Thought I'd chime in here since most of these comments seem to be negative. This is the second organization I've worked at using Satellite. It has some issues, but it has also saved me countless hours of work. It is NOT a configuration management tool, that was never its intent. There is a cobbled together work-around called "Configuration Channels" but I've only ever seen this implemented cleanly once.
Like everything else Redhat, it depends on who you get a hold of in the organization for help. Our TAM got us in touch with internal Satellite resources and we've had a great deal of success building a global Satellite infrastructure. It is an invaluable tool for maintaining consistency throughout the organization as well as bare metal provisioning, updates and upgrades. We have about 7,000 RH servers under management and I understand the frustration that I see expressed in a lot of these posts. All I can say is that implementing a Satellite server CORRECTLY is not easy. It's a very different kind of mindset that's used for managing the way a system is defined and it takes a good deal of experience to understand it and make sure you're using Satellite properly. I've seen plenty of poorly implemented Satellite servers and I would agree that that is worse than nothing at all. Correctly implemented, it's a trivial task for me to update an entire environment and validate its success, or build an in-the-box system into a ready to deploy application server at the push of a button. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
