Share your experience using Plutora

I have created resources for the monitoring tech stack with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, especially for setting up one master data center and another data center for different applications routed to the monitoring setup, where I have created Splunk servers and installed all Splunk agents and prerequisites with the help of Ansible, including an Ansible playbook.

I have used the agentless architecture in Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, as SSH is agentless.

I use a centralized automation controller in Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, called the master setup, where we execute our commands with installed prerequisites, inventory information, and the Ansible playbook, managing other node servers with a passwordless setup.

When creating any server with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, it is a significant advantage because if we set up a Splunk agent in one case, it is necessary for each server. By writing the playbook, the agent is installed immediately during server provisioning, providing us with an edge.

Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is very helpful due to passwordless integration and the ability to interact with multiple servers at once, which is especially advantageous when dealing with thousands of servers.

The integration aspect of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform has optimized my IT ecosystem significantly by consolidating multiple tools, such as a CI/CD pipeline with Jenkins, where we validate everything, including testing and SonarQube code quality.

The agentless architecture of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, using the SSH key, makes it passwordless and allows us to push configurations with one click, creating a major advantage.

Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform's main benefit is that it allows us to push configurations to multiple servers without manually visiting each one, maintaining efficiency.

I have observed that Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform could improve by creating modules for upcoming AI and ML tech stacks, as currently, specific modules for these are not available.

I have worked on Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, especially Ansible Playbooks, for around three years.

I have not encountered any performance issues, crashes, downtimes, or limitations with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform.

Ansible is a Red Hat product, so they provide all necessary support.

I have not escalated any questions to the Red Hat support team regarding Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, as their modules are professional and complete.

Positive

Both Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform and Chef have similar capabilities but differ in architecture; one is agentless while the other is agent-full.

Setting up Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform on the AWS cloud is very straightforward; I take one server, install Ansible, set up the inventory, and use it.

By using the enterprise version of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, we receive support that aids in overcoming challenges, a measurable benefit in terms of ROI.

For enterprise users of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, there are fees, but it is free and open-source for testing or small labs.

I have worked with Chef as a configuration management tool for one project, and I have used Chef and Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform together in the same project.

I have worked on the AWS cloud with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform.

Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform was hosted on AWS.

I prefer Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform because it is easy to implement, and the extensive supporting documentation is very helpful.

I suggest everyone consider Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform because it is agentless, easy to implement, and has sufficient supporting documentation available.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform a ten out of ten.

To store the data.

Git merging allows us to track the details of how and who has done what. This is the best feature which is useful for all companies.

As we are using it in Kubernetes clusters, we don't have any issues.

GitLab needs to improve the CI/CD functionality because it is not compatible with Jenkins and other tools, as it is not that efficient. Security-wise, we have security features enabled in GitLab for code vulnerability and other aspects, but it is not up to market standards.

Approximately four to five years.

Recently we had an issue where an employee left the company and their commits were erased. We raised a request with GitLab support, but they were unable to help because they could not find the root cause of what went wrong. We restored the data from previous backups.

GitLab is suitable for small and mid-size organizations, but not for enterprise use.

We raised a request with GitLab support when an employee's commits were erased, but they were unable to help because they could not find the root cause of what went wrong.

Positive

I worked with GitLab Enterprise at a previous company. GitLab Enterprise is far better than the free version. For enterprise-level customers, we can recommend GitLab Enterprise. Regarding competitors, we have explored GitHub, Bitbucket, and CircleCI. However, GitLab Enterprise has more features than any of these tools.

I am working with Kyndryl, which is part of IBM. They have their own decision-making team who manages these aspects.

We are currently using general GitLab, not GitLab Premium.

We are using Jira and Confluence, but not Bitbucket.

We are currently using GitLab integrated with Sonar for code vulnerability checks, Jenkins, Camunda, and XL Deploy. We use Camunda to deploy folders and XL Deploy for server deployment.

We are not using the security features on the GitLab side, as we use different tools for that purpose. My team is not using the GitLab merge request process, but we work on providing GitLab access for admin activities, as developers are in different teams handling development and merge requests.

We are using basic features currently, so I cannot comment on detailed functionality comparisons. Every versioning control tool provides similar basic features, and we are not utilizing the full functionality of GitLab.

The system is easy to use.

On a scale of 1-10, this solution rates a 7.