Rancher Labs Reviews

We use this solution to optimize and manage our multi-terabyte, core banking application logs on our servers.

This solution is not vendor-locked, which means that we we are able to use it across all of our resources; this feature is of great value to us.

We also like that the UI for this solution has been improved, which has made it easier to use.

We have found that the auto-secure feature of this solution doesn't always work, and could be improved to be more reliable, particularly when working with business critical applications.

We have been using this solution for two or three years.

The stability of this solution is good, except for the auto-secure feature, whose use impacts the performance of the product.

We found the initial setup for this solution to be easy.

We implemented this solution using our in-house DevOps team.

This is an open-source solution, so there are no licensing costs involved.

We would definitely recommend this solution to other organizations.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We're not using it full-blown; the plan is you have the developers to be able to develop an on-prem and then move it over to the cloud. That was a scenario. We stood up these environments so that it would be easier for us to control our internal costs for development so that we're not spitting up these cycles in the cloud and causing more cost versus just building an on-prem and then moving it to the cloud.

So far, we are in the POC stage. Overall, it is working well and we are happy with its capabilities.

The product has been quite stable.

They come out with versions regularly and they are pretty simple to update and the updates are pretty straightforward. You don't have to go through a lot of stuff to go through with the gap. You have a rolling upgrade which is nice. The key part about Ranger is that it has a good relation to storage. It has a great feature for persistent storage for Kubernetes and they work extremely well with one another. Otherwise, you've got OpenShift that uses Cipher and that's yet another infrastructure you have to build out. 

The scalability potential is very good.

We're looking for something that is even easier to use. It's a bit complicated. When you're dealing with Kubernetes, it is easier, however, there's still a lot of convoluted types of commands. 

The situation goes pretty deep and when things go South, you spent a lot of time trying to figure things out, and it takes a certain amount of skillsets. To ramp up those skillsets takes time. Unfortunately, we don't have the time to ramp up those skillsets to bring those things in. There are other solutions out there such as HashiCorp, which offers its own version of managing containers. It doesn't use Kubernetes; is a different way of doing it.

The product could use just a little bit more Federation-type capabilities going forward when you're going to the cloud. That's the kind of stuff I can use. You've got different regions within the cloud, and just from that, we that kind of support.

I've been using the solution for about a year now.

The stability of the solution has been good overall. It's reliable and offers good performance. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution will scale well. That said, we haven't tested it, however, it's pretty straightforward. You just run a couple of commands to build out another node and you scale.

Currently, we don't have too many people on the product. It's just a very few people, just the Unix team, which is about six people right now.

Technical support is very good. They're very helpful and responsive. We are quite please with the level of assistance we receive.

The initial setup wasn't simple. It was a bit difficult and a bit complex. We had to get a little help from the Rancher folks to set it up initially, as we really didn't know what the hell we were doing.

The solution doesn't need a lot of maintenance; we have a team of six people working on the solution currently and any one of us could handle it.

Rancher helped us a lot at the outset. We didn't know how to manage the initial setup by ourselves.

I don't handle contracts or licensing costs. I can't speak to how much the solution costs.

That said, it is my understanding that the pricing is very comparable to what else is in the market.

We're starting to look at Amazon EKS. We haven't begun to work with it, however, since we use Kubernetes, it may be an option in the future.

We're using the latest version of the solution at this time. I can't recall the exact version number, however.

Currently, the solution not fully in production just yet. It's still kind of like a POC. The value it brings to us is that it's a great tool. We're able to use it. It seems to be able to do the job, however, we are still looking around.

I have no negative thoughts about Rancher. It's a great product for what it is. As far as getting support, the support has been very good. There are some good price points. Ever now since they were acquired by SUSE there's been plenty of opportunities there as well.

In general, I would rate the product at a seven out of ten.

Rancher has two main versions which are completely different products. They have some similarities because they have a similar UI and similar concept but are different under the hood. The original Rancher was an orchestration platform for Docker containers based on Cattle and we used that solution for three years extensively for different products and on different projects. We're also now using the Rancher 2 on top of the Kubernetes to manage Docker containers for different customers, for projects, to seize logs, to seize mentorings, to downscale or upscale applications. They provide a great catalog of applications that can be created. We recently used Rancher two for another project that was hosted on top of AWS and on-premise servers. It provides and deploys infrastructures, providing UI for the dev team, the management team, QA team, and enables us to see everything that's going on.

