Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform Reviews

Our primary use case for Red Hat OpenShift is to deploy applications. We utilize the platform to manage multiple pods and ensure seamless scaling of our nodes and servers to meet the demands of our high-availability applications.

The platform has significantly improved our organization by enhancing productivity and reducing the time required to deploy applications. It allows for faster deployment and continuous delivery, which has streamlined our development processes.

The most valuable features of Red Hat OpenShift include its integration with Kubernetes and the user interface, which enhances the end-user experience and accelerates the deployment process. These features contribute to increased productivity and efficiency for our developers.

The product could benefit from additional operators and tools integrated with OpenShift. Furthermore, enhancements to the user interface and including more features would be beneficial.

I rate the platform's stability a seven out of ten.

The platform is scalable. 

I have opened some tickets but did not receive the required technical support.

Neutral

The initial setup was complex. I rate the process a two out of ten.

The implementation was done in-house.

I rate the product an eight out of ten. 

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.

Our customers value the monitoring and logging functionalities which are also our most valuable features. 

Our customers like the service mesh, so we integrated these to improve customer satisfaction.

It is difficult to deploy the OpenShift cluster in a bare-metal environment. For example, when there are errors during the cluster deployment, it is hard to find the error on any documentation. So, from the cluster deployment perspective, there could be improvements.

Also, the machine config and machine config tools need improvement. The machine config tool implements changes related to files over the worker and master nodes in OpenShift. However, sometimes it starts without warning, and it is unclear how the error can be fixed.

In terms of additional features, it will be good to have the support of the CNI or OVN for the Multus CNI. Currently, in OpenShift, the additional networks added by the Multus and the pods do not support the OVN CNI plugin. OVN is supported in OpenShift, but only for the non-Multus interface, which is the primary interface of pods.

We have used OpenShift Container Platform for the past four years. We are using version 4.10, and it is deployed on-premises.

It is a stable solution. We have not had any issues or found any big bugs. However, even though it is stable, we observed that the latest versions of this solution are usually less stable than the previous versions.

Therefore, if I were to rate the stability, I would give it a six out of ten because there are a few minor issues in the latest version.

OpenShift Container Platform is great from a scalability perspective. To my knowledge, there is no limitation when adding many compute nodes in OpenShift. It just requires a lot of hardware since we use on-premises at my company. You will need to increase the capability of master nodes if you want to add worker nodes.

I will rate the scalability a six out of ten.

Technical support from Red Hat is very good. They are proactive and always reply accordingly, depending on the tickets' priority. We never have any issues with the support. I will rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup was very complicated. It took us about a week to deploy a basic three-master and a two-worker node cluster. I was also not aware of the OpenShift documentation at the time.

From an administrative perspective, it is difficult for new people to understand. A few coworkers from different backgrounds who moved to use OpenShift found it challenging. However, it was not as difficult for me because I am familiar with OpenShift.

I rate the implementation experience a five out of ten.

I don't know the exact licensing costs as I never purchase licenses for my organization.

I rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Regarding advice, it depends on the use case and what kind of platform a company wants. For example, if they want something on Kubernetes with at least basic amenities, like logging and monitoring and similar things out of the box, then OpenShift is good for them. But, if they want to modify the Kubernetes how they want, it is not a good solution because it is not flexible. OpenShift Container Platform gives you a lot of features out of the box, but you cannot modify it. So, if they want to use Kubernetes how they want, then the open-source Vanilla Kubernetes is better for them than OpenShift.

The platform's most valuable features are its regulatory compliance and enterprise support. It does not offer significantly unique features compared to Kubernetes or Docker. The primary advantage is its extensive support and integration with Red Hat's solutions.

The product's setup process could be easier. 

We have been using Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform for approximately one year.

The product is quite stable and reliable, offering robust performance compared to other solutions.

We are currently working with a multi-cluster environment, and the product scalability and response time are impressive, with nodes performing optimally.

Compared to IBM support, Red Hat's support team is more responsive.

The setup process is considerably more complex than that of Docker or Kubernetes. Its multi-node cluster setup involves a more intricate and time-consuming method.

OpenShift's core-based licensing model provides significant benefits regarding enterprise support and scalability. Despite its high cost, it offers valuable features and support that justify the investment.

The product is expensive. 

I rate the platform an eight. 

The product is used to deploy applications. We provide the base image that has the fundamentals for the BPM product. Then, it's in our docker farm and another image is created that extends the base image. The second image adds application-specific requirements on it. Basically, it's layering the application on top of the base image and a new image is created and that is deployed onto OpenShift.

The OpenShift platform is built on the Docker Ecosystem. The image we create is easily portable. OpenShift is built on top of the Docker Ecosystem which is one advantage.

It has run time. It has all the binders required. Once built and once tested that it is working, it'll work wherever it's deployed. 

On OpenShift, it's easy to scale applications. We can easily scale up or scale down.

It's a container platform. It uses resources efficiently - specifically on the CPU RAM limit. We can create as many containers as needed. The underlying resources are utilized well.

It's intuitive and user-friendly. They have a very good UI, through which we can add all the artifacts required for OpenShift. Also, they are providing API through which also we can work on the projects. Apart from that, they also provide the CLI, a command-line interface. In my view, I think it's very good. I don't see anything more that is needed.

Everything is good. I don't see any need or any improvement that can be done. They cover CI/CD and I have not seen something which is missed in this product.

The initial setup can be hard.

It takes some time to learn everything. There's a learning curve. 

I've used the solution for four or five years. 

It's very stable. We've never had any failures. It was always up and running. It's very reliable. 

Our company is quite large. I'm not sure how many people are actually using the solution. We have a small team, and, of us, about four are using it. However, that's not indicative of the company as a whole. 

