Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform Reviews

It is used for containers.

It is very lightweight and can be deployed very fast, especially when it comes to containers. It can spin the web and the DB very fast, so we don't need to deploy the server and the VM. Everything is in the container.

There is room for improvement with integration.

I have been using the solution for one year.

The solution is stable.

The solution has good scalability. I rate the scalability of the solution a nine out of ten. There is also room for improvement in the scalability of the solution.

One or two users are using OpenShift in our company, and we hope to increase the usage.

The support is very good. Their response and technical skills are good.

I have used Docker before. We shifted to OpenShift because we were using Docker for self-learning.

The initial setup is complex. The solution is deployed on-premises. However, it can also be deployed on the cloud.

To deploy OpenShift, first, you must get the installer and then prepare a minimum requirement. You will need a key physical server as a load balancer. OpenShift has a lot of roles in its nodes, with worker nodes and master nodes. Since different nodes have their role, the setup is complex. You will need to set up ten or 12 nodes like this. After you have set up all the nodes, you need to do the integration and set up OpenShift.

It takes a month or a year to deploy it.

The deployment can be done in-house. There are two people required for maintenance.

The pricing is expensive for licensing. The customer has to pay for the license.

Before choosing OpenShift, I advise you to know your application landscape very well. Only then will you know if you require OpenShift. If you are unclear about your application environment, layout, and structure, it is potentially not a good idea because you don't understand it.

Overall, I would rate the solution a five out of ten.

We have a monolithic application, and our primary use case is to implement microservices. We needed Kubernetes, but instead of going with plain Kubernetes, we chose OpenShift because it has a well-designed UI, more advanced features, and better security.

The product provides great visibility in the form of metrics over our systems. The infrastructure team monitors the platform with their personal tools and dashboards and can see how it deals with loads, security threats, if bugs are present, etc. Then they can send reports to the rest of us in the organization.

The solution's CodeReady Workspaces reduce project onboarding time in the region of 10-15%.  

The CodeReady Workspaces also reduce the time to market; a rival vendor released an offering we had to counter, so we used the platform to implement and deploy our counter in three to four days.   

One of the best features is monitoring; we can see metrics via visual aids when the load increases, for example.

The software is user-friendly and straightforward to use, which is favorable to a developer.

The system also takes care of itself regarding scaling; the platform can up and downscale automatically depending on demand.  

With OpenShift, there is no need to learn new technology, as the skills required for Kubernetes carry over; the commands are interchangeable. Therefore, OpenShift is a developer-friendly tool.

We use the solution on the vendor's OpenStack Platform, and in terms of the ease and speed with which it enables us to create infrastructure, it's very straightforward. We can set up an environment within a day or two, and it's a very convenient way to develop.  

The infrastructure created by the solution on the OpenStack Platform is very robust; we created communication metrics: a shield where all VMs, master, and worker nodes communicate from subnet to subnet. We designed these and gave them to Red Hat, where they developed the ISO clients for deployment from day one. After gaining hands-on experience, we could create our own and implement a cluster.   

OpenShift is highly effective at creating infrastructure that can be flexibly sized to meet specific needs on the OpenStack Platform. The minimum basic configuration is three masters, three infra, and two worker nodes. When a load starts passing through this setup, and we reach a certain threshold, say the worker machines are running at 60%, we can add another node, another VM. We have added eight to ten VMs in this way before. After experimenting with different configurations, we get a feel of which one to implement for a specific use case within the production environment. If we want to scale up, we add worker nodes; nothing else is required.  

OpenShift provides solid security throughout the stack and the software supply chain; the solution has an inbuilt image registry and doesn't allow outside images, making the system more secure. The platform also features a Compliance Operator, which assesses the compliance of API resources and the nodes running the cluster.  

I want to see more incorporation of native automation features; then, we could write a code, deploy it directly to OpenShift, and allow it to take care of the automated process. Using this method, we could write one application and have elements copied or pasted to other applications in the development process.

There are some gaps in the solution's security, so there is room for improvement in the security and compliance features. Protection against ransomware attacks would be welcome, much like in Google Apigee.

We've been using the solution for two years.

OpenShift's current stability as of 4.10 is excellent; I don't see any issues. From 4.0 to 4.6, the product wasn't stable, and in many cases, nodes went down, taking down other nodes, and we had to follow up on clusters a lot. After 4.8, the stability issues were fixed, and we haven't had a problem in a year.

The platform is highly scalable; we simply need to add VMs to accommodate the amount of traffic we have, which is a straightforward task. Eight to ten VMs is sufficient for millions of users, and we can easily implement them in a cloud-based or on-prem environment. There are around 50 total users across our Dev Teams, and the solution was able to support one million users of our applications per second without an issue. 

