Our primary use case for Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is to enhance our Kubernetes management by leveraging the additional features and tools it provides. We use it to deploy applications, set up pipelines with Tekton, integrate secure networking, and facilitate AI and machine learning projects through MLOps.
DevOps Engineer I at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Enhanced security and streamlined DevOps with advanced feature integration
Pros and Cons
- "The most valuable features of OpenShift include its advanced security, integrated DNS system, built-in pipeline management with Tekton, enhanced networking routes, and dedicated platforms for DataOps and MLOps."
- "Setting up OpenShift locally can be challenging, particularly because it requires RHL Linux and has specific restrictions."
What is our primary use case?
How has it helped my organization?
Red Hat OpenShift has made the development processes more manageable and secure, particularly by providing its own DNS system, a pipeline solution called Tekton, and features like source-to-image. These enhancements simplify the complex tasks seen in plain Kubernetes, making it user-friendly and improving DevOps efficiency.
What is most valuable?
The most valuable features of OpenShift include its advanced security, integrated DNS system, built-in pipeline management with Tekton, enhanced networking routes, and dedicated platforms for DataOps and MLOps. These features make it a robust choice for handling enterprise-level tasks securely and efficiently.
What needs improvement?
Setting up OpenShift locally can be challenging, particularly because it requires RHL Linux and has specific restrictions. Additionally, the documentation for local setups is lacking. Improving these aspects would make OpenShift more accessible to the community for trial and development purposes.
Buyer's Guide
Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform
February 2025
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3d09a/3d09ae4d87808101515aff47a788c8a5df4338de" alt="PeerSpot Buyer's Guide"
Learn what your peers think about Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: February 2025.
838,737 professionals have used our research since 2012.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform for two years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
OpenShift is highly stable. Its performance is comparable to Kubernetes, with enhancements where Kubernetes lacks certain features.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
Scalability is customizable and straightforward. We can deploy it on any cloud service or our server center and scale it easily. Red Hat and AWS provide excellent support, making it easier to scale quickly.
How are customer service and support?
The technical support from Red Hat and AWS is reliable and friendly, aiding problem resolution effectively.
How would you rate customer service and support?
Neutral
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
I have experience with Kubernetes, Docker, and Sravan for container management. However, OpenShift stands out for its security and feature enhancements.
How was the initial setup?
The initial setup for OpenShift on the cloud platform is straightforward and quick, taking five to ten minutes to initiate and up to one day to deploy all resources, depending on the complexity. For local setups, the process is more complicated and error-prone.
What about the implementation team?
Typically, three to four people are needed for deployment. This may include configuring nodes and setting up multi-cluster or hybrid environments to ensure scalability and ease of management.
What other advice do I have?
If your concerns are primarily security and feature enhancement, OpenShift offers substantial value. It is suitable for larger teams concerned about security and usability. Smaller teams with less stringent requirements might consider other solutions. Careful cost estimation is crucial to avoid unnecessary financial burdens.
I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
Hybrid Cloud
If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?
Amazon Web Services (AWS)
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Last updated: Sep 25, 2024
Flag as inappropriatedata:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/90183/9018307dff0f8424d9744886ad50d7f0f7915caf" alt="PeerSpot user"
Development Team Lead & Project Manager at bank hapoalim
Everything works automatically, including scaling of pods, memory, and CPU, making our jobs easier
Pros and Cons
- "Dashboards... give us all the details we need to see about the microservices."
- "It can take 10 to 15 minutes to deploy a microservice. The CI/CD process takes a long time, and if it's because of OCP, that is something that can be changed."
What is our primary use case?
I work in a bank and we develop new microservices based on mainframe legacy systems. They want to start developing new microservices to reduce the calls to the mainframe. DevOps in Bank Hapoalim uses OpenShift as a platform and all the services are deployed automatically to avoid the problem of services being unavailable. So the main use case is to modernize the existing legacy systems. All the big projects of the bank are going through this modernization, with a new architecture and deploying stuff through microservices.
How has it helped my organization?
It makes our work much easier. Everything works automatically: the pods, memory, and CPU grow automatically. We had so many systems on the old technologies and it's very hard to modernize them. But this tool, OpenShift Container Platform, helps a lot. If we want to keep up with the market and be a strong organization, we have to support modernization. We can't see all the banks making changes and still go with the old systems.
Also, the department that's in charge of it, DevOps, has given us more dashboards so that we can see more details, exactly what's going on in terms of timing and everything. They give us all the details we need to see about the microservices.
