Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform Reviews

We use the solution to manage our digital assets like containers and applications.

Integrating the product into our existing infrastructure was easy. We did not face any issues.

The price must be improved.

I have been using the solution for six years.

I rate the product’s stability a nine out of ten.

The product’s scalability is good. I rate the scalability an eight out of ten. We have around 15 users.

The support people help us whenever we require their assistance. A partner provides us with the first-level support. The support has been good, but it is not direct support. We have a problem that has not been fixed for a long time.

Positive

I rate the ease of setup a six out of ten. The project was ten months long. The deployment took a month.

I rate the pricing a four or five out of ten.

I have also used Docker and Kubernetes.

I will recommend the solution to others. Overall, I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

We are using OpenShift Container Platform to build microserivces which are financial business logics, such as payments, transfers, KYC etc. These serve as the defacto logic consumed by any channel. We are also leveraging the networking and securing capabilities of OCP which serves to secure and control on granular level.

First and foremost we have benefited vastly in cost reduction.

The abstraction provided by OpenShift of the underlying infrastructure gives us the ability to extend the application across data centers (on-prem or cloud) that gurantees the uptime by 50%.

The ability to push new changes without hampering the current version given us almost 100% business continuity and zero downtime deployments.

OCP gives the ability to use the resource effectively which has helped in maximizing the use of underlying infra and it further has the intel to scale up the  the running app in case it is running out of resources thus auto-scalablility is inherent when apps are ran on OCP.

It would be unjust to not mention the automation capability introduced by OCP makes the whole development and deployment seamless and almost eradicates the operational overhead of running this platform.

The auto scalability feature, which is based on smart agendas, determined from pre-prepared rules is the most valuable feature. You can also create different routes for deployment. Deployment types can be provided with an identifier, such as AB deployment. This really helped in rolling out releases without disrupting services for the end-users.

Secondly, there is the ability to control at a granular level. For example, they can release two versions of the same service and control the traffic towards it to a specific percentage.  Other organizations don't seem to use this feature in the same way we did. Additional rules can be specified to determine individual versions of a service, and rules for governing users access to such services.

Marketing can also make use of OpenShift by analyzing logs to provide useable data. This is one of the features that I really like about OpenShift. It is also a secure environment, with user access configurable at a very granular level. Depending on the API and the ecosystem, it is possible to completely plug and integrate. You control how the deployment works and the testing process.

With OCP 4.x the capability of configuring and controlling your ingress controller has also introduced an immense ability to provide an experience which is pertinent to a particular app. With this we can introduce app specific compliance and security without enforcing similar requirements on all services, which was the case with earlier versions.

From a networking perspective, the routing capability can be matured further. OpenShift doesn't handle restrictions on what kind of IPs are allowed, who can access them, and who cannot access them. So it is a simple matter of just using it with adequate network access, at the network level.

It should be possible to whitelist IPs so that you can allow and restrict access to the API. That would be a fantastic feature. OpenShift would then encapsulate the entire security and access. This is one improvement that I would seriously want our client to have, and for that reason, I have joined the OpenShift community, and it is a project I could probably work on myself. 

The second thing is that deployment is more of a strategy rather than a feature in OpenShift. Although you can create different routes, and it works fine, it is not an innate feature of OpenShift that it understands that you want to run specific versions of the same service as needed. Though you can define routes to serve different versions.

I have been using OpenShift Container Platform for almost four years.

It is very stable when it's running. So far, I haven't found any issues. We went through operating system upgrades. We did need to perform some patching, so there was some vulnerability and there were many tasks we had to undertake to assist with stability. In fact, we use two clusters. One of them is used for non-production purposes. It is a developer's structure and is a very stable solution.

Further by the design OCP will keep running the cluster is left with only one node, which makes it very robust and reliable platform.

The auto-scalability feature, which is based on smart agendas, can be determined from pre-prepared rules. You can also create different routes for deployment. Deployment types can be provided with an identifier.

This is very flexible and saves resources when you don't need them, and scales up when you do. This is a very powerful feature.