Overall, the customer support is good. There's a ticket process with a priority level from one to three, indicating the highest and lowest priority, respectively, with two in the middle. Level one means production is impacted, and support responds rapidly to help with a client team. There are some delays with the lower-priority tickets, but they are there when we need them most. They could have better internal communication so they are all on the same page, as we are sometimes asked the same questions by different people and have to re-explain the issue.

Neutral

We previously used Kubernetes and switched because it's more complex from the developer, management, and maintenance perspectives. It doesn't have a proper UI, so knowledge of Linux is required to operate the CLI. However, with OpenShift, a newcomer can log in and run the solution using the UI, which is an excellent capability for a development company. OpenShift isn't restrictive; anyone can use it, making it a good choice.

In addition to the UI, OpenShift has more advanced features, such as the Internal Image Registry, which can restrict malware images. The product is also straightforward to deploy and has good integrations with other tools like Jenkins.

The initial deployment was straightforward and took two days. At most, two staff members are required to deploy and maintain the solution.

The pricing and licensing are handled on an upper management level, and I'm not involved in that, but I understand the solution to be somewhat pricey.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We recently experienced a Log4j vulnerability issue, and the OpenShift team released a patch to which we upgraded, but they could have done a better job.

Regarding the platform helping us meet regulatory constraints, I have yet to deal with this area.

In terms of automation, most people I know use Github, Jenkins, or some other third-party platform and integrate with OpenShift.

We didn't consider building our own container platform because Kubernetes is an excellent platform, and OpenShift is built on top of it. We're satisfied with what we have and see no need to start from the beginning.  

Red Hat is an excellent partner; we never shared code, but we used to have review meetings where we shared room for improvement with the product and gave some suggestions. For example, we would like a backup process or system implemented, and we have communicated this to Red Hat.  

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.

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. 

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%.   

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.  

The UI could be more user-friendly to drive tasks more effectively through the interface.

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. 

OpenShift is a stable product.

The scalability is excellent; it allows for a very high transaction volume. 

OpenShift's technical support is outstanding, and I rate them highly.

Positive

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.

I wasn't involved in the initial setup of the product, but it took around 30 minutes and I know it to be elementary. 

I'm an architect, so I have no involvement in the pricing and licensing of the platform.

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.

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.  

We have working nodes in the OpenShift Container Platform, we have six working nodes and we have a master working node. We have a Jenkins pipeline to operate our deployment and, CI/CD operations. We create some pipelines to deploy the code to the containers and those containers activate on OpenShift Container Platform ports or working node ports.

We had old-fashioned programs before switching. We started to create a new architecture for our developers. After generating our Java framework, we were looking for a new platform to run our systems. For our business clients, we need flexibility, and scalability, while we are searching the environment, because of the regulations. We need some private cloud options, and cloud vendors did not have private options.

I have found the ability to scale up is most valuable. If you do not have any hardware limitations, you can scale up during your busy timelines. It is an excellent tool so you can deploy these products to any of the public clouds. If the regulations allow you, it is straightforward to deploy your codes to another public cloud or another platform. OpenShift Container Platform gives you an opportunity to be flexible.

The monitoring is problematic. The product monitoring tool does not work for us. We had to purchase the Dynatrace solution to monitor our product and our applications, and this is a weakness of OpenShift Container Platform. If there was some orchestration with mini services because microservices can be complex.

I have been using OpenShift Container Platform for the past four years now.

The scalability is excellent. Last year we had some hardware limitations, we reached the limit of our hardware platform. After we enhanced our hardware we have not received any additional alarms.

Technical support from my experience is the middle of the road.

Neutral

The initial setup can take twenty-five minutes if it is a large stand-alone monolith. We have six steps in our pipeline. It changed to application certification, for little microservices, it takes approximately two to four minutes. We have six administration users who arranged the pipelines and port visualization for port monitoring.

We currently have an annual license renewal.

I would recommend using OpenShift Container Platform, giving it a rating of eight out of ten.

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. 

As an IT service provider, we work on enterprise technologies for our customers.

We have multiple customers with multiple domains, but the majority of our experience is in the banking and telecom sectors. In banking, they're using the OpenShift platform for their microservices-based requirements, and similarly on the telecom side, they are using it for the microservices-led solutions.

We started with the on-prem deployment of OpenShift Container Platform, version 3.2. But currently, we are also helping our customers to migrate to 4.x and to cloud solutions. The plan is to move to a cloud version, strictly on AWS. We are exploring the OpenShift Container Platform cluster, and ROSA (Red Hat OpenShift Service on AWS) the latest one with the managed services. By mid-2022, we'll probably be on cloud with this.

OpenShift eliminates distractions so that we can focus on innovation and other things. It completely removes overhead for the developers in terms of managing the orchestration of Kubernetes container clusters. It provides all the built-in features for managing these requirements. As a result, our team is more focused on development and on innovations in the underlying services. With microservices or applications that are deployed on OpenShift, they are able to focus more with the business requirements and innovate by further optimizing efficiently, utilizing the resources at a Kubernetes level.