The solution has saved us a lot of time by not requiring us to configure the all details including monitoring, logging, Kubernetes node provisioning on top of public cloud services. 

This product has a great UI and because the products are all self-contained in the solution, it provides great features and is easily deployable with a very good integrations. 

I'd like to see this solution become more stable and have more integrations with other Rancher Labs products, such as Rancher Longhorn.

We've used Rancher products for the last four years. 

We have had some issues as a result of the complexity but it's stable overall. 

The scalability is great, it very much depends on the underlying infrastructure. 

We have used Kubernetes without Rancher so we've used different approaches for our needs. We switched for several reasons: Rancher has a great UI, its operational costs were less, and there were not too many competitors on the market when we switched to use the first Rancher. It was really, I believe, the best on the market in terms of managing containers. Since Rancher 2.0 migrated to Kubernetes, we found that we could manage this directly using dashboards and tools from the community. 

It's definitely easy to deploy, easy to connect to existing clusters or to provide new clusters, scaling of applications, application logs, and multi cluster setup. The initial setup is variable depending on the size of the company and the project. It can take anywhere from 15 minutes to two days. 

The ROI for us has been improved visibility, speed of deployment, reliability, and we have great feedback. We were able to save on time in marketing the applications. 

We used the free open source version so there were no costs associated with licensing. I know it's possible to get support but I don't know the cost. I think it's minimal. 

We evaluated a lot of other products including Elastic Container Service, its Azure App Services, Google App Engine and DigitalOcean hosting options, which is an Oracle application, and many more. We did market research and carried out evaluations and took a look at all available free and open source solutions. When we decided to use the first version of Rancher, it provided the best UI, the best scalability and stability. It's better than ECS which uses other tools for monitoring and logging. There is a different UI and the cloud tools are not as user friendly. When we took a look at other tools each of them had something wrong from our point of view. 

We immigrated from Rancher 2.0 to the AWS ECS. The idea behind initially using Rancher was as an option to native cloud services. Because it provides all features we could configure it in less time than it would take to use the public cloud services. By using this solution we've learned how to manage complex infrastructures and microservices, and how to provide visibility and audit for different teams. 

Rancher has established partnerships and they have tightly integrated it in the public cloud, such as AWS or Google cloud. I would recommend that anyone wanting to try it, install it, play with it, and see the pros and cons. It's something that anyone should do with all the other competitors and solutions.

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

We are using Rancher Labs' for the overall management of our Kubernetes cluster. For example, we manage the production and UAT environment of all our applications or containers.

The solution has a lot of good features, such as you can access the console and edit through the GUI. The dashboard and the UI are designed well, user-friendly, and easy to manage, and access.

The solution could improve by adding more features in the dashboard, such as monitoring, scanning, and security. This would be a great benefit.

I have used Rancher Labs for approximately one year.

The solution is stable.

We have not had any issues with scalability.

We have not paid for the support for the solution.

The initial setup is easy.

We did the implementation of the solution.

The solution is free and open source but there is a fee for support.

We have been evaluating Red Hat OpenShift, Kubernetes, Tanzu, and Nirmata.

I rate Rancher Labs an eight out of ten.

We use the product to manage Kubernetes licensing, the flow of the containers, and monitoring purposes.

The product is simple to use for a beginner. It has an efficient log management feature.

They should improve application visibility along with code visibility.

We have been using Rancher Labs for four years.

It is a stable platform. I rate its stability a seven out of ten.

A team of ten DevOps executives uses Rancher Labs in our organization.

We used Ansible platform. We switched to Rancher Labs as it is simpler to use.

It is easy to install and integrate with VMware and OpenShift. It takes around a few minutes to complete the process.

I rate Rancher Labs an eight out of ten.

Rancher Labs is used to deliver containerized applications over a containerized architecture.

I have been using this solution for a couple of months.

The solution is stable.

Rancher Labs is scalable.

We have approximately 10 people using this solution in my organization.

We use engineers for the implementation and maintenance of the solution.

There is an annual subscription. The price of the solution should be cheaper and have better pricing flexibility.

We evaluated VMware Tanzu before choosing Rancher Labs.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Rancher Labs a seven out of ten.