Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform Reviews

I am using Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform as a part of the scale-up of the nodes in OpenShift.

Mostly, we use the solution for upgrading-related stuff.

The most valuable feature is that Ansible is agentless.

For my day-to-day operations, the one module that I am using is very good, and it is giving the intended results. Ansible has a lot of modules to perform your day-to-day activities. I don't think there will be room for improvement based on the current instances or use cases.

The scalability of the solution has some shortcomings. Thus, the solution's scalability has some room for improvement.

Though not much, I have experience with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform for two years. I am a customer of the solution.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

The initial setup for Ansible is very easy.

I'm not using the solution in this containerization. In the present environment, we are not using something like Red Hat Ansible Tower. We are using just an Ansible node which is something we use as a server for accessing all of our nodes and managing all of the nodes. Also, building an Ansible node as a bastion or jump host is a pretty easy task.

Actually, when you are building Ansible Tower, I think you need to go for the pricing. For other things, you don't need to do that, I guess. So it's a pretty good tool to automate your day-to-day or daily tasks or activities that can be done with Ansible. It has a lot of features, helping materials, and modules, which will be helpful in automating one's day-to-day jobs. It's pretty easy for us to upgrade and work with the nodes on Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform.

If you go with any other tools, like Chef or Puppet, they are very hard to configure. Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is agentless and pretty straightforward. It will reduce a lot of our headaches in general.

I rate the overall solution a ten out of ten.

We primarily use this solution for network configuration pushes. We use scripts from Ansible to push configurations to specific devices such as routers.

The best features are the orchestration and flexibility of the solution.

It would be helpful to have templates for common configurations. It would make it much easier and faster rather than creating a whole script. The templates would decrease the learning curve as well.

I've been working with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform for a year.

Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is quite stable. If you set it up correctly with the right configurations and there are no hiccups during installation and deployment, it will be stable.

I'd give stability a rating of eight out of ten.

It's a scalable solution. The capacity of the single instance is quite enough to hold up an enterprise. From a resilience perspective, you have to have a cluster that actually holds the whole thing.

On a scale from one to ten, I'd rate scalability at seven.

I would rate technical support at nine out of ten.

Positive

Once all of the components are in place, there are no issues with the initial setup. I would rate the initial deployment process at seven out of ten.

The deployment can take two days to a week depending on the requirements and resources available.

Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is an expensive solution. There may be additional fees to use advanced features.

I would highly recommend Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, especially to organizations that are moving toward a cloud or hybrid cloud infrastructure.

Overall, I would rate this solution at seven on a scale from one to ten.

Our company use the solution to automate IT for many government use cases. 

The solution is capable of integrating with many applications and devices in comparison to BigFix. 

The infrastructure and user controls are much easier to use than BigFix. 

Community support is always available so it is easy to get direct information. There is a lot of basic, enterprise-level, and governance-level support. 

The governance features could be improved. 

I have been using the solution for four years. 

The stability is okay for our project. 

Large organizations like us have workloads for 55,000 people so need enterprise-level features. We are with the government so we have a lot of important data. 

The solution is scalable up to a point. There are some issues at the enterprise level. 

Technical and virtual support are top notch in any issue. There is a lot of community support available at all levels. 

The initial setup was a bit complex. Some of the web addresses were not working on the technical or management levels. Our team was very focused on policies and secure environments. Our team level is different from company management. 

We implemented the solution in-house. 

The solution is inexpensive compared to other products. 

The solution is not the best fit at the enterprise level because there are issues with reporting and websites when handling 24,000 servers. In this scenario, I rate the solution a six out of ten. 

The solution is a good fit for smaller or medium-sized businesses with up to 10,000 servers. In this scenario, I rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

Our company uses the solution for clients with private or multi-cloud platforms. The solution automates the process of integrating multi-cloud applications. 

We have more than 1,000 users across our clients. 

The automation manager is very good and makes things easier for customers with multi-cloud platforms. 

Additional features could be added. 

I have been using the solution for two years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable and you can go from 100 to 3,000 users with no issues. 

I did not previously use another solution. 

The setup is very easy.

Management is a bit different day to day as you automate. It takes time to realize all the benefits. Two staff people can easily manage the solution. 

We replaced our partner server with SaaS.

The pricing is pretty standard. 

I am very picky about using the solution. For my client base, there are many benefits to use. The solution is the continuous choice. 

I rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

We can use it to configure or to change the configuration in a large number of servers. Also, if there are some issues in comprehension, for example, permission or ownership, we can fix that with the Ansible label. 

We can use other advanced features. Currently, for example, we are using BigFix for automation. We use Ansible since it doesn't need agents to install on every server. For BigFix, in contrast, you do need to have a BigFix agent for every server. Not having to do that with Ansible is a benefit for us.

The Ansible automation platform helps us achieve our goals. It is easier to handle and easier to understand. We can learn it easily, and we can share it with colleagues also very easily.

New colleagues and new people can understand the solution very well, making it quick for onboarding. 

It is easy to manage. If we make a playbook, we do need to have some skills in scripting or skills for the AML file. However, once we do, we can easily handle the issue.

We are just starting to use the solution. I can't speak to improvements, really. So far, I am more comfortable with this product than the previous one. Once we start using it heavily, maybe we will see issues.

I've been using the solution for one year.

The solution is stable. Some colleagues and other companies use it and comment that it is easy to use, easy to understand, and offers good features. They're very positive when discussing Ansible. 

The solution can scale. It can cover large amounts. Many other companies also use it successfully.

We have more than 600 Linux servers. We are using it on all the servers. 