We used the Redhat TAM service. They assign a technical application manager to you, and we have used that. The support is very, very responsive. They respond very quickly. What I like about them is that they have a very precise, clear and rationale way of working they will ask guide you to take a decision towards one single solution you require. That's it. They will come back to you and provide pinpoint in-depth guidance into the problem that you have.
Unlike most support companies, you usually obtain a workable solution in a good time frame.

Positive

We were using 3.x and now we have swtiched to managed OCP 4.x on cloud. This has given us helped in reducing cost and given the ability to expand and configure OCP without involving infra team, what was a months process has reduced down to minutes.

3.x was a complex setup but with 4.x this has been addressed drastically and now it comes with a setup engine which handles 90% of the setup itself. Though it still does gives you the ability to do it 3.x way but it still less complex than 3.x.

This was an in-house implementation.

Costs reduced by 70%, this includes infra and operation costs.

It is a costly solution but then again, it's intended for enterprise-level business, and the license has to reflect that. It is appreciated what the GPU's processing power requirements will be higher. The licensing is very flexible. The license is related to the processing power you need, and the infrastructure of any clusters which go with that. If your current application, internally, has more then 5 workflows that have significant resources requirement I will suggest to consider using OCP. Anything below would be more costly on OCP in terms of license and infra setup.

We had a comparison between OpenShift, Azure Kubernetes Services and Elastic Kubernetes Services (AWS) but OpenShift is more mature, it has understands the corporate more especially from security and compliance perspective. We also have the leverage to be multi-tenant with OCP over IaaS that lets us leverage the best of all infra flavours out there.

A common mistake is to assume that the solution can change the architecture type. e.g. some people think by using this solution they can change their application architecture into a microservices architecture. OpenShift is an orchestration platform. These types of solutions are not intended to be run as a microservices architecture. Very often, the two become synonymous which leads to decisions which incur huge costs. Especially the conventional thought process kicks in and OCP looks more like an application server rather than a platform.

As the cost of this product is expensive it should only be considered for large enterprises. There will also be a need to hire technical people, and this may also involve a training cost.

There has to be a cost-benefit. It can be done as a single solution, but the solution itself has to be huge. 

You also need to make the best use of the solution. If you are processing millions of transactions, that would describe an adequate use. You need to calculate the solution costs against the work it is designed to do, otherwise, it becomes a cost overhead. Certainly, for a single application, it would be a waste of money.

I would rate OpenShift Container Platform a nine out of ten.

Last but not the least, considering running multiple application on OCP to maximize the cost of licenses and it the budgeting of OCP should not reside with an application team where it will hard for them to budget and run the platform and would innately require other application teams to have a separate cluster which dissolves the whole purpose of OCP.

Public Cloud

Microsoft Azure

We can deploy microservices on the fly. The time to market has improved for our organization. If any issues are found or any incident is reported, fixes or hotfixes can be done within a fraction of a second. These KPIs are the improvements.

In terms of security, it supports user management. An authentication and authorization solution is embedded in that. There is also certificate management in terms of how it rotates the certificates and the kind of TLS mechanism it uses for the end-users as well as for the communication within a cluster. It also allows our images to be scanned before deployment.

OpenShift comes with a lot of marketplace operator-based solutions. It also allows any open-source operator-based solution. It could also be a Helm Chart-based solution for deploying any cloud-native application or workload.

OpenShift is much better than others as an upstream project for Kubernetes. It also has certain features that are not there in any other flavor of Kubernetes. For example, Source-to-Image (S2I) is a wonderful feature in OpenShift where your code can be in the source repository. It can be built and deployed with a click of a button. That helps the developers' community to deploy their code and see the results on the fly.

In OpenShift, there are a lot of things that are good as compared to any other Kubernetes flavor. The console or the GUI of OpenShift is awesome. You can do a lot of things from there. You can perform administration tasks as well as development tasks. 

The RBAC user management that comes packaged with OpenShift is not there in other Kubernetes. That's a very nice feature. 

