When assessing the two solutions, reviewers found Control-M easier to use and do business with overall. However, reviewers preferred the ease of set up with AWS Batch, along with administration.
Helps you to speed up and is quite useful for complicated projects. It is just not used for queuing the jobs but helps you spend your time on productive tasks, AWS does your server stuff automatically.
AWS Batch is glacially slow, unresponsive, and generally lacks the tools to change those things. - Doesn't scale down the number of instances you have if you request the minimum be over 0 - Startup time for instances often exceeds 15 minutes without...
I like the swiftness in transferring the files to customer being automated which can be customized into success, failure etc.
Restarting jobs or processes from the software itself can be confusing
Helps you to speed up and is quite useful for complicated projects. It is just not used for queuing the jobs but helps you spend your time on productive tasks, AWS does your server stuff automatically.
I like the swiftness in transferring the files to customer being automated which can be customized into success, failure etc.
AWS Batch is glacially slow, unresponsive, and generally lacks the tools to change those things. - Doesn't scale down the number of instances you have if you request the minimum be over 0 - Startup time for instances often exceeds 15 minutes without...
Restarting jobs or processes from the software itself can be confusing