Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform Reviews

We use Ansible for infrastructure code. We also use CloudFormation. 

Ansible provides a central solution for automation for our customers.

We deploy this solution on AWS. We are a cloud company so that is why we don't have anything on-premises. We prefer a cloud approach, and we have almost everything in GCP or in AWS. The solution hasn't required us to change our existing infrastructure. We are using the server version 17. We use Ansible plus Ansible Tower, which is Ansible AWS.

The solution is user-friendly for our staff, although some activities are unique and are not being repeated several times, so we need to do those things manually.

We have around 25 people doing this same job. Before using this solution, we had more than 100 people for the same amount of work. This solution has definitely helped us to reduce and optimize our efforts.

One of the most valuable features is automation. We are doing automation infrastructure, which allows us to automate regular tasks. This solution provides us with a service catalog, like building new services and automating daily tasks.

The language is very intuitive. The solution is easy to learn. The solution enables us to deliver incrementally. We are able to expand this facility by implementing more templates and using them digitally.

We are an international company, so we use this solution with a collaborative approach internationally. 

The solution enables us to enforce the same security settings, so it's quite easy to maintain. There can be human mistakes, which can make security unreliable, so that is why we prefer this security policy.

We would like support for the post-integration of this product before cloud frameworks because right now their approach is to avoid using on-premises activities and move everything to the cloud. This is why we choose Ansible, but we would like Ansible to stay as close as possible to recent trends coming through AWS, for instance. We have a chance to automate those processes by using Ansible, so there is interoperability of those products.

I have been using this solution since 2015.

The solution is stable.

The solution has reduced the amount of downtime for users. It can automate some maintenance activities, which are out of operating time. If those activities can be automated, that can dramatically reduce downtime. If those activities can't be re-automated, then it's semi-automated, which would mean human effort plus automation together. In general, yes, we can automate maintenance or downtime activities, but that depends on the input for this. If there is some sort of disaster, then there would be a different approach.

Technical support is very good, especially from Red Hat.

We have used Red Hat Satellite and Red Hat CloudFormation.

CloudFormation is like a showcase of our service catalogs. We provide that to our customers. It's tightly integrated with Ansible and frameworks. The customer can choose from the service catalog, and if it's automated, the customer can see how much it was from a cost point of view. CloudFormation reduces work activities on the ground.

Initial setup was complex.

To deploy everything from the Red Hat portfolio took one week per customer.

Our strategy combines very closely with cloud, which is why our approach is complex. We are trying to persuade and migrate customers to the cloud, AWS, or GCP, and as an additional value, we can automate and more or less migrate it to an environment to bring new approaches and make this cloud solution beneficial to customers.

Yes. We saw ROI three or four years after implementing the solution.

You don't need to buy agents on servers or deploy expense management when using the solution, which affected our decision to go with it.

We also bought this solution because it was better than some competitors, like Puppet and Chef, and because of the automation.

It has helped our organization save time when it comes to service deployment, moves, and updates. We used to have 120 employees, and now we have just 25 for the same amount of activities.

I would give this solution 10 out of 10. 

The lesson I've learned is that automation is the way because without automation, it's quite impossible right now to maintain a very large environment, especially in public clouds like AWS or GCP.

We're quite unique because we use the public cloud environment together with one product.

It's a catch all. We now have a central way of pushing out updates. As long as we have every name of all the hosts on the network that we want to patch on Linux primarily, we have it covered, from one person logging on and issuing the commands, then looking for the feedback from the servers.

I like being able to control multiple systems and push out updates quickly with just a couple of clicks of a button and commands. I like the automation because it is a time saver.

I have seen indications that the documentation needs improvement. They are providing a "How to Improve Your Documentation" presentation at this conference.

It is stable and reliable. I don't see any problems with it.

We patch every week and have seven different environments, so now we are dealing with about 300 servers. However, we could increase that to 20,000 servers, as long as we have them in our catalog. We could push that out and be fine.

We haven't had to use tech support, but they are there. If we need to, I am sure we could easily reach out to them. We have an account.