What is most valuable?
It's an easy platform to use.
What needs improvement?
I'm not sure if this is an issue with OCP, but it takes time to deploy. I'm not sure because we have pipelines and Jenkins jobs that deploy the microservice so it takes time. It can take 10 to 15 minutes to deploy a microservice. The CI/CD process takes a long time, and if it's because of OCP, that is something that can be changed.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using OpenShift Container Platform for about two years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
Overall it's stable. Sometimes I see problems with the stability, but I'm not sure that the problem is with OCP. There are things that we need to explore more deeply, but I would say it's stable.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
It scales microservices automatically.
We have about 1,000 internal users of OCP and about a quarter of them use it daily.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
We did not use any other container management software.
How was the initial setup?
There were several other departments involved in the setup.
What about the implementation team?
It was done in-house.
What other advice do I have?
It's a very cool product. You can trust it. We have plenty of complicated microservices systems deployed through this platform, and it does the job. We see the results. I only have good feedback about it.
It's nice to see technology getting better and better, doing things automatically. The platform can fit every organization, with the right configuration. It can do whatever you need it to do. It's very impressive to see how the technology of this platform does it.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Buyer's Guide
Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform
February 2025
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3d09a/3d09ae4d87808101515aff47a788c8a5df4338de" alt="PeerSpot Buyer's Guide"
Learn what your peers think about Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: February 2025.
838,737 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Solutions Architect at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Provides centralized control of container resources, but it's prohibitively expensive to get something simple going
Pros and Cons
- "Centralized control of container resources is most valuable."
- "There should be a simplification of the overall cluster environment. It should require fewer resources. Just to run a simple Hello World app, it requires about seven servers, and that's just crazy. I understand that it is fully redundant, but it's prohibitively expensive to get something simple going."
What is our primary use case?
We are moving as many applications as possible to a containerized environment. In terms of our environment, we have multiple data centers. One, of course, is for redundancy. Most of them are hot-warm. They're not hot-hot or hot-cold, depending on how you look at it, but pretty much everything that's important is fully redundant. That would be between our own private data centers and within Amazon across regions.
We have an on-premises and private cloud deployment. Amazon is the cloud provider. We've got some Azure out there too, but Amazon has been the primary focus.
What is most valuable?
Centralized control of container resources is most valuable.
What needs improvement?
There should be a simplification of the overall cluster environment. It should require fewer resources. Just to run a simple Hello World app, it requires about seven servers, and that's just crazy. I understand that it is fully redundant, but it's prohibitively expensive to get something simple going.
We've had a very difficult time going from version 3 to 4. We need to go to version 4 because of multiple network segments that may be running in a container and how we organize our applications. It's very difficult to have applications from different domains in the same container cluster. We've had a lot of problems with that. I find it to be an overcomplicated environment, and some of the other simpler containers may very well rise above this.
For how long have I used the solution?
It has probably been in use in the organization for about a year and a half.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
It is fine. I've not heard anything negative about either the performance or the reliability.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
Scalability is one of the primary reasons for going with a containerized environment like this. I have not heard that we've had any restrictions there, and I would be shocked and remarkably disappointed if we did. We have not hit any scalability issues yet.
How are customer service and support?
I personally do not have any experience with them. I'm quite sure our low-level implementers do.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
They were just different JBoss containers. It really wasn't a containerized environment. We're looking at some of the AWS solutions.
How was the initial setup?
I didn't do the initial setup. Some other people did that. We're all pretty uber geeks. So, I'm quite sure that we'd be able to figure it out naturally. Because it's a fully-featured and complex environment, you'd have to bone up on OpenShift to figure out how to install it properly, but I wouldn't expect it to be onerous.
Our implementation strategy was to start moving applications to be containerized and then implement them in the OpenShift. We were moving to OpenShift running on our own ECS on Amazon, but we have a lot of on-prem as well.
We're still working out the kinks. A part of that is our own dysfunction in terms of how we organize our apps, and then there is the problem with running apps from different domains in the same container. Some of those are our own self-imposed problems, but some of it is due to the OpenShift complexity.
What about the implementation team?
We definitely hired different experts, but for the most part, we went out and hired people with the expertise, and now, they're employees. So, I'm quite sure there were consultants in there, but I don't know that offhand.
What was our ROI?
