Red Hat Satellite Reviews

We use this solution for content view creation for uniform patching of RHEL landscapes over time.

The solution enables multiple content views for patching various servers.

It manages RHEL systems that do not have direct internet access and provides insight into configuration and vulnerability issues of our RHEL systems.

Red Hat Satellite has a short life cycle and we constantly need to update.

I would like better integration with a lighter solution rather than Performance Co-Pilot because PCP is quite heavy. We don't need all the features that PCP provides, as we are doing just fine with Centreon. If Red Hat Satellite were to do the job by itself, that would make us much happier.

The solution is expensive and one most likely needs to budget for it if you have over 100 RHEL systems to manage IMHO.

I have been using this solution for the last nine years.

We have no problem whatsoever with the actual server. The stability is a ten out of ten. It's more about what we do around, that affects where the licenses are actually implemented, but that's our own pain.

We run about 500 VMs and it hums. We have the ability to scale way beyond. We do have a capsule server for a DMZ, meaning an isolated system environment, on multiple systems, and it works fine. However, if we start slapping on features that could basically be deployed everywhere such as the PCP, we could end up in weird situations, but we don't, because we don't need to. We do it on a point basis if we have a situation we need to put under the microscope. In those cases, we need to be aware that we don't need to micromanage. We just need the solution for microscopic investigation.

I give the scalability a nine out of ten.

The technical support of Red Hat is above and beyond. We have no problems with their support.

We received direct updates through RHN.

We set up Red Hat Satellite a while back, but it's been a challenge. The initial setup at that time was not easy. When we have issues, it's often because the licenses have moved off. So we have to be careful and talk through what we're doing. Red Hat Satellite is not like a cloud solution where we can ask it to give us a small VM. The solution requires system administration knowledge and day-to-day care of the overall system, not just Red Hat Satellite, but also the physical servers where we run our VMs.

We implemented the solution in-house with standard electronic RHS support.

Red Hat Satellite enables us to freeze our system to a certain point in time and view what patches will be applied. This allows for a more uniform deployment of patches over time. Without Red Hat Satellite, we may be doomed to inconsistent patch deployments. We have seen a return on investment with the solution.

As for most on-prem systems, the best is to buy 2-socket servers and fill them up with lots of RAM, run a hypervisor, and license RHEL on these as a "Virtual Data Center" - and add the Smart Management for Red Hat Satellite client support.

Open-source Katello and Foreman were discussed but we do not have the time to nurture such delicate creatures.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

From my experience, RHS/insights are better than tenable.io for authenticated vuln and conformity scanning.  

It could require about 1/10 of a man-year to manage RHS as updates are needed twice a year and there may be occasional glitches with licensing that need TLC.

With the newer versions of Satellite, the requirement for puppets goes away altogether, and this can be very elegantly replaced with SSH+sudo.

Our main use is for patch management and cataloguing our RHEL infrastructure. Keeping inventories on spreadsheets and maintaining them is a tedious detail. Satellite allows us to have an up-to-the-minute inventory of our servers.

Satellite allows us also to review configuration issues with the 'all ansible roles' feature which helps us ensure that a) the servers are connectable and b) they are configured similarly as expected. 

Due to the cloud connecter, our inventory is uploaded on a regular basis to cloud.redhat.com (insights) where we get insight into configuration issues, specific vulnerabilities to address, et cetera.

Having Satellite has enabled us to maintain control of our RHEL infrastructure without having to hire additional help due to the size of the environment.

I used to do all the patching manually (creating and updating depots for several different versions of RHEL/CentOS), which lead to patching happening only twice per year, due to the overhead of creating depots and planning. 

Since implementing Satellite, my overall patching process has allowed us to keep up-to-date monthly across the environments. Furthermore, I now have a view into vulnerabilities (though insights) that I didn't have before. It is like having a helper find and mitigate configuration issues on my servers.

The patch management and insights connector are great. Patch management has enabled us to patch every month, keeping abreast of critical and important patches, view where things are lacking, and generate plans to mitigate issues. Due to the work being done in a tool, reporting allows us to see what has been done to what servers.