The upgrade mechanism is also very good. The upgrades are pushed by Red Hat, and with just the click of a button, your OpenShift cluster gets upgraded. That is another very nice feature. These are a couple of things that I like.

A lot of improvements are required in OpenShift when it's deployed on a public cloud such as AWS, GCP, or AKS. 

OpenShift has certain restrictions in terms of managing the cluster when it's running on a public cloud. For example, identity and access management integration with the IM of AWS is quite difficult. It requires some open-source tools to integrate. This is one area where I always see room for improvement. 

In addition, the RBAC access is only controlled by the OpenShift internal mechanism, whereas the authorization part can be handled by any public cloud. We are already managing and maintaining users in the cloud environment. So, a repetitive or duplicate RBAC mechanism is not required. 

I have been working with this solution since 2018. It has been more than four years.

It's a stable solution. However, most organizations are lagging in upgrading the versions because of various reasons, such as business downtime and the risk involved behind that. If you don't upgrade it on time, then there will definitely be bugs. It normally doesn't create many issues, but we have had instances where when we go to the Red Hat product support team, they always mention going for the next upgrade or the next possible upgrade so that a bug is completely removed. However, it's not always possible to do that. So, stability-wise, it's quite stable, but no product can be perfect. In the version that we are running, there are a couple of bugs, and we have to live with them, unless and until we upgrade to the next version.

Because it's on a public cloud, it's very easy to scale up.

In terms of its users, we have close to 100 users. There are a couple of DevOps engineers in that, and then there are administrators who manage and maintain the cluster. The rest of them are developers. These are the primary users.

It's being used quite extensively, at least in two of our markets. I have no idea about plans to increase the usage of this product, but I also don't see any reduction in its usage in the near future.

Their support is very good. We have a premium subscription for our organization, and we get support whenever we need it. It's quite good. It's the backbone of this product. I would rate them a nine out of ten. Sometimes, the support professionals work from different geographical regions, and when there is a shift change, we lose some time. It happens rarely, but it has been a cause of concern a couple of times.

As a partner for helping us create the platform that we need, I would rate Red Hat an eight out of ten. In terms of support, they provide all the required commands, code pieces, or files required to troubleshoot the issue. They also provide support during any new installation or upgrade.

Positive

When I started working on this project, OpenShift was already there. I don't know if and what it was migrated from. In the accounts that I'm handling, we had OpenShift, and applications were containerized and migrated to OpenShift.

We use other Red Hat products. We use Red Hat OpenStack, and we also use GlusterFS storage from Red Hat, which comes as a part of OpenStack. Apart from that, most of the virtual machines are already using RHEL. OpenStack, for us, is on a private cloud. It's not as friendly as AWS public cloud. Integration-wise, it's seamless, but if we want auto-scaling at the OpenStack level, it's not possible for us. 

An advantage of using multiple Red Hat products together is in terms of the support we get from them. That's very good. If we consider any Kubernetes flavor running on any public cloud, getting support on the components we have deployed is difficult, but Red Hat supports that. Whatever we have deployed, they can provide support on that. The support provided by Red Hat is really great, and that's why they're asking for a premium cost for that.

It was already done before I came, but I know that it was done using Ansible stack and Ansible code. Its deployment is quite straightforward. The 4x versions of OpenShift are very easy to deploy. The older 3x versions were quite difficult to deploy, but in the latest versions, especially on a public cloud, it manages everything. It spins up your cloud virtual machines, installs OpenShift on them, and provides you the endpoint to access it.

If the Ansible code or scripts are available and ready, on a production system, it takes about one hour to one and a half hours. It also depends on how many virtual machines you require to install OpenShift.

Its price is a bit high because it's a premium product, but as long as the business is ready to pay for that, it's okay. 

I would recommend evaluating the product thoroughly for your requirements. That's because OpenShift comes with a lot of bells and whistles, and most organizations don't need that. It also comes with auto-managed components. If you are looking for less-managed components on a Kubernetes cluster, then Red Hat OpenShift is the only answer.