We have not yet seen an ROI.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
It depends on who you're talking to. For a large corporation, it is acceptable, other than the significant infrastructure requirements. For a small organization, it is in no way suitable, and we'd go for Amazon's container solution.
Additional costs are difficult for me to articulate because ours is a highly-complex environment even outside of it.
What other advice do I have?
Ensure that you need all of the features that it has because otherwise, it's not worth the investment. Be careful what version you're getting into because that can be problematic to change after you've already invested in both the training and the infrastructure.
I would rate it a seven out of ten. Considering some of the problems we've had, even though some of them are self-imposed, I would hope that a containerized environment would be flexible to be able to give us some options there.
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Cloud architect at Wipro Limited
The operating system has a live update and is more secure than any other
Pros and Cons
- "The operating system has a live update and is more secure than any other. It's made for Atomic OS, a lightweight OS new to the market. I also like the source-to-image capabilities. The customer can directly deploy their applications from the repository. It's a highly flexible and easy way to deploy into production."
- "The support costs are too high."
What is our primary use case?
Our client deployed OpenShift on a bare-metal server, and they use it to offer their customers a platform-as-a-service solution with metered billing. It's pay-as-you-go. We are currently developing our own platform. For the most part, we have enough developers, but we'll go to Red Hat when we need support.
How has it helped my organization?
OpenShift is an improvement over legacy monolithic applications. With OpenShift, our clients can see the new features quickly, and developers can get any software they need from the Red Hat Marketplace. It has improved our product development and the existing workload on business material applications running on OpenShift. It has improved the performance of our company's IT department.
OpenShift complies with the security center, where the CS image is hardened by default. OpenShift is very secure. When there are updates, OpenShift will update all the patches necessary throughout the entire cluster platform. It takes care of that easily, reducing many administrative tasks. Using this product improves our compliance code significantly.
The pipelines in OpenShift are handy for developers to build and automate things quickly. It's easy to bring things online. Options are helpful for the customized solutions we can do with this product. Overall, the automations are well aligned with OpenShift. That's what I see.
OpenShift's code-ready workspaces reduce project onboarding time by about 70-plus days while reducing time-to-market by around 50 percent.
What is most valuable?
The operating system has a live update and is more secure than any other. It's made for Atomic OS, a lightweight OS new to the market. I also like the source-to-image capabilities. The customer can directly deploy their applications from the repository. It's a highly flexible and easy way to deploy into production.
It's a simplified network for exposing their application to the outside world. Red Hat has good built-in oversight, where it monitors the cluster performance and records everything built inside the cluster besides OpenShift. Of course, Red Hat is a pioneer in this kind of auditing.
Telecom clients can use OpenStack as their private cloud to access secure resources on demand. When they deploy to OpenShift, it's easier for them to have a cloud-like field on their own data center. OpenShift and OpenStack are integrated. It's an ideal combination. The infrastructure created in OpenStack is a robust private cloud solution. If the developer wants to consume resources within their organization per the utilization, OpenStack is the right platform for building their private cloud.
In terms of innovation, features, and functionality, a public cloud has much more than OpenStack by itself. I prefer OpenShift on AWS or Azure Cloud. That has made it easier for the customers to benefit because they don't need to worry about their managed solutions anymore. It's the customer's choice to manage services through OpenShift or on-prem. OpenShift can be run on all platforms, including VMware, public, private, etc. It's a great solution from a consumer choice perspective.
The codes are customized and fixed only for their own environment, so it's more secure, but we cannot assure the client's security. However, the code is validated, and Red Hat support will address any vulnerabilities or security issues that arise.
What needs improvement?
The support costs are too high.
For how long have I used the solution?
I've used OpenShift for the last two years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
OpenShift is a highly stable product if you're using it as a managed service.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
OpenShift is scalable.
How are customer service and support?
I rate Red Hat support nine out of 10.
How would you rate customer service and support?
Positive
How was the initial setup?
Setting up OpenShift is fairly straightforward. It takes about a week to plan and another to deploy, so two weeks max.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
They can reduce prices because Kubernetes is open-source and freely available to customers. The license cost is for deploying on-prem, so it's costly to go to a client's location to deploy things compared to open source. If they reduce the cost, more customers will choose OpenShift.
What other advice do I have?
I rate OpenShift Container Platform 10 out of 10. This is a great product. Red Hat has been in the field for more than 25 years. Each product they release is more innovative and cutting-edge.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
On-premises
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
AWS Architect at FIVE 9 GROUP, INC
Enables easy management of different containers and environments; a bit pricey
Pros and Cons
- "The most valuable feature for me in the OpenShift Container Platform is the option to manage different containers and environments and also being able to switch among them."
