Red Hat OpenShift Reviews

I'm currently engaged in developing containerized microservices applications, managing thirteen modules within an OpenShift environment. These modules collectively handle automated payment processes for various services. My role involves closely monitoring these modules on OpenShift, ensuring optimal resource allocation such as storage and CPU usage. Additionally, I'm tasked with implementing solutions for scenarios of resource overutilization, including autoscaling capabilities to accommodate high traffic periods efficiently. I also focus on scaling down resources during low-traffic periods to optimize cost and performance.

OpenShift has significantly enhanced and streamlined our organization's application development and deployment processes. It offers more than just Kubernetes clusters, providing additional features like the Dashboard, which greatly simplifies tasks for developers. Moreover, OpenShift adds an extra layer of security, ensuring that applications run securely with features like hashing upgrades.

It offers a vast repository of images and tools tailored for deployment and application development. This rich ecosystem makes deployment and performance optimization much easier compared to our previous methods. Additionally, by opting for OpenShift, we gain access to comprehensive support from their expert team.

It streamlines our development and deployment processes through automation. From development to deployment, all processes are automated, providing efficiency and productivity gains. Developers can submit their changes for approval, and once approved, the deployment to production can proceed without requiring manual intervention. This streamlined workflow not only makes the process easier but also enhances productivity across the team.

The integration capabilities of OpenShift with other platforms and services have greatly enhanced our workflow. When you opt for OpenShift, whether through a subscription or by installing it on your servers, you gain access to a comprehensive support system provided by Red Hat. OpenShift features a marketplace with a wide array of operators, facilitating seamless integration and deployment of various services. For instance, popular services like Elasticsearch can be easily integrated into the cluster directly from the user interface and dashboard, making the installation process much simpler and more user-friendly.

The broad support for multiple languages and frameworks in OpenShift has positively impacted the productivity of our development teams. We've observed significant improvements in our tools and team collaboration since adopting this platform. As we continue to enhance our processes, it's evident that most of our development team members are actively engaged and contributing, particularly our dedicated engineers and architects.

When comparing the efficiency of OpenShift Container Orchestration to other solutions we've considered, such as Kubernetes, we find that OpenShift aligns well with our existing architecture and team structure. Our approach resembles the architecture of OpenShift, with a team leader overseeing multiple workers.

One of the most valuable features of OpenShift for our operations is its auto-scaling capability. This feature is crucial for handling high loads or traffic spikes in our applications. With OpenShift, we have the flexibility to scale our applications up or down as needed, providing a significant benefit to our operations.

OpenShift offers robust tools for monitoring application traffic, allowing us to analyze client requests and other business-related metrics. This enables us to effectively manage our applications and make informed decisions to optimize performance.

An enhancement to consider for the future might involve incorporating a comprehensive solution for CI/CD tailored specifically for OpenShift.

I have been working with it for three years.

I would rate its stability abilities eight out of ten.

I would rate its scalability capabilities seven out of ten. More than three thousand users use it daily.

We are experiencing dissatisfaction with the technical support as we often receive delayed responses when raising questions. I would rate it five out of ten.

Neutral

We previously worked with Kubernetes cluster, but we switched to using OpenShift, as advised by our architect. This change is aimed at achieving greater scalability and stability for our product, as we've encountered challenges with our setup at the time.

The initial setup was relatively straightforward.

We manually installed the deployment three months ago, utilizing grid protection systems. I have been handling both development and production environments. In the development phase, I build deployments from scratch, while for production, I collaborate with another vendor. I manage all steps of installation and ensure smooth migration to the production environment.

The cost is quite high. I would rate it eight out of ten.

Overall, I would rate it seven out of ten.

Usually, we use it as a test environment and to quickly develop the proof of concept for various projects. So, it's mainly for quick deployment and testing.

It's deployed on the cloud and on-premises.

The biggest benefit is the speed. When developing a new PoC, if we don't have a container-based environment, we would have to set up virtual machines. We would have to install different software to make sure that there are secure ways to do that, which would most likely need a couple of days, whereas, with a container-based platform, such as Kubernetes or OpenShift, we can do that in a matter of minutes or hours.

The security throughout the stack and the software supply chain is very good. It's a step-by-step procedure to obtain new software. It's very secure. We cannot have access without a safe, provisioned way. For troubleshooting a fault, I like the new oc debug feature where you spin up a new pod for debugging. You can spin up a new test pod for a complete copy of the problematic one. We are very happy with it security-wise. I would rate it a nine out of ten in terms of security features for running business-critical applications. That's only because I never give a ten.

It provides us with the flexibility and efficiency of cloud-native stacks while enabling us to meet regulatory constraints. We can automate these checks. For example, in the hybrid cloud model, we can check for different things, such as the accessibility of many different classes not only in the cloud but also on-premises. We can use the hybrid view to check many things very quickly. If someone comes into the company from a regulatory body whose job is to run a couple of scripts and check if certain rules apply to all servers, without having this kind of interface, we would have to give him a week to be able to connect to everything and check everything one by one, and of course, we would have to pay him for that. With OpenShift, from one panel, we can automatically run a script across several different servers or even connect manually to each of them, which is a big benefit. It saves a lot of time and money.