We didn't consider building our own container platform. There are different flavors available for Kubernetes. We use OpenShift, EKS, AKS, and GKE. Even OKE is coming up. It depends on what different markets of our organization prefer and what is cost-effective for them.

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten because we are quite happy with it. There are a couple of restrictions in terms of managing clusters on a public cloud, but other than that, it has a lot of inbuilt components, which are helpful for managing the cluster better.

Public Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

We primarily use the platform to deploy microservices for all kinds of stacks and to deploy databases. Some of our databases are cached, and we can containerize them. Our entire infrastructure relies on OpenShift because we deploy all our applications to it.

The automatic scaling of applications has been a great feature for us. The solution also provides flexibility; we can deploy small or paid digital microservices with many features.

Autoscaling is an excellent feature that makes it very simple to scale our applications as required.

The tool's console looks fantastic, and the UI is intuitive; we can easily check port health, locks, deployments, and services.

Another great feature is monitoring, as we can integrate and monitor logs.

We use the product's CodeReady Workspaces, and they reduce project onboarding time. We have automated templates and use those scripts to create projects and clusters within OpenShift.   

One area for improvement is that we can't currently run Docker inside a container, as it clashes with security consents. It would be good if we could change that.

The stability of the console could be improved. 

We've been using the solution for three years. 

We faced stability issues with the console; a problem we often see is the UI will freeze, and only the command line will work.

The scalability is as expected because it works according to the conditions we set; we can impose limitations on the ECP to stay within the budget if necessary. We have over 100 developers using OpenShift, and 500-700 deployed microservices.

I have yet to contact tech support; a different team in our organization deals with them.

We previously used Kubernetes and installed it on our Compliant Centers, but the infrastructure was complicated to manage as we had so many. So we moved to cloud-based Kubernetes and then to OpenShift because the latter provides more features like a one-console UI, user-friendly installations, and better support, security, and networking.

The initial setup was not particularly complex, but it wasn't easy either. There are good guidelines available to make the deployment steps more straightforward, and setting up clusters is where it gets tricky.

As there is no on-prem infrastructure to set up, the deployment is very quick, and we can put up a cluster in minutes.

We deployed primarily with the assistance of a consultant. 

I'm unfamiliar with the product's price or how it compares to the competitors.

We evaluated Kubernetes and Pivotal Cloud Foundry. Those and other platforms on the market are not up to the same standard as OpenShift; they have different installations, UIs, and limited security features.

I rate the solution nine out of ten.

Regarding automation, we don't build up any pipelines in OpenShift; we have our own tools to automate build processes and then deploy them to the platform.

We didn't consider building our own container platform as it would be difficult. 

My advice to those considering OpenShift is that it's user-friendly, flexible, has robust security, and features are frequently updated. Red Hat provides good documentation, so the solution is easy to learn and adapt to your use cases.

Public Cloud

Microsoft Azure

Our company deploys the solution as a container platform that balances node availability and load. 

The most valuable feature is that the solution can be deployed in the cloud which removes the expense of a server. Everything you need is provided in the cloud where you can make clusters, add masters and worker nodes, and install ports. 

The solution includes an integrated file agent and a control center director that embeds within the release. It is much easier to configure the install or file agent through the GUI than having to work on command lines in a CLI. 

The solution does not work on a route-wise NFS.

I have been using the solution for two years. 

The solution is more stable than others because it allows for redundancies. Data can be stored on the PV and transferred to many worker nodes. 

The solution is easily scalable by joining worker nodes with masters. 

For example, your customers increase so you want to jump your worker nodes from four to forty. You simply install the solution, join worker nodes with masters, and create a larger cluster of servers within a matter of minutes. 

I serve as a DevOps expert for my customers and don't have the need to contact support. 

Our company used Docker but switched around the time it was acquired by Mirantis. 

The initial setup is straightforward. If you have an adequate amount of CPU and memory, then setup can be as fast as eight minutes. 

I rate the initial setup a nine out of ten. 

We currently use both Kubernetes and OpenShift. 

It is beneficial to be aware of Linux or Unix concepts when working with the solution and managing clusters. 

I rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

Public Cloud

Other

I am using it for my critical system, specifically for the payment system.

Especially the security side is nice. On the other hand, there is firm support in the background. This is helpful for me since I am also native to Bandit system. On OpenShift side, I can get support from Airflow. It is a good aspect. It is important for critical systems.

I have used it for approximately three or four years.

I would rate stability between seven and eight out of ten.

It is easy to expand. Scalability is rated nine out of ten.

Quality of support may be improved. I would rate it seven out of ten.

Neutral

It is not too simple, however, it is not too hard either. It was a normal installation.

I know Kubernetes, however, I am not aware of other alternatives nowadays.

It is easy to expand it. I would give it a rating of eight out of ten.

On-premises

I have been using OpenShift Container Platform as a container of network functions for customer's telecom industry. 

One practical example of how OpenShift Container Platform helps us is in deploying security updates quickly, which is superior compared to other solutions like Coverness, Canonical, Kubernetes, Rancher, etc. However, there are areas for improvement in networking, architecture, and cloud aspects of the solution.

I find the security features and use of operators in OpenShift Container Platform highly valuable. The container update capabilities and OpenShift data foundation for storage are also important features.

I believe OpenShift Container Platform can improve in networking, architecture, and cloud areas by reducing deployment time, lowering costs, and streamlining engineer resources. Additionally, I would like to see more Azure I/O functions in the next release.

I have been using OpenShift Container Platform for four years.

The platform is stable and capable, covering various customer needs.

The scalability of OpenShift Container Platform is excellent. It allows for quick scale-outs with new workers, making it very efficient and is used by eighteen engineers for telecom purposes, impacting business significantly.

Technical support from OpenShift is decent but could be improved in some locations.

I find the initial setup of OpenShift Container Platform to be moderately complex. The deployment involves steps like installation, configuration, and deploying common services on-premises. Deployment typically takes around four hours and involves a team of two to four people. I'm not involved in maintenance. 

I'm not familiar with pricing or financial aspects. In terms of effort versus benefit, it's worth it.

My advice for new users is to explore the platform thoroughly as it's complex yet reliable. I would rate their customer service a seven out of ten. Overall, I rate OpenShift Container Platform a nine as it's a good product with room for improvement.

We use the OpenShift Container Platform to deploy applications. It helps to deploy them from a monolithic to a microservices approach. 

The tool's most valuable features include high availability, scalability, and security. Other features like advanced cluster management, advanced cluster security, and Red Hat Quay make it powerful for businesses. It also comes with features like OpenShift Virtualization. 

OpenShift Container Platform needs to work on integrations. 

I have been using the solution for two years. 

I rate the tool's stability an eight out of ten. We encountered certain bugs and issues, which were resolved once we raised them with Red Hat. 

I rate OpenShift Container Platform's scalability a ten out of ten. The autoscale feature is particularly beneficial for managing varying traffic loads on the platform. It automatically deploys additional VMs in response to high traffic and scales down when the traffic returns to normal levels. This feature is more powerful when deploying the OpenShift Container Platform on cloud platforms like AWS or Azure, where it adapts to the fluctuating traffic demands. My company has 15 customers who are mostly enterprise businesses. 

Red Hat offers good technical support. 

Positive

I rate the product's deployment an eight out of ten. It was a little complex. There are two to three types of initial configuration, including UBI. UBI is complex. Deployment takes around two hours to complete. 

The deployment process involves some complexity. We create configuration files and distribute these files to the platforms we work on, such as VMware or Nutanix. Subsequently, we initiate the initial deployment and configuration of OpenShift.

The solution is expensive, and I rate it an eight out of ten. There is a subscription called OpenShift Plus, which offers additional features and products the vendor provides to complement the OpenShift Container Platform. These include ACM, Red Hat Quay, and Red Hat OpenShift Data Foundation.

I recommend studying the documentation thoroughly and preparing the infrastructure according to the guidelines. Following the documentation is crucial, and most issues reported were related to network problems. Therefore, I suggest becoming proficient in troubleshooting network issues to identify and resolve problems. I rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

On-premises