- "My impression is that this solution is pretty expensive so I think the pricing plan could improve."
What is our primary use case?
Our primary use case for this solution is, as an open system, to deploy containers on AWS or other platforms and then manage them.
What is most valuable?
The most valuable feature for me in the OpenShift Container Platform is the option to manage different containers and environments and also being able to switch among them.
What needs improvement?
My impression is that this solution is pretty expensive so I think the pricing plan could improve.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using this solution for about two years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
I would rate the stability a nine, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
I would rate the scalability an eight, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.
How are customer service and support?
I would rate the technical support of this solution an eight, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.
How would you rate customer service and support?
Positive
How was the initial setup?
I was not involved in the initial deployment but I heard that it's not too hard to set up with all the support available.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
I would rate the pricing of this solution a four, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the most expensive and 10 being the least expensive.
What other advice do I have?
I would advise other people looking into this solution – if they could afford their pricing plan – to go for it as it's a great product.
I would rate this solution a seven, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Digital Payments Architect at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Reduced time to market in a stable, reliable solution that's easy to use and deploy
Pros and Cons
- "The product is stable, reliable, and easy to use, from a well-known company, has a large volume handling capacity, and more and more organizations are moving to OpenShift."
- "The UI could be more user-friendly to drive tasks more effectively through the interface."
What is our primary use case?
Our primary use case is to deploy Java and Angler UI codes into the platform's containers. We will soon migrate our product infrastructure to OpenShift.
How has it helped my organization?
The most significant improvement has been in the microservices area, as the solution simplifies the deployment of microservices. We don't have to spend much time on the infrastructure and CI/CD pipeline, so OpenShift saves us a lot of time.
OpenShift eliminates distractions, allowing our teams to focus on innovation, features, and functionality. For example, the elementary deployment and the platform makes dealing with infrastructure very straightforward, allowing us to focus on other tasks. OpenShift taking care of infrastructure-related issues, in particular, takes a weight off us, and it feels good to focus on innovation, discovery, etc.
The solution's CodeReady Workspaces reduce project onboarding time, and Red Hat can create a Workspace for us within two weeks. We place a request, and they start working on it; it's pretty fast because we're migrating most of the bank's processes over to OpenShift.
The CodeReady Workspaces reduce our time to market by around 20%.
What is most valuable?
The product is stable, reliable, and easy to use, from a well-known company, has a large volume handling capacity, and more and more organizations are moving to OpenShift.
The scale-up and scale-down functions of the product's UI are excellent.
The deployment is elementary and seamless.
We use the product on the vendor's OpenStack Platform, and in terms of speed and ease with which it enables us to create infrastructure on the OpenStack Platform, it's the best and most straightforward approach. OpenShift is excellent compared to other vendors like Google Kubernetes Engine and Azure Kubernetes Service; it's easier to use, more reliable and handles volume better.
The solution is very good at creating infrastructure that can be flexibly sized to meet specific needs on the OpenStack Platform; there are options to increase and reduce the size to meet volume demands.
The tool's security throughout the stack and the software supply chain is excellent; we are a large bank, so security is a top priority.
OpenShift's security features are highly capable of running business-critical applications. The solution is exciting, and I'm looking forward to getting more hands-on experience.
The solution's automated processes are excellent, and OpenShift has good integration potential with GitHub and Tangible, allowing a lot of code deployment automation. Plugins are also available for other CI/CD pipeline tools like Jenkins Pipeline, reducing our development time.
What needs improvement?
The UI could be more user-friendly to drive tasks more effectively through the interface.
For how long have I used the solution?
We used the trial version of the solution for one to two months to get hands-on experience in preparation for IBM Industry 4.0.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
OpenShift is a stable product.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
The scalability is excellent; it allows for a very high transaction volume.
How are customer service and support?
OpenShift's technical support is outstanding, and I rate them highly.
How would you rate customer service and support?
Positive
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
I previously used Google Kubernetes Engine, and many of the bank's teams started switching to the OpenShift Container Platform. Once I got my hands on the product, I saw it was very good. The general trend in our organization is one of migrating to OCP.
How was the initial setup?
