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.

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.

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 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 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.

Our primary use case of Red Hat Satellite is patch management. It's for configuration in the Linux server, and we use if for patching and pushing the bundle. 

This solution is deployed on-prem. I'm using the latest version. 

The most valuable features are patch management and the reporting tool. 

Red Hat Satellite could be improved by adding more flexibility in reporting. 

I have been using this solution for around three years. 

This product is stable. 

This solution is scalable. There are about 30 users of Red Hat Satellite in my organization. 

We are satisfied with the technical support. 

The installation is not exactly straightforward—some prior knowledge is required. Once the document is there, you can easily install it. 

Initially, we had technical help, but later on, we installed some components by ourselves. 

I rate this solution a nine out of ten. I would definitely recommend Red Hat Satellite to others, especially for Linux. 

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.