Insights (there is a connecter that uploads inventory to the web) greatly helps to highlight configuration issues in our environment. The 'remote execution' feature further helps manage systems on a consistent basis.

I find support to be highly responsive on most issues, however, gathering and supplying the data needed for good troubleshooting can sometimes take quite some time. It would be nice if either report was updated to include the multiple other files that are normally required, or a different tool was shipped to package logs, configurtions, etc.

I would like the direct integration with insights to be re-established. One pane (up to version 6.9) was very helpful. Although the information is available at cloud.redhat.com, it would be good to have it again inside of Satellite.

I have used the solution since version 6.4 (about three years).

I keep my environment at the very latest release, which can pose some difficulty; however, if you keep yourself one minor version back, it is a rock-solid platform.

The solution is highly scalable. You can put capsules in all your different environments to offload data closer to the consumer. This is also true for the cloud.

Satellite support is responsive, technical, and helpful. You will not be left out to dry.

Positive

I used to do patching directly from each host to rhn.redhat.com when the infrastructure was smaller. As it grew, I started using local repositories for each version of Red Hat. I had a process that was very satellite-like that support personnel found to be functionally close to what Satellite did. Therefore, I was encouraged to take a look at Satellite.

Satellite installation is not difficult at all if you know how to read a manual. However, configuration for your environment requires knowledge of the product. I highly recommend taking the training or having a consultant do the installation and provide documentation.

Learning Satellite is quite a task. There is very little that is straightforward or intuitive about it, however, it is powerful, and, once learned, you find it to be worth the effort. I highly recommend the following:

a. Take RH403. Ask your VAR if you can get a class with lab hours. Practice makes things work out well. I used the ROL subscription model, so I had plenty of time to go over material, build, and rebuild scenarios, and test before buying.

b. Download (after you've taken the class) the evaluation and use the evaluation to get your environment configured. You have access to support during this time (though it is not critically responsive) and can get the help you need before obtaining the product.

Be advised that Satellite (Smart Management) is an add-on to your regular Red Hat subscriptions. It is not a standalone product.

We had taken a look at other products such as Heat (Ivanti), however, found them to be clunky and difficult to keep up-to-date. Satellite is so intertwined with Red Hat that you are up to date within hours of a patch being released with very little testing required, et cetera. 

What we also found was that "competing" products either were not as readily supported - SpaceWalk, for instance (Satellite's predecessor) - or unable to keep abreast of changes in the Operating System.

It simplifies the management of patches and updates, reduces the risk of security vulnerabilities, and ensures that our RHEL systems remain stable and secure.

It plays a significant role in managing the lifecycle of our systems and ensures that we can effectively control and update the software versions to align with our organization's needs. This is particularly valuable for maintaining the stability and compliance of our products and services.

We evaluate the possibility of implementing a cache solution to further enhance redundancy and fault tolerance in our systems which could improve the continuity of our systems, especially in the event of incidents or on-site disasters. The challenge I have noticed with standard support subscriptions is that they are often limited to lifecycle patching. Improving integration could lead to a more unified management experience for multiple operating systems within our data center.

I have been working with it for approximately six years.

It's incredibly stable and we haven't experienced any glitches. It runs smoothly, and if any changes or upgrades are necessary, it's a straightforward process.

It is highly scalable and I appreciate that and have not encountered any issues with it. Adjusting the tuning, specifically related to licensing and hardware, allows us to easily modify server aspects and upgrade our systems as necessary. I would rate it ten out of ten.

We've had a positive experience with the support team behind the product, which has been consistently helpful. The team's expertise is top-notch, spanning from level two to even level three support. I would rate it seven out of ten.

Neutral

We have similar functionalities for user management because we have one system with Red Hat Cloud and another with Azure. Currently, there's some disparity between these systems, and we're exploring the possibility of finding a product that can bridge the gap between them.

The initial setup has improved with the new versions, making it more user-friendly and easier for beginners.

Overall, I would rate it ten out of ten.

Red Hat Satellite is used to manage the whole server cluster. 

Every day, there are several vulnerabilities. 

The solution is quite complete, allowing us to monitor the servers and keep them up to date while also addressing the vulnerabilities we have.

