Red Hat Satellite Reviews

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.

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.

This product maintains the patching of Red Hat servers. It handles patch management and also runs some centralized jobs.

Red Hat Satellite's most valuable features include subscription management for various servers and environments. It allows organizations to group servers according to their patch levels, enabling administrators to manage and patch servers based on their specific environments.

Red Hat Satellite has a good graphical user interface (GUI). Through the GUI, you can check your subscriptions, hosts, content, and content views and manage the subscription lifecycle. This feature benefits administrators responsible for keeping the infrastructure updated and free from vulnerabilities.

I hope to see improvements in integration capabilities within Red Hat Satellite in the next release. Integration exists currently, but it requires programming knowledge to utilize the APIs effectively. This process is complex and not straightforward for those unfamiliar with the APIs.

I have been using the product for five years. 

I rate the tool's stability an eight out of ten.

Red Hat Satellite is scalable.

I have no issues with the tool's support.

The tool's setup is complex. Installing and configuring it to suit your environment requires effort. To use it effectively, one needs to review the documentation thoroughly. Depending on your needs, you can deploy the tool on a physical server, a virtual server, or in the cloud.

The tool's pricing is high. 

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten. If you manage many servers and have a DevOps environment with UAT, dev, staging, and production environments, you should use Red Hat Satellite.

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 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. 

Red Hat is an operating system. It has been out since 1995 or 1996 and went through a few iterations before it became a true enterprise solution. Basically, they changed their name and changed the version name back between about 2003 to 2005 when they came to that point.  

Satellite is a package management solution most commonly used to maintain patch levels and security updates. It is something like what SCCM (System Center Configuration Manager) does on Windows servers and Windows workstations.  

Red Hat Satellite ties in with the Ansible Tower (software provisioning, configuration management, and application deployment). Ansible Tower is part of the Red Hat automation suite. Ansible is a pre-solution open-source product that allows you to automate the building and deployment of something similar to what you get with Amazon when you go to order a server. Basically it is like cloud technology. It allows the developer to order a custom server using a playbook. It could be Windows or Red Hat or a couple of other different platform distributions. The Red Hat Satellite stores all of the packages — or it is mainly Satellite which stores the packages. It is a deployment tool. It can deploy updates and various other solutions. It is scriptable using Python scripting, and Perl scripting, those being the base languages.  

Satellite can automate most of your update solutions. It also gives the administrators the ability to target deployments and only send out the updates or provision updates to certain groups. Microsoft puts out brand new patches every month and that sort of frequency needs to be managed. With Satellite, you can say you want to deploy these brand new patches to your development boxes and see if it breaks anything before you do any damage in production. If it does not break anything, then the patches or updates can go on to QA for testing. If everything works fine there, then you can group promote it and automate it out to production. Satellite helps manage these deployment processes in a logical fashion.  

I do not really notice anything in the product that is a glaring omission or that absolutely needs to be added. There is always room for improvement, no matter what software package you are using. I would say the room for improvement to me would be to include more diversity in what it can deploy. Right now, it is specifically for Red Hat products. Being able to deploy other products would be a benefit. For example, say if you have Ubuntu running in your network. Being able to deploy packages for Ubuntu with Red Hat Satellite for that product would be nice and would give you more of a single pane of glass solution. Having a centralized repository for your Windows patching would be nice. SCCM is a much more expensive solution than Satellite. You have got the licensing issues and all that wonderful stuff to go through. Satellite is a pretty robust solution in handling its responsibilities. Although I really have not gone through it enough to tell you all the little quirks, it would be nice to see its capabilities expanded.  

I am not positive for exactly how long the company has been using the solution. Myself, I have used it quite a few times over the years. 

I think that Satellite is a pretty stable product. You download your repositories, check the versions you are running, download your packages, and then deploy them to your servers. The upgrades are really not a problem and the whole system is pretty controlled and stable.  