I wasn't involved in the initial setup of the product, but it took around 30 minutes and I know it to be elementary.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
I'm an architect, so I have no involvement in the pricing and licensing of the platform.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
We evaluated GKE and found OCP much more lightweight and easier to use. I tried with GKE but was never successful with it. However, with no background in OCP, I watched some YouTube tutorials and successfully deployed a sample project. This ease of use is essential for us, as we don't need to spend time dealing with infrastructure and can focus on the development and functional aspects.
What other advice do I have?
I rate the solution a ten out of ten.
We didn't consider building our own container platform because it's too big a job. We're a bank, and most banks focus more on developing functionality than building a container platform and instead look for the best available tool.
We also use Red Hat Linux and chose it because it's very stable and reliable.
The biggest lesson I've learned from using the solution is how easy and simple it is to deploy, how little we need to focus on infrastructure, and how it allows us to prioritize functionality.
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Senior IT DevOps Engineer at a transportation company with 10,001+ employees
Built-in resiliency, with caring and helpful technical support, but the initial setup could be simplified
Pros and Cons
- "The most valuable feature of this solution is its scalability on demand, which allows for potentially lower costs, and Built-in resiliency."
- "In my experience, the issues are not always simply technical. They do stem from technical challenges, but they struggle with the topic of adoption. When you encounter all of the customer pull, there are normally several tiers of your client pop that can adopt either the fundamental features or a little more advanced ones. The majority of the time, the challenge is determining how to drive adoption, how to sell the product to the customer, and how much time they can spend to really utilize those advanced features. If we get into much more detail, but this is from my perspective as the platform engineer and not the end customer, the ability of the end user to be able to debug potential issues with their application That is arguably the most important, let's say, work throughput in my area."
What is our primary use case?
I am the platform engineer, and the platform serves a function for end users by allowing them to deploy their apps based on their application use cases.
What is most valuable?
The most valuable feature of this solution is its scalability on demand, which allows for potentially lower costs, and Built-in resiliency. Those are the three most important ones that spring to mind.
What needs improvement?
In my experience, the issues are not always simply technical. They do stem from technical challenges, but they struggle with the topic of adoption. When you encounter all of the customer pull, there are normally several tiers of your client pop that can adopt either the fundamental features or a little more advanced ones.
The majority of the time, the challenge is determining how to drive adoption, how to sell the product to the customer, and how much time they can spend to really utilize those advanced features. If we get into much more detail, but this is from my perspective as the platform engineer and not the end customer, the ability of the end user to be able to debug potential issues with their application That is arguably the most important, let's say, work throughput in my area.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been working with the OpenShift Container Platform for two months.
We use version 4.9, and our legacy version is 3.9.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
OpenShift Container Platform is quite stable.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
OpenShift Container Platform is highly scalable.
I have more data regarding the number of net spaces and the number of apps that are tied to it, rather than how many individuals are on the receiving end of such applications which would be considerably more difficult. I would say more than three persons for each application, which is definitely driving the number near 500. This would be an approximate number.
How are customer service and support?
I would rate the technical support a 10 or 11 because, in my personal experience, they are always going above and beyond to deliver the solution.
They are very caring about their customers.
How was the initial setup?
Because the platform I'm working with was inherited, I wouldn't know how that procedure works here. I have, however, performed a few deployments in a considerably smaller context.
You have at least three distinct techniques to perform that deployment using OpenShift, as well as a few of IPIs and UPIs.
When I approached that scenario, I was thinking in terms of UPI, which stands for user-provided infrastructure in a non-homogenous, domestic cloud environment, a tiny simulated cloud environment.
It wasn't simple, and it took a few tries to get a functional cluster structure with various control planes and many worker nodes.
It's a difficult response to a hard subject, in my opinion, but, it is not an extremely simple or out-of-the-box solution.
The deployment took about two hours if we count the successful attempt once I had my preexisting issue sorted out.
The upgrade would depend on the scale of the cluster. It can take a couple of minutes per node, so it would depend on the number of nodes.
In terms of the cluster that has workloads that are on production, you need to make sure that the workloads are not experiencing any issues.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
I have a vague understanding of it but keep in mind that enterprise pricing differs from, I don't know, people or smaller businesses approaching them.
It largely depends on how much money they earn from the application being deployed; you don't normally deploy an app just for the purpose of having it.
You must constantly look into your revenue and how much you spend every container, minute, or hour of how much it is working.
I wouldn't have access to that information within my company, therefore I'd assume it's in plus.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
As far as I understand the situation, while this solution was inherited, the outstanding technical support is one of the main reasons it was chosen over other solutions.