We chose this solution simply because we use Red Hat. We trust Red Hat, and whatever Red Hat puts out, it is pretty solid.

The setup was done by another team of ours that we worked closely with. They walked us through setting up our own, and it's pretty straightforward. Once you install it, stand it up, and get all the configuration files in place, it seems pretty straightforward. 

I was surprised that it was so straightforward.

Our use case for it is as an automation tool. For the Linux side, we have very few automation tools. We do have Puppet Enterprise as a matter of fact, and we're looking at tools for automating our day-to-day operations, server builds, configuration management, etc.

We've got a demo version of Tower. We've been playing with it, using it for patching. One of our first goals is to automate patching.

The improvement is going to come in that we are going to be able to maintain configuration management, through the use of both Puppet and Ansible. Currently, in a manual process, hands-on - that is what kills us. When we have a system administrator trying to do his job, that kills us every time. We have 2,500 servers and if a project comes to him, we have 15-minute time-outs. I don't like that. He'll go in there and he'll change it. And we can't control that and we don't know when it gets changed.

The hope is that we automate and then it's there, we know it's there. And then we'll use Puppet to come in at the back, and just maintain it. That is our plan.

If somebody tries to change something through Puppet, we're going to get reports. Ansible is going to be used on the front end, and if somebody comes up and says, "We need this patch pushed out. It's an urgent patch. It's high criticality. We need to do it now," we'll do it through Ansible. We'll write a Playbook or a module and just, boom, get it done.

The most valuable feature is the Playbooks and pushing them out.

We'll probably use it in conjunction with Puppet, because Puppet is more a solution where every 30 minutes it's going to check, whereas as Ansible doesn't do that. You have to push, from my understanding. That's what I thought. I could be wrong.

It has been stable so far.

It's scalable. We're looking at an enterprise configuration, when we get it done. It's a matter of getting it licensed.

So far, in our interactions with technical support, they've been knowledgeable. We're very happy.

The setup looks pretty straightforward. From what I've seen, although it was done by another person, it seemed to be pretty simple. I think it was an RPM.

We have a lot of Red Hat servers in our data center environment, so we use this solution to manage the configuration, deploy and push configuration management. In addition, we use the Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform to automate deployment tasks.

We can manage all the configuration consistency between all our servers. It is a configuration management tool, so we can easily manage our consistent configuration course over different Red Hat or Linux servers. We have not used Windows recently and are using only Linux now.

We like the GUI-based interface for the tower. Before, we only had a command-line interface to run all the Ansible tasks. Now, the Ansible tower provides the complete GUI functionality to run, manage, and create the templates and the Ansible jobs. This includes the code and YAML file we can create. The GUI interface is the added advantage of this solution, including some integration with the different plugins.

It should support more integration with different products. For example, it is for network security automation, and with the VMware product, they don't have an integration for NFTX right now. So they should include this integration capability so we can automate more tasks with this solution.

We have been using Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform since 2021, and we are using version 3.2. It is deployed on-premises.

It is a stable solution. 

It is a scalable solution and is based on your node license. We are using more than 400 servers right now, and it requires one senior system engineer for maintenance and deployment. We plan to increase the usage using Windows automation.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten. 

Positive

We used a Puppet configuration in the past. We staged with Puppet and then moved to Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform.

The initial setup and deployment were easy, but the first two days of operations were a bit complex. We completed the deployment in-house.

There is a return on investment as a technical person. It has saved time and effort in maintaining the deployment environment. So on the technical side, it's saved lots of time and effort on the configuration.

I believe the cost per node basis is around $125 per node.

I rate this solution a nine out of ten. Regarding advice, for the deployment, I would suggest working on inventory first. They should also consider their use cases and which workflow they want to implement. In the next release, they should have VMware tight interrogation.

We use it for the bot. It helps to keep tracking all the automation processes that are ongoing in your ecosystem

It helps with patching and keeping everything compliant.

Automation tracking is the most valuable feature. 

The SSM connection access needs improvement because right now, they do everything through SSH.

