Server Automation Runs Limits

[mnorris]

As part of renewing our server, Alteryx is indicating there is a new licensing model based on "Automation Runs" and offered up 15,000 runs as the standard package, which seems very low.  This equates to about 40 workflows that run each day, which immediately puts us near the limit without accounting for test runs or new workflows (don't even calculate something running multiple times an hour).  We are new to Server and we are trying to understand if we have a large number of workflows scheduled vs other orgs and if we are doing something differently than they are to minimize automations (which seems counter productive).  Has anyone else gone through a renewal at the new pricing structure and have a framework for how to think about this?

[abacon]

@mnorris We haven't renewed yet but my question would be if that's per month or total. 40 a day seems like a lot, our company doesn't utilize the server as much as I'd like but we're at about 50 a week.

There are a lot of options for tracking how many runs you have per day so you could keep tabs on this. A question I would have is does a workflow that triggers other workflow count as 1 or does each workflow that gets triggered count as 1. That is a way I have tried to consolidate our automations - using the server apis to trigger other workflows that are dependent upon upstream workflows. 

Bacon

[apathetichell]

@mnorris true story! I haven't used Server is 2.5 years. But I'm fairly sure something is off here. Alteryx Server is a product YOU host. YOU license. They have some new fangled packaged things like Alteryx One which may have bundled pricing and limits ---> but standard Server is what we would refer to as an ON PREM product (ie you the customer manage everything --- and we'd still call it On Prem even if it's hosted in Azure/GCP/AWS on a VM)... I'm not saying that here I am 100% sure that you are wrong ---> but it's a bit more likely that there is a new product bundle being offered vs the traditional Server. The pricing you are quoted sound more like a Cloud Designer thing or some other managed product.

Alteryx does some things I think are 'the wrong decisions' --- but this would be next level wrong to effectively limit adoption/usage in paying customers.

[mnorris]

@abacon thanks for the idea on API executions, I'm assuming these extra workflow runs would still be counted as an Automation run and count as one of our executions, but I'll check in on that.

[mnorris]

@apathetichell I wish I was wrong, but this is the new model everyone will be facing.  The automation runs count toward cloud executions and local executions, it's part of their unified platform vision.  I made the same argument to my sales rep as you did, my server, it limits my desire to build more workflows and instead forces me to invest time trying to minimize server executions.  I equated it to cell phone minutes (which we know were really popular 🙄).  Hopefully some other customers who are going into their renewal cycle will hop in here with thoughts.

[KGT]

This is the new model. I am so against the idea of it as it fly's in the face of everything people love about Alteryx... Flexibility! The amount of advice I have given over the last 10-12 years around splitting workflows, using the API to call 1sec workflows continuously rather than one big workflow etc...

Moving to cloud designer (as IT depts around the world want everyone to do), we were always going to lose the flexibility of Alteryx, but this is beyond... 

The sticker price would want to be very low... because if I'm hosting a server on my own infra, then paying a consumption price on that is not something I intend planning for.

[apathetichell]

@KGT --- I'd posit that Cloud Designer isn't what IT Departments wanted. They wanted a Cloud Server ---> Ie the UiPath model. Design locally. Upload to Cloud SAAS Server product. Run on Cloud SAAS product. Version control. Alteryx thought this meant 'create a design/build on cloud tool' ---> it never was. Building locally was never the problem ---> Server and managing Server (and Server) costs are. UiPath succeeded here by incentivizing the move from Automation Suite to Automation Cloud.

Agreed with everything else you are saying -> and as always you know more than I do about the inside ball.

[abacon]

@mnorris Then I would look to make the small workflows macros that are triggered within the top level workflows. Similar to an API call functionality where a workflow is triggered at the end of another one, I would use control containers and macros so it's technically one workflow running.

The idea of limiting runs on the on-prem server does seem to remove the flexibility that alteryx server offers, hopefully a good solution can be found.

Bacon

[abacon]

@mnorris I have tapped into our MongoDB's to track job health and outcomes. It might be worth going through the same exercise to see how many runs you do throughout the year to know how many you actually need.

Bacon

[mnorris]

@abacon I get that I could work around the new pricing model, but that's basically my whole complaint here.  Wouldn't it be better for Alteryx if I was instead using my time to maximize our organization's use of Alteryx and not using it to limit my use of Alteryx?  For instance, we just got a request to have some data refreshed every 15 minutes instead of nightly, I now have to tell these users we are unable to execute this request using Alteryx because it is cost prohibitive.  Running on my own server using internal resources no less!  So, what will I do here other than be forced to find another tool with which to load this data?  This is such a clear case of en**bleep**ification.