4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Nov 21, 2016
Initial integration was difficult, but we have stuck with the upgrade process over time. Red Hat is developing an incredible solution with Satellite 6, it is just taking time.
Keep your open source environment pure, don't use proprientary management tools, or proprietary virtualization solutions. They will box you in and make management much more difficult in the future.
I like how simple things get once it it is implemented.
I dislike how foreign some of the concepts are for most sysadmins. It does make deployment much more like a software development lifecycle.
I wish that the feature roadmap was a little more defined. Inboarding and managing existing servers has been very difficult.
We would have moved our entire Linux Infrastructure onto KVM based virtualization to make provisioning far easier. Implementation on VMware is very difficult and requires work arounds.
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Nov 17, 2016
The product support is very good.
Plan in details for upgrade
Not everything works as it says. The configuration is complicated.
Better planning at the beginning
2 out of 5.0, Reviewed Nov 17, 2016
Satellite 6 previous to version 6.2x was relatively beta quality. There were several issues. The core function of providing patches and licensing to our environment was generally functional, but difficult to implement and required multiple re-deployments. As of 6.2x, it is beginning to be stable and generally useful, although with several quirks.
If you're only goal is patching and licensing, Satellite 6 may be a viable option as of 6.2.4. If you're planning to use the advanced features, it would be best to do so in parallel on a small scale prior to committing to a large scale rollout.
Centrallized management of patching and licensing. There's a lot of potential in additional features.
The way they handle licensing is relatively inflexible. It has improved recently. In a VMware environment, it requires access to VMWare to coordinate host-guest licensing. In the beginning, this was very rigid and required us to alter the way we manage VMs. This has improved recently.
It would probably have been better is Red Hat had been less ambitious with Satellite 6. There were too many new features, that didnt work well, that distracted from the core function. As a result, even the core function was feature incomplete and didnt work well. Things are better now, but it's been more than a year and several minor revisions.
We would've stayed on Satellite 5x. As of now we aren't using any of the additional features of Satellite 6. We are only using it as a patching and licensing system.
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed May 10, 2016
Flexible product. Has been able to overcome some integration hurdles with the help of the vendor. Vendor did not have expertise in software at the start of the design (vendor learned as we developed).
Product documentation lacking for complex deployments - vendor support critical.
Slower development cycles than opensource community.
Provide better documentation.
Get the product into the hands of the development team early to flush out dev. processes.
learning curve is steep for new developers (especially the puppet integration)