It is important to handle zero-day threats as well as your administration's day-to-day operations. It is complete, and we have also begun using a new website. It is a complete tool, that is recommended for compliance, and planning for upgrades.

The most valuable feature of this solution is vulnerability management. This is the main feature for us.

Security is also a primary activity. And just now, system administration. The satellite and Insight, which we have or have a subscription to, are used. In comparison to Windows, where you have to purchase separate items, you need to purchase a system manager.

You should purchase the sender as well as many tools in order to establish a vulnerability management suite with Red Hat. If we had this feature, I'd turn on the light. Thus we can see, for example, how many servers I need to upgrade when zero-day CPEs are discovered. Worksheet.

It is already a tool that adds value to a vital aspect of system administration activities.

It is difficult to update and maintain.

In circumstances, where we have complex requests technical support could improve to fix issues more quickly, but for day-to-day concerns, they are good.

I have been working with Red Hat Satellite for two years.

Because we have Red Had Insight, we have a new perspective, which makes the solution scalable because you can focus on what is critical initially. We just have Red Hat Satellite. We began only with Red Hat Satellite, it's a good tool.

We had a lot of services, which made it difficult to see the critical factors, but with Red Had Insight, we can now see little effects.

Since we have a small tool to scale to work with Red Hat Insight, not only Red Hat Satellite.

Technical support is good, they are both helpful and quick. 

I would rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Sometimes we have some complex requests that can take longer time to answer.

I would rate Red Hat Satellite an eight out of ten.

The functionality is very good but it is difficult to update the structure and difficult to maintain it.

We used Red Hat Satellite for deployment, and we wanted to do the initial configuration. We used it for package management and security compliance auditing.

I'm using version 6.7. It was deployed on-premises.

There were five people using this solution on my team. They were all engineers.

We also have Red Hat Linux servers.

The compliance auditing helped me a lot. I also used this solution for access management, package management, and contact management.

The features are really good.

The usability and workflows aren't intuitive. To get the compliance management working properly, you need to put a lot of effort into it. I spent weeks trying to configure it. There was a lot of trial and error to get things working. It was very difficult. I needed dedicated support from Red Hat to customize it. 

They could make it more easy to use and improve the GUI so that it's more intuitive. Right now, it's very difficult to figure out how to get things done from there.

It doesn't integrate very smoothly with other products. They were migrating from Puppet to Ansible. Some features use Puppet, and some features use Ansible.

The documentation could be better. There isn't a lot of information or demos available.

I used Red Hat Satellite for five years.

As far as I know, it's a scalable product, but I didn't use it an affirmative case. I was using a very scaled-down, small deployment.

Setup is difficult. I would rate it as four out of ten.

Deployment took a few months.

The solution is worth the cost.

I would rate this solution as seven out of ten. 

For those who are interested in using this solution, my advice is that it will be a bumpy road. If there's something else that would fit your needs, then my advice is to use that instead.

I use this solution for patch management and configuration management.

It's a hybrid solution.

It's really integrated with agencies that have core systems and other core management platform products or IBM products. You don't need to depend on any third party. It's a complete solution for patch and configuration management when integrated with the existing system.

The interface could be more user-friendly. For example, if we take a tool like JetPatch, which is a very popular third party tool for attach management and automation, it can be very well integrated with any of the configuration in the management system. It's also user-friendly, and the reporting features are extensive. Red Hat Satellite has very good engineering but is lacking with the user interfaces and reporting.

I would like to see the scalability, user interface, and reporting features improved and for the solution to be simplified. Instead of having complex engineering, it should be simple for the user.

I have been using Red Hat Satellite for three years.

The solution is stable for a Red Hat product.

It's not very scalable. It has issues because you cannot add the incentive easily. You need to have a separate server install configure out of the cluster.

I would rate technical support 7 out of 10.

Setup is complex because you need someone with a good knowledge of troubleshooting to deploy Satellite. You really need an engineering person to do that.You need an integrator or reseller.

You definitely need a skilled person to implement the design quickly. Then you need ongoing support, and you definitely need a better team to manage it. It is a complex case.

The price could be lower and more adaptive.

I would rate this solution 7 out of 10.

