Overall Satisfaction with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform
We started with Tower for automated OS updates and configurations. We have since moved to using configuration as code and Ansible Automation Platform to build F5 configurations and build and automate data migrations. We are looking forward to using event-driven ansible and policy as code as learned at Summit. We love it!
- Repeating tasks based on a schedule.
- Agnostic support for so many platforms and systems.
- Support for federated environments, and custom use cases.
- Using standard and open developments environments (Python and JSON).
- Playbook execution result output can sometimes be very messy and hard to understand. Make JSON output pretty and understandable. Allow disclosure triangles to hide/show content and let the playbook dictate that.
- Allow for a pop-up review of a playbook's credentials, inventory, or other sub-components instead of forcing a new window or tab within the browser. Allow for quick review or audit.
- Allow for stepping through a playbook, step by step, just like a development IDE or programming environment, inspecting variables and output from plays.
- POSITIVE: currently used by the IT department and some others, but we want others to use it.
- NEGATIVE: We need less technical output for the non-technical. It should be controllable or a setting within playbooks. We also need more graphical responses (non-technical).
- POSITIVE: Always being updated and expanded (CaC, EDA, Policy as Code, execution environments, AI, etc..)
Do you think Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform delivers good value for the price?
Yes
Are you happy with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform's feature set?
Yes
Did Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform live up to sales and marketing promises?
Yes
Did implementation of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform go as expected?
Yes
Would you buy Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform again?
Yes