So far, the scalability is good. 

We're using it regularly, on a daily basis. 

I haven't reached out to support. For this product, we are focused more on the application side. We use the platform, however, our focus is on the application side. Whatever happens, the team that maintains and does the upgrade of the platform, interacts with the vendor. We never interacted with the vendor for OpenShift.

I tried AWS. It's also a cloud product, however, not exactly the same as OpenShift. They offer a different set of services. It's not a past product platform, it is a service product. I have used AWS, which offers cloud services. We cannot really compare both of them.

At the outset, the initial setup was not easy. The learning curve is always there. The lack of materials at that point in time also made learning a little bit hard. However, after some point, we had very good documentation and we could easily handle the product. We could easily start working on it. It's gotten better over time. For the first three or four months, it was hard, however, after that, it was easy.

The first deployment took around four to five months as we had to develop an agent data rate. It took some time. However, the changes, usually, could be done in a week or so. It was not a long time. Every week we can easily make the changes.

There's no maintenance. We don't do it. We use the platform and some other team will automatically do the upgrade. We don't have to do it ourselves. It's done by a separate team.

I'd rate the solution four out of ten in terms of ease of setup.

We handled the implementation ourselves. The solution does not offer any consultants or integrators. We managed everything through the UI.

I cannot speak about the pricing. We never interact with the vendor for that. There is a separate team who takes care of the platform and they work with the vendor for pricing.

While my company has some sort of partnership with eh solution, I am just an end-user.

It's my understanding I'm using the latest version of the solution. 

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

I would recommend this product. It's easy to develop applications and it gives you the option to manage your cloud on a private platform. We don't have to rely on public infrastructure. In the private infrastructure, we can have our server and use this product and make the application secure.

For the majority of use cases, we're actually building APIs for both the enterprise API and also OpenAPI. It's mainly for integrations for the backend. We implement the system for the customer.

It's deployed on a private cloud and on-prem. We are using version 5.8.

The banking transactions, inquiries, and account opening have been the most valuable.

The monitoring and logging could be improved. I think it would help developers in terms of provisioning the database and the whole development lifecycle.

I have been using this solution for two years.

Technical support is standard.

Initial setup was fine. If it's set up on-premise, it takes longer, maybe about four or five days. We actually deployed it on the cloud once using IBM. That takes a shorter amount of time because it's a managed service.

We used a consultant. 

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

If you care about your performance and the support, I would recommend it for enterprise mission critical applications.

It's a Kubernetes container orchestration solution. Ideally, we will deploy it in the cloud, but it is on-premises for now. We also use Red Hat Linux servers. Some of our operating systems are also Red Hat Linux. All the Red Hat products work well together, and people at my company are familiar with the platform. 

The main goal of adopting OpenShift is to overcome the current challenges of integrating with App Connect. One of the objectives is to make our containers more scalable. The other goals involve the benefits we can get from packaging and more.

I don't have a lot of use cases right now, but when we start using it in production, OpenShift will make things like machine workflows easier. It will enable us to control or orchestrate containers better and provide a tool to demo other aspects of development, deployment, and monitoring on the same platform.

We expect OpenShift to help us with regulatory compliance. Entities like banks require approval of decisions through these kinds of ledgers. Sometimes, it's virtually impossible to do this. OpenShift makes meeting these standards easier.

We still do not see the benefits in terms of development time and quality of the final product because we're still in the evaluation phase, but we'll soon have a better understanding of what we can achieve with the tool. At the same time, we've seen examples of other players that already use OpenShift and recognize the benefits they get from using it. 

OpenShift provides tools that tell me everything I have on a container, and I can make it on-premise or on a cloud infrastructure.

We have been evaluating OpenShift for a couple of months. After we finish the evaluation, we will start testing it. We started looking at OpenShift as a possibility last year. 

OpenShift is a stable product overall.

OpenShift is scalable. Once we fully deploy it, many people will use it. 

I rate Red Hat support an eight out of ten. 

Positive

We used vanilla kubernetes containers.

Setting up OpenShift isn't easy. I rate it three out of ten for ease of setup. We're deploying it in three phases. They're in the second phase now. The total deployment time will be five months. We expect to complete the deployment this March. There are 13 people on three teams working on this deployment.

We are using a third-party consultant. They work to ensure we understand the process.

I rate OpenShift a nine out of ten. I think it's the way to go. Lots of companies are adopting it.

It's a good tool and a very comprehensive tool. There are a lot of things to explore. I'm still exploring, I'm not done with it yet.

The UI is good.

It’s user-friendly.

The product offers good customization.

There will be things that can improve, however, at this stage I cannot give a point or two. Maybe after a few months, I can give more details.

One improvement I can suggest is for the people who are not very competent with technology, for the product to give some tips on the screen, to make it easier for them. Things are there and the documentation is there, however, there still needs to be quick guides available. Then it will be easier for people to adapt and learn. Rather than going to big documentation, if there is some quick help or quick guide available and then it would help people to quickly adapt and learn.

It still has to improve compatibility with a couple of more platforms. It works with many however we are still trying to improvise more on a couple of other platforms. Integration seems to take a little bit of time. It would be nice if it was expanded and simplified a bit.

I’ve been using the solution for the last five or six months.

The solution is stable. It works for me. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn’t crash or freeze.

It is a scalable product. So far, we are not using it in production, so we currently have below 50 users. When it will be in production then there will be more.

If the testing goes well we do plan to increase usage.

I’m getting good support so far. I am happy with them.

We did previously use a different solution. Both are good products. They each have their own benefits.

I don’t have a license. I don’t deal with licensing directly.

I’d rate the solution seven out of ten. We haven’t used it too long. It’s still in production. After six months, we’ll likely have a better idea of how it is going.