Satellite is a scalable solution. It actually makes life a lot easier on your administrators. When you have a small company that has only about 50 to 100 Red Hat servers it may not be so valuable and that will depend on your management and your team. But in an environment where you have, say, 500 to 1000 servers, it cuts down significantly on the administrative time it takes to patch all those systems. I am talking about the number of servers and not the number of users. Because you can deploy the patches straight from Satellite, allowing for more automation, it does a good job and it is an efficient and dedicated tool.  

The biggest upgrade you could talk about and the one thing I would like to see added to Red Hat Satellite is demonstrated by how Oracle Linux handles upgrades. I am not a huge fan of Oracle Linux in general, but the method they use for applying patches is one feature that Oracle does use that is really nice. It allows a case splice. Basically that creates a scenario where it allows patches and kernel upgrades to be applied to the server without forcing a reboot. If Red Hat Satellite could implement something like that it would improve the product.  

In our environment, there are maybe three or four people who are generally used to maintain the solution or deploy the updates. That accounts for the total number of Red Hat administrators.  

On a scale of one to ten where ten is the best, I would say that I would give Red Hat support about an eight. The high-end of eight out of ten. Say eight-point-five or eight-point-seven. Tech support across the board with tech companies is kind of spotty. For example, I have dealt with Microsoft in the past. I have been both in discussions with Windows systems engineers and Red Hat systems engineers. My experience with Microsoft is that I actually did more in finding my own solutions that I felt I had to share with the Microsoft tech support team because they had no clue. It did not really bolster my confidence with them when I was supporting the support team. With Red Hat, you can go out to forums and user groups and find out a lot of information before you even contact tech support. When you contact tech support, they usually have an answer.  

Red Hat support is clearly better and has more knowledgeable people than Microsoft. That might not be much of an endorsement, but I am happy with the way they support their product.  

The initial setup for the product was pretty much straightforward. As long as you get an enterprise-level license using a proper subscription, you really do not have any problem with the installation and getting the system up and running.  

The installation is pretty much straightforward. If you have dealt with Linux — and in particular with Red Hat — it is a pretty easy deal to do. The more difficult part of the deployment is just a matter of registering all your servers to Satellite. That can be a bit of a pain. It is not too bad. If you have already registered the servers with the Red Hat subscription service — as you would through their internet-based subscription — changing that can be daunting sometimes. If you are not really familiar with the scripting languages it is not so easy to do.  

As far as how long it took to do, I was not here when they initially set it up. I was not present for the original deployment at this company and all my experience as far as the setup is based on my prior experience and studying it by myself. I did that a while ago so some things may have changed.  

Satellite is usually bundled with the Red Hat premium-level support. So you can figure — depending on the number of servers — it can be from a couple of thousand dollars per year to over $100000 per year. It is absolutely dependent on how many servers you are using.  

The effect is that there are additional costs for the support and all that stuff but the license itself comes as a single total cost. That is the license being a total cost for Red Hat servers bundled in with premium support.  

If you have more than 50 servers, I would say using Satellite would be a boon. Depending on the number of administrators you have hired and the number of servers you are using, it can be cost-effective or not. But that goes with almost any software solution that you use, across the board.  

SCCM is a package management solution most commonly used to maintain patch levels and security updates on Windows servers and Windows workstations. It is not really the same thing as Satellite but it is a similar product category piece offered by Microsoft to do a similar thing that is comparable to what Satellite does. It just does it for another platform that more people are probably familiar with.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Red Hat Satellite as about a seven or seven-and-a-half out of ten. It could probably be a bit more robust in some areas. They have not, to my knowledge, done a major revision update in a while. So I would say about a seven or seven-and-a-half is fair.  

Red Hat has been moving toward an Ansible solution more than the Satellite solution in recent years. That is not really a problem for me. It is just that I would like to see the Satellite server product more updated than it has been. It is a good product for what it does. It is just out-of-date.  

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.

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 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.