Some of the primary features we leverage in the platform have to do with how we manage the cluster configurations, the properties, and the auto-scalability. These are the features that definitely provide value in terms of reducing overhead for the developers.

Also the Kubernetes cluster management or orchestration is provisioned through the UI and the CLI.

We are using the Red Hat OpenStack OpenShift Platform. It is much faster in terms of deploying the cluster. As of now, our experience rolling it out is more on the on-prem, but I think with the 4.0 version there is a little bit of a change regarding the way it is deployed, either using the installer base or user-driven installations. It takes a couple of days just to roll out the entire cluster and configure it so that it is ready for the applications or the services to be deployed on the cluster.

The robustness, the availability in terms of resilience, and the service availability with the multiple cluster nodes configured automatically, is pretty good. Even if load balancing is required across multiple clusters with the SDN network, it's pretty good. We haven't had many issues when it comes to robustness. We are happy with the performance provided.

From our experience on the on-prem, we know that there are 10 layers of security provisioned by the OpenShift platform, starting from the kernel level, and including the clusters and the container level. That definitely helped us to achieve a lot of enterprise security requirements in terms of accessibility and managing the infra part or the cluster part.

For running business-critical applications, the solution's security is pretty good. We are able to achieve consistent efficiency and availability for all our critical service requirements, when spanned across multiple DCs with the load balancer and DR solutions. We don't have to spend much on it, once we orchestrate the cluster with the proper configurations. At that point, everything is taken care of automatically.

At the service level, I don't see a very granular level of security as compared with the container-based clusters. It is at the Kubernetes level, not at the service level.

Also, when I compare it with the other container or Kubernetes technologies, we have pretty good documentation from OpenShift, but with the recent trend of cloud-native, fully managed serverless services, I don't see much documentation about how a customer should move from on-prem to the cloud, or what is the best way to do a lift-and-shift. Even if you are on AWS OCP, which is self-managed infra services, and you want to use the ROSA managed services, what is the best way to achieve that migration? I don't see documentation for these kinds of use cases from Red Hat. There is some room for improvement there.

We have been using OpenShift Container Platform, as an organization, for the last three or four years.

The stability is pretty good. The industry has been using these enterprise solutions over the long term and we haven't heard of or seen any issues with stability. Of course, it depends on the way you configure it or manage it. But given best practices, the stability is pretty good.

The solution gives us the flexibility to start with a small number of nodes and to scale it to the maximum number of nodes. As of now, we haven't gone beyond whatever the limitations are, in terms of the number of clusters or nodes, within OpenShift. We are well within the limits and are able to achieve our requirements. That aspect makes it more flexible.

Scalability is definitely one of the positives with OpenShift, where you can have a distributed cluster across multiple DCs or multiple Availability Zones with AWS. The only thing we don't see is much documentation. If we want to maintain Active-Active disaster recovery or hot and warm availability requirements, even in on-prem, how do our clusters scale across different regions or different availabilities? And how do I manage the internal cluster storage being replicated across multiple clusters? How does that work, and how do we prove it? That's another use case where, when it comes to documentation, there is a little gap.

But overall, scalability is pretty consistent and achievable with OpenShift.

I'm not involved much in post-production support. Usually, it is the customer team that gets into those kinds of requirements. But what I heard from our customers is pretty good, in terms of the support provided by the Red Hat. We know that they have a very good enterprise support team and provide support fairly quickly for technical issues.

On AWS, we have seen they have OCP-dedicated infra, which is completely managed by Red Hat. Now with ROSA, where AWS and Red Hat are both managing it, we are expecting a similar kind of support from Red Hat.

Whether Red Hat acts as a partner with our customers depends on the customer. Most of our customers use Red Hat enterprise support for technical issues with OpenShift Cluster Platform. But they don't get deeply integrated with Red Hat in terms of exchanging ideas or innovating new solutions. But Red Hat is always providing its innovations and doing research into new products. That has definitely helped our customers.

We embarked on OpenShift as our first enterprise container technology.

There are open-source-based Kubernetes services provided by AWS and there are a number of cluster-based solutions available. But what Red Hat and OpenShift did was that they packaged all of their solutions within their platform so that it provides added features. For our finance or banking customers, adopting an open-source solution is challenging, but the enterprise-grade support from Red Hat makes it much easier for them to adopt the OpenShift cluster.

As for building our own container platform, initially we tried with Dockers, but when we compared other Kubernetes cluster technologies to OpenShift we found that OpenShift is a much better solution in terms of the features.

With the on-prem solution, with OCP, where you have control of your infra, I feel the setup is straightforward, because you know OpenShift 4.0, or other versions, and how to install it. You have the resources and the skill sets and it is easy to just start with that part.

