Red Hat Satellite Reviews

We use Red Hat Satellite for patching purposes.

The product is convenient to use.

Red Hat Satellite's pricing needs improvement.

I rate the product's stability a seven out of ten. It could be improved.

We have less than ten Red Hat Satellite users in our organization. It is a scalable product. I rate its scalability a seven out of ten.

We have used BigFix before. Comparatively, Red Hat works as a proprietary solution. We cannot integrate it with other products. Whereas BigFix can manage integration with various platforms.

The initial setup is straightforward. We have to download the product and install it in the environment. It requires two engineers to execute the process and takes a month to complete.

We can implement the product in-house.

Our customers have to pay for the product's license.

I rate Red Hat Satellite a five out of ten. I recommend it to users who have basic technical knowledge and skills.

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. 

The pricing can be improved.

I have experience with this solution for about three years. 

We have two companies. One of our companies has been a distributor for twenty-three years now. 

Another one is a premium partner of Red Hat, specializing in Ansible, OpenShift, and the migration of CentOS.

We work with enterprise businesses, and Red Hat Satellite gets used where needed.

We specialize in Ansible and OpenShift. We also have some AI and ML models. Being a premium partner, we have good access to products.

We've been getting reasonable support from Red Hat.

Positive

We've implemented it for customers like Infosys, handling thousands of servers. 

What happens is when you wanna put the solution, the customer is definitely conscious about the pricing also. So the amount of the job, what it does versus the price, and not many customers want it because they can perhaps simulate this. It's expensive. 

For customers, who have a lot number of servers. It is definitely useful.

For customers with a large number of servers, it is definitely useful.

I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive. The licensing is a bit expensive.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We use Satellite to distribute updates to all our Linux apartments. It's our content management platform for Linux Operating Systems. We use this to orchestrate our entire network and also to validate the configurations.

The integration with Ansible and the orchestration itself is a highly valuable aspect of the solution. It's basically the core function of the product, the way to handle orchestration and management patching in our Linux environment is great.

Technical support has been good.

The solution can scale. 

The stability is good.

We've found the pricing to be fair.

One of the challenges we have at the moment is managing the subscriptions for Red Hat. Apart from managing the patching for the Linux systems, we also use Satellite to manage the subscriptions that are associated to reach operating systems. There needs to be some margin for improvement in terms of the way Satellite manages subscriptions. It is still very confusing when we have different contracts or different bundles of subscriptions, and we need to manage those within Satellite in a way that's very user-friendly.

There is still some margin for improvement in terms of integration with the Ansible. Perhaps, it would be nice to be able to extend the usage of Satellite to other operating systems.

We've been dealing with the solution for about six or so years at this point.

There is no reason for complaints in terms of scalability. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's been a good experience so far.

Right now, we have a team of 7 administrators which is relatively small. We use it on a daily basis. 

It's been easy to scale. It is based on a distributed architecture. We have some essential nodes, however, then we can have multiple proxies for different geographies and different talents. Therefore, it's flexible and scalable.

We have a technical account manager from Red Hat. We have weekly meetings to discuss many different topics. Satellite is also a subject on the table, trying to find some ways to improve our usage of the product. They have been pretty good. They are insightful and knowledgeable. We have no complaints about the level of service we receive.

The initial setup was relatively complex. Six years ago, we didn't have much experience. We did the first deployment with some external help from a partner. Since then, we have been improving our expertise on prototypes, and we are much more autonomous now. Therefore, I'd say that it does get easier to implement with time and experience. 

For maintenance, we do need to keep the products up to date, It is something we do every six months at least. It hasn't been a big effort.

When we first deployed the solution, we did get help from our partner.

The pricing was reviewed about three years ago. We like the pricing setup as it scales up and down easily, as we are charged by the number of med notes. The pricing is fair. We simply have to pay for the subscription to get access to the software and the support system and don't have any costs above that. 

We're just a customer and an end-user.

We are a vendor that works with Open Source Solutions, mostly Linux-based. It was recently - maybe two years ago - acquired by IBM, so it's not part of the IBM group. We work a lot with the branded products from Red Hat Enterprise Linux to Satellite to Automation Solutions.

We are working with the latest version of Satellite, as we've recently upgraded it about three months ago.

I'd recommend it to anyone who manages significantly sized Linux environments.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

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 the product for patching features.

The product allows us to handle patching for multiple servers at a time manually.

Red Hat Satellit requires certification when installing an RSCD agent on the patch report server. There could be a feature to simplify the process without the requirement of any patch manager subscription.

We have been using Red Hat Satellite for two years.

I rate the product's stability a ten out of ten.

We have around 100 Red Hat Satellite users in our organization. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten.

The initial setup process is straightforward. The deployment time depends on customers' specific requirements for monthly and weekly patching.

The product is very expensive for our customers.

I rate Red Hat Satellite a ten out of ten.

We are using it mainly for managing the software and taking care of licensing periods, fixes and enhancements, features, and all similar things for the software.

Fixing is the most valuable. When you deal with a lot of hardware and software and you have a lot of packages, fixing is a bit difficult. You need to track and pull up all such things, but Satellite makes this task easy.

We have branches in other locations, and I can manage other branches by using Satellite Capsule, which is a great feature.

It wasn't easy in the beginning, and some effort was required to work it out. I already had the product documentation, but it was not well organized. It wasn't easy to follow. There were a lot of documents here and there.

I have been using Red Hat Satellite for about nine months.

It is stable. I can control different locations by using Satellite Capsule.

It is easy to scale.

Red Hat's technical support is excellent.

The deployment took a couple of days. It took me some time to figure it out initially, but after that, it took just a couple of hours, and it was up and running.

I implemented it in my company. We also maintain it ourselves. We upgrade it and work it out. We are Red Hat business partners, so we do everything.

We have hardware engineers who are implementing HPE, IBM, and Cisco solutions. They are not users of Satellite, but they are benefiting from Satellite. There are two or three engineers who are working on Satellite, and they are more than enough because you just need someone who has worked with Satellite to follow up on things. At a location, you just need one engineer. 

Its price is good. They call it subscription, not license, and it is on a yearly basis. There is only one subscription, and that's it.

We chose this product because we are a Red Hat business partner, and we know that Red Hat has excellent products. It was our first choice.

I would definitely recommend this solution to anyone who wants to manage the software. I would rate Red Hat Satellite an eight out of ten.

We use Satellite to get updates directly from Red Hat because our servers are not connected to the internet, so we get all the updates through Satellite using a central repository. We use the solution regularly when we update or reprovision servers.  

Previously, we were using one server to update from a different repository over the HTTP. We had to manually manage the updates on the repository server. Satellite made the process easier. 

Satellite should be bundled with Ansible Tower and the Ansible Automation platform. We face challenges from a security perspective because we have micro-segmentation in our network. For each server we provision, we have to set permissions to different ports so that the servers can communicate with Satellite. If I have a single server with Satellite and the Ansible Automation Platform, it would be easier to manage security issues instead of having two or three products on various servers. 

We have used Satellite for about five years. 

Satellite has been stable so far.

We hardly use technical support because we can usually find everything we need online. Red Hat support is adequate. They don't respond quickly, but they resolved our issue. 

Deploying Satellite is straightforward and takes less than a day. 

I rate Red Hat Satellite seven out of 10. It's an excellent product that has been useful for us.