What other advice do I have?
I would definitely recommend having the vanilla experience because, contrary to popular belief, OpenShift is not Kubernetes; it's actually written on top of Kubernetes and adds an extra value of authentication, auditing, and logging on top of that, but it does require a familiarity with Kubernetes to properly utilize its capabilities.
After being acquainted with Kubernetes, I believe it is worthwhile to dip their fingers and brains into the distinctions that OpenShift provides in contrast to other basic Kubernetes implementations.
I would rate OpenShift Container Platform a seven out of ten.
It is really expensive. That is not something you would employ unless you had a strong business case for your application. That is, not in terms of the enterprise version.
You may use our OKD, which is a community version we provide, which is less expensive. However, it is not a supported version of OpenShift; it is only supported within the community. However, because the OKD community is small, there is a low likelihood that someone would respond to your inquiry if you run into problems and need to locate answers elsewhere.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
Hybrid Cloud
If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?
Amazon Web Services (AWS)
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Cloud Solutions Architect at IBM
Offers good user experience and security features
Pros and Cons
- "It has been a good solution to deploy all containerized applications."
- "One challenge is that sometimes it may be difficult to find the answers to your questions if you are not a Red Hat customer."
What is our primary use case?
Red Hat is acquired by IBM, there is still a separate entity, but we are more on the partner side.
I work with IBM, and most of our solutions are on the OpenShift platform. I work with our business partners to enable and help them with the technical pre-sales and setup role. So, I'm not involved in production engineering systems but rather in demos, first application implementations, and POCs.
What is most valuable?
The user experience and security are some of the key features. There are two key differentiators that you have certainly worked on from the customer's perspective.
What needs improvement?
It is actually very well laid out for a computer product. But maybe, since it has security built into it, it is sometimes very difficult for people to grasp.
It is much easier to work with Kubernetes than OpenShift. On the inside, all the security and other aspects are very much required by the container.
It has a difficult learning curve. Those are the areas where, from a customer perspective, OpenShift is a little challenging compared to other Kubernetes solutions.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using it for five years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
I would rate the stability of this solution a ten out of ten. It is very stable.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. It is a scalable solution. Our customers are mostly enterprise businesses for Red Hat OpenShift.
How are customer service and support?
The technical support is good. One challenge is that sometimes it may be difficult to find the answers to your questions if you are not a Red Hat customer. Many of the answers require you to log in to the Red Hat portal. Unless you are a customer, you cannot ask for a solution. On those lines, it is a little difficult. Otherwise, technical support is good.
How would you rate customer service and support?
Positive
How was the initial setup?
I would rate my experience with the initial setup an eight out of ten, with ten being easy and one being difficult.
The initial setup is a little difficult because installing and configuring it is very involved. I don't see it as easy yet.
It's deployed on both the cloud or on-premises. On the cloud, it's much easier where it is managed OpenShift. If we go to managed offerings like Red Hat OpenShift on AWS, Azure OpenShift, or IBM Cloud, it is much easier to provision. But if it is self-managed, where you have to do everything yourself, it is difficult.
Red Hat OpenShift is self-managed, not from a cloud provider. If you are doing it on the cloud, then it is just a couple of hours. But if it is self-managed, then it will depend on the infrastructure, networking, and all that. It is still a team, but not yet a resource to have all that correctly set up.
It has been a good solution to deploy all containerized applications, like our AI and ML applications. We're not missing out on that capability.
What was our ROI?
The ROI is definitely much better because once it is set up and done, it is very easy to manage and have applications deployed. The user experience is very good. So once you have it in place, it's easy to do the day-to-day operations, and eventually, scalability and all those things become clear.
What other advice do I have?
Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten. It is a very good solution overall.
I would definitely recommend it to others.
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
Last updated: Aug 7, 2024
Flag as inappropriatedata:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/90183/9018307dff0f8424d9744886ad50d7f0f7915caf" alt="PeerSpot user"
Buyer's Guide
Download our free Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros
sharing their opinions.
Updated: February 2025
Product Categories
Container ManagementPopular Comparisons
Microsoft Defender for Cloud
VMware Tanzu Platform
Nutanix Kubernetes Engine NKE
Google Kubernetes Engine
Amazon Elastic Container Service
HashiCorp Nomad
HPE Ezmeral Container Platform
NGINX Ingress Controller
Buyer's Guide
Download our free Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros
sharing their opinions.
Quick Links
Learn More: Questions: