operate it through both the GUI and CLI (Command Line Interface). That's the beauty of the product.

There should be some agentless operations as well because sometimes it becomes very difficult for everybody to have an agent installed. So, some operations should be possible to perform without agents. Maybe that will be considered in the future.

The tool is doing almost everything right now, including compliance and permission management. Currently, we are doing vulnerability assessment scanning by integrating with external tools. However, it would be better if the tool itself had its own vulnerability management functionality, where it can independently scan endpoints. If it had this built-in functionality, it would provide an end-to-end security solution.

I have been using this solution for the last ten years. Actually, since it was BladeLogic. I've been working on it since that time.

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. It has good stability. 

Scalability is good. I would rate it a nine out of ten. We deployed it for a BFSI customer with 25,000 to 30,000 servers. 

TrueSight Server Automation is specifically designed for enterprise-level usage. Because an enterprise envisions providing an end-to-end solution for automation and reducing human dependency. 

The customer service and support are good. BMC offers multiple channels for support, including social media, which makes it easy to find solutions and get answers. There are various portals with helpful information even before reaching out to support.

The architecture is big, so the initial setup is not a straightforward task. However, we don't find it very difficult. But in terms of configuration, the minimum hardware requirements are quite high. As there are a lot of additional tools like Grafana or YellowFence, which are integrated, it becomes a heavy tool.

The pricing is on the higher side. However, it's essential to remember that the actual cost may vary depending on factors like customer size and the discounts offered. Therefore, it's not fair to judge a tool solely based on its cost.

I work on the entire BMC automation platform, monitoring, and workflow automation. So, basically, my role is a solution architect. I don't only work on the BMC platform, but I'm a solution architect. So, we explore multiple products based on customer requirements.

For example, there's Microsoft SCOM (System Center Operations Manager) as a competing product. However, BMC TrueSight Server Automation offers a unique platform. Microsoft's SCOM has some limitations concerning its platform. 

Nowadays, most customers expect products to come with all functionalities, and everyone wants to avoid falling behind in the market. 

So, it's up to the client to make a choice based on factors like comfort with the vendor, OEM relationships, cost, and overall requirements. All products generally have essential functionalities, but in the case of BMC TrueSight Server Automation,  it offers more functionality, scalability, and platform diversity, making it stand out as a top-tier solution.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. TrueSight Server Automation is a fine product that meets the requirements well.

We use the solution to address vulnerabilities. It patch servers. It also assists in ensuring compliance with policies, provides end-to-end visibility, and deploys patches effectively. I use it for both patching and vulnerability management.

You can easily get the patching link. Patches can be deployed easily with a single click, making deployment straightforward. This eliminates the need for constant monitoring. You can deploy the necessary patches with one click, ensuring everything is signed correctly, and all issues are resolved.

More use cases can be automated. The user interface of BMC TrueSight Server Automation could benefit from enhancements, as it currently lacks refinement. However, the stability of the platform is commendable. While there are occasional fluctuations, overall, it maintains a high level of stability. In terms of automation capabilities, it performs satisfactorily. Additionally, it handles gateway activities smoothly, demonstrating its capability.

I have been using BMC TrueSight Server Automation for a long time.

The product is stable.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

The solution is running on almost a thousand servers. It is an enterprise-grade tool designed to handle heavy server loads. It can efficiently manage servers.

Support is knowledgeable and friendly.

Positive

The deployment is straightforward and took a month to complete. Once deployed, they go into your server. However, configuration is essential.

The solution is expensive. It has perpetual licenses.

If you compare BMC TrueSight Server Automation in the market, you will find its features far superior. There are no negatives regarding deployment, management, or costs.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use the product for server automation. It helps us to automate and configure endpoints of servers which can include application servers, database servers, etc. 

The solution is stable. 

We encountered some reporting issues. Also, we needed to gather information from the backend before the product execution. The output's format is not good. 

I have been using the solution since 2016. 

I would rate the solution's stability a nine out of ten. 

I would rate the product's scalability an eight out of ten. My company has 200 users for the product. 

We get support from a vendor company and the quality is low. 

The solution's setup is easy and deployment took one hour to complete. 

The product's pricing depends on the number of servers. 

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We use the solution for patching and executing a number of scripts as well as decommissioning the server, provisioning a virtual machine, and checking the compliance of the server.

The best feature of the solution is patch automation. The main features of the solution are compliance, which can be checked off in an automated way, and a report generated. We also have a dashboard where we can check and integrate two sets of automation with vulnerability management. This allows us to mitigate vulnerabilities through patching, deploying scripts, executing commands, and making changes to the registry entry.

When trying to gather a large amount of data, such as multiple server data, there is no specific option to populate the data and export it to Excel, which is required. For example, when running a patch analysis job to find how many packages are missing on servers and which have been installed, it is difficult to get individual server data in an Excel format, so manual work is needed. Additionally, when exporting the report of a script, such as one to check if the firewall is on or not, it is difficult to extract the data from the solution if there are multiple servers.

There is no other functionality available to patch the containers that we need to include. I believe many teams have been moving towards containerization. In certain cases, if vulnerabilities are found during our hybrid assessment, there is no easy way to fix them specifically.

I would like to have the ability to run the Ansible playbooks in the solution.

I have been using the solution for seven years.

I give the stability a seven out of ten because the SSA has a lot of performance issues.

We have around 700 people using the solution in our organization.

The solution is scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward; it consists of a three-tier architecture with one console, which can be installed anywhere other than the application server, an application server, and a database. These three components are necessary.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

The organization decided to use BMC TrueSight Automation for Servers because we are a partner with BMC and also have their premium support.

If we wish to manage a large number of servers or infrastructures, the solution is beneficial as it provides a variety of functions such as server compliance and patching. The solution is also useful in on-premise environments for provisioning. Furthermore, day two operations and stable operations can be achieved with the help of the solution, and changes can be raised for specific operations.

We use TrueSight Server Automation for patching and executing scripts. It's useful for tasks like decommissioning servers, provisioning virtual machines, etc. We also use it to check server compliance.

Server Automation's best feature is automated patching. It also helps us automate compliance and report generation. We can even integrate TrueSight Server Automation with a vulnerability management solution to remedy vulnerabilities by applying patches, deploying scripts, or changing registry entries. 

TrueSight falls short when we are trying to gather large amounts of data from multiple servers. We need to do these tasks manually because there is no option to populate the data and export it to Excel, which is required. For example, let's say I'm trying to find out how many patches are missing on the servers and which ones have been installed. It's hard to automatically pull each server's data in an Excel format. 

For example, let's say we have 10 servers and we execute a script to check if the firewall is up. It's hard to extract the data from it because it generates other garbage. Also, TrueSight lacks the ability to patch containers. This is crucial because many teams are moving to containerization, and we've found vulnerabilities in some of the containers during our assessment. There currently is no easy way to fix these issues with TrueSight. 

The solution supports Python and Powershell scripting, but it would be helpful if it also ran Ansible playbooks.

I have used Server Automation for seven years.

I rate Server Automation seven out of 10 for stability because it has some performance issues. 

I rate BMC support nine out of 10. We have premium support because we are a large customer with 100,000 servers. 

Positive

Setting up Server Automation is straightforward. It's a three-tier architecture with one console you can install anywhere except the application server. The other two components are the application server and database. 

I rate TrueSight Server Automation nine out of 10, considering the huge number of servers we manage. TrueSight has the scalability to manage 100,000 servers at a time. 

I recommend Server Automation for managing a large set of environments because it provides a lot of functionality for patching servers and checking for compliance. It's also helpful if you need to do a ton of provisioning in an on-premise environment. 

The solution is used for our multi-server environments, including two job servers and DR setups. We use the solution in case of any disaster, or the environment collapses. We have another setup for the console server automation to activate the website to meet product availability for customers and ensure there is no downtime for process environments.

The solution's most valuable features are provisioning, compliance, patching, and integration.

They should add the application to a cloud platform. Also, no lead connectors are included presently. Thus, it would be great if they shift the application to the cloud and provide connectors to avoid connectivity issues.

We have been using the solution for four years.

Scaling the environment during setup at larger organizations with 10,000 employees gets complicated.

We contact BMC support for several reasons. We often need their help to resolve the conflict between the premier and vendor IDs. Also, we ask for their support whenever any new vulnerability is found in the environment.

Neutral

The setup was straightforward, but it depended upon the initial setup tool. Once we get the essential details from the customer, we deploy the setup for the two types of automation. It takes two days to complete the process. 

The solution is quite expensive compared to other vendors. But as this solution provides strong support and has multiple use cases, it is worth it.

I advise others to use BMC as it is a robust solution for compliance, patching, provisioning, and integration. I rate this solution as a nine.

My primary use case was patching.

Earlier, we had Windows Server Update Services in place. With that, we were only using internal patches. But with BMC, we even configured applications, like IE or things that were Java-related. When we scheduled the jobs, it worked fine. It saved us time and there was no need for resources to monitor them. The jobs worked at the times we scheduled. And, if a job failed we monitored for that.