I wouldn't recommend this solution compared to other solutions. We need a complete solution to work on our data center in the public cloud. It can be  Linux, Windows, etc. I need a solution which can work across the environment, so I would go with a product other than Satellite.

We primarily use the solution for automation. For example, it can help me to deploy applications. We are intending to do continuous delivery and continuous deployment. For this approach, we are using this product.

I like the integration with other tools. For example, WeWork. With the automation, I can describe the process to the facility, the people, to reduce the manipulation of the code and make automated jobs easy. We get all the results exactly the same, which is great for us.

It's an easy solution to set up.

I find the product to be stable.

The scalability is great.

Technical support has been very helpful and responsive.

Automation can always be improved and refined to continue to make it better.

I'd like to see the ability for this tool to integrate with other developer tools like Jenkins or maybe different tools that could help us to implement and continuously deliver continuous deployment. We'd like to have some information about how to do it as well. It needs more documentation.

We started using the solution maybe five or six years ago.

The product has been stable. There are no bugs or glitches that affect the performance. It's reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze.

I don't have problems with Ansible, the Ansible controller, or the satellite.  

The solution is very scalable. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so with relative ease.

We have 20 to 30 people using the solution at this time. The users, us, basically provide services to other areas of the organization.

If I ever have issues with support, they are very helpful. They've been good to me. We've never had an issue with a ticket.

We do use another technology as well.

For me, the initial setup was easy. I have two certifications. I have HTT and RTB. For these reasons and the fact I find it so similar to the technologies, I don't have problems learning the setup procedures for the process.

For the deployment we have in my organization at this moment, we have to do a few steps to implement it into the production environment. We make the installation in two to three days more or less. We are, for the moment, waiting for the final position to implement it with all my services, however, at this point, I may have spent two or three weeks to make it work in the production environment.

While it depends on each deployment how many people you need for deployment and maintenance, from our side, we'll have about 12. They are all engineers and they can handle all of the tasks necessary.

I'm sure I'll end up doing the final deployment by myself. However, we have support that can assist us at a moment's notice if we have trouble at any point. 

I don't directly handle the licensing contracts. I can't speak to the exact price. 

While the solution was selected from other products at the time, the company implemented it seven or eight years ago. I can't speak to what solutions they looked at then.

My past company was a partner of Red Hat. My latest company is not. It's just a customer and an end-user.

I am working with an updated version of the solution at this time. We're using a private cloud on-premises right now.

I'd advise new users maybe get more information about the releases about the new features first to get a sense of the technology and what's to come.

I'll rate the solution at a ten out of ten.

We use it for patch management and license management. We also use it for insights, which is their recommendation engine to say what's wrong and what's right.

Patch management is, for sure, most valuable. For license management and patch management, I would rate it a 10 out of 10.

It should basically include a complete slew of system management and monitoring tools such as Nagios. It should be a single pane of glass that gives us a complete solution. It is a good solution, but it is missing a few important things. We're using Capsule for DMVs on other secured zones. Capsule is a part of Satellite to be a proxy of sorts.

It has been at least six years.

Its stability is very good. 

If you run into issues, you get very good support, which helps a lot because sometimes, there are issues like certificates expiring. We've had that. It is stuff that you ought to know, but you don't, and Red Hat is always there. That's the good thing about it. At least, you don't feel as if you're stranded. You feel as if you've just found a new way to use your support.

We didn't use any other solution. It is not a full management tool. It is more of a Linux System Management tool that does not even go a full tilt. I wouldn't really say that you have much of a choice because you're paying Red Hat licenses, and that's the only place where you can basically shop them in. So, you're captive. You either don't have it or you go elsewhere.

It is less complex now. Previously, you would bleed before you would get anywhere, but now, it is not so bad.

You do have to plan for having the skills to use and maintain it onsite. That's pretty much it, and then you can leverage it. 

It doesn't do everything. It just does what it is supposed to be doing, and they're pretty clear about it, which is not so bad. It isn't a full system management system. It, for sure, is not a monitoring tool. It does a great job for what it is doing, but it does very low in comparison to what I would think it should be doing. I would like to have a pane of glass. They already have 90% of the solution. Why don't they just take it to the next little step?

I would rate it a seven out of 10.