I have been Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform for a few years. 

The solution is very stable. 

If there's some cloud add ons, we would increase the usage. Only admins use the solution. 

We just create a server, and then we use that server to on-premesis.

Ansible has good performance. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We use the solution for Linux patching automation. Currently, we are using the solution for patching normal configuration-related work. However, we also plan to use it for the provisioning of the servers.

The most valuable features of the solution are automation and patching.

The solution is slightly expensive, and its pricing could be improved.

I rate the solution ten out of ten for stability.

Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is a scalable solution. Around 300 to 400 users are using the solution in our organization.

The solution’s technical support is very good.

The solution’s initial setup is very easy.

The solution can be deployed within a day if you have all the resources. To deploy the solution, you need to check if you have a proper infrastructure and everything in place.

Users with the right environment, like Linux, should go for Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform. With the Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, we don't have to do manual things, increasing our efficiency. The solution helps us complete our complex work very easily, increasing efficiency.

Overall, I rate Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform ten out of ten.

The beauty of Ansible is the easy ramp-up to get started.  You really only need Python and SSH access. Configuration is generally done in YAML, which is easy to understand, and there is a progression from ad hoc tasks, to playbooks, then to roles, which means you can start with one server and continue building up to datacenters worth of servers with the same methodology. Also, shared by most configuration management tools, the idea of creating a desired state scales better than trying to specify procedural steps to set up new hosts. There are no agents by default, so adding a new server is a matter of a couple lines of configuration (on a new server and the configuration master).

There is some overhead in setting up the initial playbooks, but it now takes less time to set up 10 servers than it did to configure one in the past. Also, the setup is consistent because there is not the concern that someone forgot to copy/paste a config line or run another command. Whatever is in the playbook gets done.

Because Ansible is establishing SSH sessions to perform tasks, there is a limit on scalability. Speed and the sheer number of open connections start to become issues past a couple hundred servers. There are some workarounds, but that is a key area for improvement. Ansible could also improve support for private package repos, to ensure that new batches of servers are getting the same package versions as earlier batches.

I have been using Ansible for about two years.

SSH is pretty good, but it was not designed for the access pattern of hundreds of connections out of configuration targets. Other tools solve this with a listening agent process, so the initial connection to configure is much faster.

I have not used customer service. Ansible is well established, so there is plenty of documentation, examples, and third-party resources.

Manual configuration and "Golden" templates for virtual machines were used.  The former is tricky to maintain consistency with. The latter seemed to require constant updating and it did not help maintain the configuration of already installed servers.

Initial setup boils down to installing Ansible and ensuring you have SSH access to a target that is running Python. Standard packaging is available on major Linux distros to install some level of Ansible. I recommend following instructions on Ansible's site to get the latest stable release as they have been improving rapidly.

Not applicable.

Although Red Hat has an enterprise add-on to manage Ansible through a web application and offers commercial support, I have not used it. Like many Red Hat products, they have a no-cost version of the web application (AWX, formerly Ansible Tower), but you are on your own to install and it is a little more complicated than just installing Ansible. AWX will probably be required in most shops for the RBAC functionality. With AWX, non-admins can be limited to perform some tasks, but not be allowed free reign with Ansible.

Salt (or SaltStack) is a similar tool, but does have an agent. There are other tools like Chef or Puppet that use languages other than Python. Ansible was chosen based on these characteristics and the others were not evaluated after this initial choice.

I use the product mostly to configure virtual machines.

The solution helps us to have a standard configuration for all the virtual machines. It helps our virtual machines have the same configuration every time they restart. It also helps with automation.

The most valuable feature of the solution is that we don’t need an agent for it to work.

The product could do a better job at building infrastructure. 

The product should add a feature that alerts us if someone changes the configuration.

I have been using the solution for two years.

The product has high stability.

The solution has high scalability. It can be deployed on thousands of machines. Seven people in our organization use the solution.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We use the open-source version of the solution. The product can be used for free.

The tool should be used for server configuration but not for creating resources on the cloud. Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.