But ROSA is a very new approach, with the fully-managed and serverless cluster. I feel there are some gaps there because you don't have control of infra provisioning. AWS and Red Hat directly provision things once you provide the configurations. But if a customer wants to use a fully managed service with some level of customization, we don't see how we can easily achieve that.

On average, if it's a single-cluster deployment for five nodes, it may take three days to get the infra up and running. And then, to do all the configurations and get the applications deployed, it probably takes another one or two days, including the testing and readiness of the infra. So a total of about five days is the optimum timeline to get a single cluster up and running with the services deployed in it.

As we are exploring the cloud migration side of things, we definitely have a deployment plan where we use the templates, including Terraform templates, when it comes to infra and core provisioning. We then have a clusterized deployment as a basic migration approach or a phased approach. We leverage tools like the Migration Toolkit from Red Hat itself and some AWS tools which are relevant if there are challenges with agent installation and the like.

We have seen return on investment from using OpenShift. The TCO is much better, comparatively, over the course of three to five years. We have seen a reduction in infra and cluster management operational costs. These are some of the aspects where we have definitely seen a return on investment.

OpenShift with Red Hat support is pretty costly. We have done a comparison between AWS EKS (Elastic Kubernetes Services) which provides fully managed services from AWS. It's built on open-source-based Kubernetes clusters and it is much cheaper compared to Red Hat, but it is a little expensive compared to ECS provided by AWS.

Initially, we had this interim state where we wanted to move as a lift-and-shift, meaning we wanted to move OpenShift to OpenShift. We had three choices: OpenShift Container Platform, the OpenShift dedicated platform from Red Hat itself, and ROSA with the fully managed services. For lift-and-shift, we wanted to maintain an as-is state and made a decision to go with AWS OCP, which helps us to control our infrastructure and deployment requirements, while maintaining the as-is state. Price-wise, this option is less than ROSA. In ROSA, we would need to pay the cost for the underlying AWS resources we would be using, plus a nominal cost to Red Hat for managing every cluster and every worker node.

There is no doubt about things, feature-wise. In terms of scalability, availability, stability, robustness, OpenShift stands out. It's the cost and support factors which make the decision a little difficult.

If a customer is looking for a fully controlled or fully managed container technology, OpenShift is definitely a choice for them. But there are other services available, like AWS EKS, which come with similar kinds of services. It depends on if you need a deep-dive solution: Do you want to maintain your own infra or do you want fully managed services? And do you want to leverage other OpenShift cluster services? But OpenShift is the choice.

We don't use the full-fledged automated services for OpenShift clusters as of now, although we do use a few of the automated services. What we are using currently is sufficient and it helps us to meet a lot of audit and telemetric requirements.

In terms of using it for cloud native stacks and meeting regulatory constraints, we are still exploring that. We are currently looking at the AWS OCP and ROSA platforms. ROSA provides flexibility in terms of installations and managing the entire infra. ROSA is completely managed by automated serverless services, where you just provide the initial configurations for the kind of a cluster you need and it automatically provisions the infrastructure for you. Whereas with OCP you have control over the infrastructure and you can play with your cluster orchestrations, configurations, et cetera. In these ways, with the cloud services, we do have flexibility, but the cost factor may be a differentiator in terms of the on-prem and the cloud versions.

We definitely plan to use the CodeReady Workspaces, but we are not there yet. The idea is to move on to the AWS Workspaces.

Overall, I would rate the solution at nine out of 10. It has everything. For me, it is not a 10 because the support and the pricing costs stand out.

We have been developing telco cloud-native applications that need to run on Kubernetes. In our deployments, we've used both, Kubernetes and Red Hat OpenShift.

The primary benefits we've observed primarily revolve around the security aspects.

In comparison to Kubernetes, OpenShift offers additional features, essentially making it an extended version with enhanced capabilities. It performs better, offering approximately thirty percent more than Kubernetes.

The most valuable are security features, particularly when operating in the cloud. It is considered a necessity, especially in our industry, given the critical nature of the infrastructure.

We've encountered challenges when transitioning applications between these environments. For example, an application that runs smoothly on standard Kubernetes might face compatibility issues when ported to OpenShift. This variation has posed some challenges for us, and it's something we're actively addressing. I think it's important to create a plan to ensure seamless compatibility between applications running on vanilla Kubernetes and those on OpenShift. This involves delineating features unique to each platform, such as those specific to vanilla Kubernetes and the additional capabilities offered by OpenShift. The goal is to make it feasible for an application designed for a more basic Kubernetes environment to run smoothly, providing valuable flexibility.

The introduction of OpenShift slowed down our development life cycle due to compatibility issues.

I have been working with it for four years.

We transitioned from Kubernetes to OpenShift because our customers specifically requested it.

Overall, I would rate it seven out of ten.