Also, BMC did not have impact in terms of network-related issues. For example, previously, if we staged patches in the daytime, they would use more network bandwidth. 

In addition, that one BladeLogic was used for almost in 1,000 servers. If we had to do that manually it would be a very big headache.

In terms of improving collaboration between IT operations and security teams, there was a security team and they were using Nexpose scanning to analyze the servers. But it was not up to date. We were informed that the patches were not installed and we worked on pushing the packages to the servers which had not been updated.

Overall, it saved me time.

We didn't use most of the advanced features. We just used it to implement patching where we needed to run scheduling and do automation jobs.

Jobs were supposed to run automatically and, if there was a failure, it was supposed to fix it. But that was not happening. When we added 20 servers to one job, and one server failed, the job was showing as completely failed. The next job was supposed to integrate with some applications. For example, there was a BIG-IP load-balancer. If we wanted to run it as a BMC job, first it was supposed to take out from the load-balancer and then the job was supposed to run. If there were particular services there, like SQL services, they were supposed to be stopped and then the job was supposed to re-start triggering. But that was not happening.

The dashboard has many features but we couldn't use it because, somewhere, the communication was lost. When we tried to open it, it would not open. We mostly operated the solution manually. We did not have a lot of resources for this particular project so we were unable to put in a call to BMC to try to get this fixed.

When trying to get accounts for BMC BladeLogic we were asked to raise a ticket. But we should first be asked if we've had some minimal training on the BMC BladeLogic. Only then should they go ahead and provide accounts. Without any knowledge of the product, we used the KB articles to start working. As a result, we definitely did not have full knowledge of BMC BladeLogic. We ended up asking simple and silly questions, which is not good. They need to provide a minimum of knowledge with training on YouTube or somewhere else. Currently, there is no video training available on YouTube. And outside of their organization, there are also there no training centers.

Another area for improvement is group scheduling if I'm trying to do all the servers. For example, if I want to do all the 2012 Servers - since the patches are the same for all of them - I can't do so. Maybe that feature exists but I'm unaware of it. That kind of filtering would be helpful.

I would also like to see scripting integrated with BMC and integration with PowerShell as well. But if we are trying to invoke a simple command to stop services, it would be good to have that. Currently, we need to depend on PowerShell only. If we're trying to do some of the servers, the first thing we need is for the services to be stopped, before going to the patching. We need to write a script for that and add it to the BMC tool and then we can start triggering the jobs. Otherwise, we will be in trouble when a service is running and the server is being patched. Something like radio buttons to stop the services would be good.

There is no option to see all the servers we patch and we cannot find what the server status is. Of course, we can what has been completed and what is pending and which servers have failed, but we cannot find server status from the BMC tool. For example, is the RDP up or not. We are using separate scripts for that.

We are doing that 150 or 200 servers at a time. If some of the servers fail, we don't know exactly. It shows, out of 200 servers, that ten or 15 servers have a "failed" status. So we need to log in to the servers, if we don't know scripting. That's why we are using the scripting, to know what the RDP status. We check manually or we use the scripting to find the status on them.

In addition, we are always getting complaints from the security team. They say, "You guys did patching on these servers, but there are still some packages are missing." If BMC is not integrated with the security tools, we will definitely continue getting complaints like that. BladeLogic needs to be integrated with security tools, like Nexpose and Cisco. Then we can see which servers are patched successfully and there will be no complaints from security.

I worked with it for almost two-and-a-half years.

BMC was very helpful in those areas where we submitted tickets. Overall their technical support was very good. It helped a lot.

The setup is not too complex compared to SCCM. 

I came to the project without any knowledge of BMC BladeLogic. We started going through the documents from the BMC BladeLogic KB articles and then we started working on the BMC tools. That was it. We didn't have any training on BMC BladeLogic.

Our primary use for this solution is automation in the IT department. We have a private cloud deployment on Amazon.

The most valuable feature of this solution is that it is agile. It gives us more speed to deliver services and applications, and we rely on security.

VDI integration is good.

I would like to see more container integration in the next release of this solution.

Networking needs to be improved.

This solution is stable.

Scalability for this solution is very important.

I would rate the technical support for this solution an eight out of ten. 

The initial setup of this solution is complex, but it was specific for me and my company. When it came to deploying the endpoint, it needed a long time to get it together. For me, it was complex.

We used an integrator to assist with our deployment.

We considered Nutanix before choosing this solution, but the VDI integration was better.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.