We use Red Hat a lot. I open tickets for the Red Hat cases, however, with Ansible, I haven't opened any cases. My manager worked with them a bit.

If we have a problem with some file and we need to get Red Hat to analyze the issue and the file is 100GBs, we'll have an issue since we need to provide a log file for them to analyze. If it is around 12GB or 13GB, we can easily upload it to the Red Hat portal. With more than 100GBs, it will fail. I heard it should cover up to 250GB for an upload, however, I find it fails. Therefore, Red Hat needs to provide a way to handle this.

Positive

We also use BigFix. However, we need to have an agent on every server with BigFix, which is not the case with Ansible. 

Our manager had already implemented Ansible, and we were using it in the lab previously. In the lab, we saw it running very smoothly. Some of the production servers also use Ansible as well.

I was involved in the initial setup. I use it in the lab server for now, and it is good. It is going to be in production soon. However, we already deployed it in lower environments, like the QA and development servers.

We might see an ROI soon. 

Previously, we had BigFix and considered other solutions. However, when Ansible came in, and we studied it a bit, we felt that it would be easy to understand and easy to implement. The learning curve was small. 

We are a contractor of the client. We support the client, so whatever the client needs, we use and provide. Our client owns Red Hat, and therefore we use it.

Our operating system is Red Hat. We chose it due to the fact that it is open source. In Red Hat, we can use VMware or physical servers or the cloud and find Red Hat to be easy to use, secure, and user-friendly. Also, if we use all RHEL products, they are all compatible with each other. If we use a third party, we might have issues. With RHEL products, it is already tested on the RHEL side, so we don't generally see issues. 

It's one of the best products to use. It is easy to understand and easy to manage. You can use it if you have a cloud, physical server, or VMware. It is very good and offers operational efficiency.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten. We like it, and we feel good about its capabilities. 

I use the product mostly to configure virtual machines.

The solution helps us to have a standard configuration for all the virtual machines. It helps our virtual machines have the same configuration every time they restart. It also helps with automation.

The most valuable feature of the solution is that we don’t need an agent for it to work.

The product could do a better job at building infrastructure. 

The product should add a feature that alerts us if someone changes the configuration.

I have been using the solution for two years.

The product has high stability.

The solution has high scalability. It can be deployed on thousands of machines. Seven people in our organization use the solution.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We use the open-source version of the solution. The product can be used for free.

The tool should be used for server configuration but not for creating resources on the cloud. Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We use the solution for provisioning on different providers like VMware, and OpenStack because it was so easy to implement. This product is also helpful to create a job workflow including the approval steps.

It also includes DevOps tools for making an easy automation process. 

It brings a lot of time-saving.

The API for exposing all our infrastructure services is the most valuable feature.

I have been using Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform for three months.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution.

The technical support is very good. We asked the support team about applications, and they answered us. I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

We used multiple tools in the past three years, but we did not use any other similar product to Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform.

The initial setup was easy. I was not a part of the deployment process, but my team members told me about the deployment process.

The in-house team asked the support team questions.

It is an open source product but needs a license subscription to use it. The price depends on the number of nodes supported by the platform (the nodes correspond to a host which can be for example a VM or a data center).

The price is really different depending on the customer's needs.

We have evaluated other solutions but this is the one that best meets our need for provisioning automation and addresses the different infrastructure and cloud providers we use

The product can be very easy to use, provided what you are using in it. I did not use the product myself, but it was really impressive when they showed the POC process. I rate it eight out of ten.

We use Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform in our company to implement a software-defined infrastructure, which involves defining the desired configuration of machines in terms of their components, setup, security, user roles, software deployment, and certificate deployment. With this platform, we are able to set up new environments and manage the lifecycle of instances across various stages, such as development, production, and pre-production. We also use it for routing up and back of new software.

Feature-wise, the solution is a good open-source software offering broad support. Also, it's reliable.

I think some community projects support Ansible Playbooks, but they often break with version updates. It's a difficult problem to solve. DevOps should have a library with common components to make Ansible more productive when there are updates to Ansible and the operating system. What we need is model-driven, declarative software infrastructure management. However, things tend to break with new versions, requiring a lot of work to fix. It becomes a cost-benefit analysis of reusing old Ansible scripts versus rewriting them from scratch after updates. The problem is that it becomes quite fragile over time, and this fragility is a problem.

If the IDE and auto-completion of the solution are based on Checkpt, it is important to ensure that the AI coding tools support writing in a more declarative way. While I have not yet tried coding with this assistance, Microsoft and Keylabs both offer AI coding assistants. The focus should be on improving the support for Ansible in the area of AI coding. It is crucial to see how well they work with the new versions of Ansible.

I have been using Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform for almost five years. My company is an end-user of the solution.

The product's stability is very good. I rate it an eight out of ten.

Ansible is a configuration tool that doesn't have to scale like other tools. So scalability does not apply to the solution. Also, it's not a tool used by thousands of users. I am unsure if it can be used to manage thousands of servers. Small teams, like the DevOps team, use the solution. We service large groups of servers with it using a very small team of about two or three and a maximum of four people.

I have never contacted technical support. We use open-source support.

The solution's initial setup process was simple. The solution gets used in various ways, and it's essentially a configuration tool you run from any node with access to other nodes. It has got server versions as well. So, you can use it either way.

We compared it to other configuration management tools before choosing Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform. We did not choose others since they were not as centralized. It doesn't need a server since you can run it from your clients, and it doesn't need a central deployment service or server.

Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is a declarative infrastructure management system that works fine if supported by the environments you use to set up. I rate the overall product an eight or nine out of ten.