High Reliability in Migration: Users have emphasized the extremely reliable migration process to production when using containers in Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, ensuring consistency, speed, and accuracy throughout the deployment lifecycle. This reliability plays a crucial role in maintaining operational efficiency and minimizing risks associated with migration tasks.
Efficient Role-Based Access Control: Many users appreciate the Role-Based Access Control feature of the platform, enabling the smooth passing of automation capabilities to multiple teams with minimal training or skills required for operation. The implementation of RBAC enhances security measures and promotes collaborative workflows among different user groups.
Ease of Playbook Development: The ease of creating playbooks to automate tasks, collaborating effectively between teams, and implementing security changes through automation has been positively acknowledged by users as advantageous features. This streamlined playbook development process not only increases productivity but also fosters better coordination within project teams for enhanced outcomes.
To manage assets and inventories across various domains.
I have different assets in different areas across our campus, so it makes it easier to manage them from one central location.
We automate everything, automate all the things, as we say. From patch management to user management, anything to do on the RHEL box, we do it. We use it on Windows, we use it on our F5s, we use it on our network equipment. Just automate everything in our organization.
I'm going to say it is best suited for configuration management. Like I said, patching even with security, things of that nature. Probably less suited is hardware management, but Red Hat IBM/IBM has Terraform for that. So it's a trade off.
Automating tasks, repetitive tasks, making them easier, automating processes and procedures for other teams. They make requests, we write the automation and go from there.
It's very well suited for declarative setups. If I need a setup done a certain way, it's very good at that and I believe it's by design lacks a lot of flexibility or input and choices being made, things like that. But I think that's the nature of the beast, but it's something that I'm asked to do regularly.
1) Building new Linux VMs
2) Patching Linux VMs
3) Standardizing file changes
4) Local password changes
5) Connect with all Linux/Unix servers with the same credential
Automate patching RHEL and build VMS from Satellite. We started using Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform less than a year ago. Because of that, we are patching every 3 instead of 6 months. Our patch includes rebooting, taking snapshots, applying the patch, and rebooting again. It works beautifully. I'm not yet confident with patching Solaris 11.4 with LDOMs and named zones.
We manage git repositories with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform code that assist in making our laptops/desktops/servers compliant with corporate policy. We have ancillary playbooks/template for edge cases, and unique deployments. We also enforce scheduled patching and reboots. While we have experimented with callback, it is not yet as useful as we had hoped.
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform is well suited for ensuring a consistent endpoint via code. Our typical use case is to ensure our corporate baseline is actually in effect. This would also apply to federal security requirements, like DFARS, NIST frameworks, or DoD STIGs. It does not do well in provisioning systems, but it is not designed to. It is interesting to see the integration with tooling like Terraform.
We use Ansible to automate our operations task across multiple platforms including CM, life cycle and more. We have it spread out across multiple environments
It is well suited to satisfy operational needs where we would have employees continuously doing the same thing over and over. It is less appropriate for one of task that do not come up very often
resource very important to automate
updates windows
We use the open source product in order to automate manual network and infrastructure processes
well-suited:
infrastructure management, elimination of manual processes, multi-tenant environments, scheduling of reporting
less well-suited: observabilty, configuration management, single pane of glass reporting, need for live insight in a single platform
we use it for network automation. simple requests like port changes and such.
we like to use it for se techs
Automate OS deployment and application installation
easy to use