It can speed up the development time. There's only Jenkins, but I'm not so sure about that. Because the development and testing phases are sped up, the time to market can also be very good. However, it also depends on other factors, such as any back-and-forth changes, because we can have a lot of feedback. Overall, there is about a 10% improvement in the time to market.

The CodeReady Workspaces reduce project onboarding time. There is about a 20% reduction.

Its security is most valuable. It's by default secure, which is very important.

It's very easy to manage deployment across different environments. It doesn't matter if it's a private or a hybrid cloud. It's very well-suited for the type of work that we do, which is the deployment for our PoCs. It's very easy to start with small ideas and then gradually scale up. 

It's very easy to integrate with different systems and products, which is another plus point. 

It also has a very nice user interface. It's very self-explanatory, and that saves a lot of time from training new users. You can cut a lot of time to quickly familiarize yourself with the base.

OperatorHub is another big plus. It's very easy to use and very useful.

One thing that can be improved but is surely difficult to improve is the cost. We have a lot of customers who would prefer a Vanilla Kubernetes solution or another solution that combines Kubernetes with some cloud provider, especially if they are already using a specific cloud provider. When we try to work with them, some customers complain about it.

Another thing is that the installation and setup process is a little bit complex, but I must admit that it has improved a lot as compared to the older version. 

Autoscaling is a very unique feature, but it could be useful to have more options based on traffic statistics, for example, via Prometheus. So, there should be more ready solutions to autoscale based on specific applications.

I've been using this solution for about one and a half years.

It's a very stable solution. Usually, problems occur when there's an application error or someone does something wrong and there is a human factor. For example, once there was an application creating a lot of automatic snapshots. There were volumes of snapshots, which couldn't be deleted easily. So, occasionally, there may be some bugs, but generally, it's very stable.

Scalability is a big plus. There is scalability from nodes to machines and so on. However, I would prefer more options on scalability based on statistics. That would be very interesting and very nice to see in the future.

Currently, we have less than 100 users who use this solution. They are mostly developers. There are also some end-users, assessors, architects, administrators, and project managers. The end-user experience is quite self-explanatory, and it's very important.

Once I'm able to talk to a technician, the support is very good. They are very knowledgeable and polite. I'm very impressed, and I've only good things to say about their technical support even though there's a lot of bureaucracy until you reach the right department, which can take some time, but I understand that. All big organizations have a bit of a challenge. I would rate them an eight out of ten.

As a partner for helping us create the platform that we need, I would rate Red Hat a nine out of ten. They're helpful. Whenever I'm in contact with the technical team, they're knowledgeable and helpful.

Positive

I'm not sure because I wasn't involved in the installation. 

We never considered building our own container platform. I've only seen customers using Vanilla Kubernetes because OpenShift is a little bit expensive, and some specific organizations have chosen to invest in a strong team because they would need a strong team to build Vanilla Kubernetes. They are succeeding in maintaining that way of working. I have seen this a couple of times.

I wasn't involved in its initial setup, but I talked to a lot of the people who were involved. Compared to a simple or Vanilla Kubernetes, it requires lots more work and has a lot of default processes constantly running, but, in my opinion, it's something where OpenShift is getting better and better. It's getting quicker. It's going in the right direction.

The deployment took a few days.

I believe there is an ROI for organizations where security is very important, and because of privacy requirements, the public cloud cannot be an option. Especially in the banking sector, there's almost no competition. There is about 15% ROI.

It's expensive. It may be cheaper to invest in building Vanilla Kubernetes, especially if security is not the number one motivation or requirement. Of course, that's difficult, and in some business areas, such as banking, that's not something you can put as a second priority. In other situations, a Vanilla Kubernetes with a sufficiently strong team can be cheaper and almost as effective. In addition, people who are already working with a specific cloud provider tend to find cheaper solutions by combining Kubernetes on the specific cloud and choosing that over OpenShift.

It's important to build a team around this. So, invest in getting the correct training. There are a lot of options that Red Hat provides. Start small, scale up gradually, and involve people from different areas. In addition to the infrastructure team, also involve someone from development and the architecture team to be able to see its value from different perspectives.

I would rate it a nine out of ten. I'm very happy with the interface, security, and support.

OpenShift as a solution is quite broad depending on the industry you are applying it to. For example, telco companies use the entire breadth of applications that the client wants from the web to their middle tier up to the back end. 

OpenShift is a platform for ensuring that your apps are running reliably. 

OpenShift has 100% compatibility with Kubernetes. I find using kubectl, and kubectl commands to be valuable.

The security features of OpenShift are strong when in use of role-based access. The solution is easily compatible with other solutions and the features are easily installed.

OpenShift could be improved if it were more accessible for smaller budgets. I currently mostly use Raspberry Pi, which will be over to use Kubernetes. As a platform, I am using Raspberry Pi rather than using a very large configuration computer. 

The solution requires eight or more cores of CPUs, multiplied over the number of nodes needed to make OpenShift reliable, making it susceptible to failures.

In the future, I would like to see a roadmap to have Wasm supported. If you have WebAssembly as an alternative to Docker, it would be great.

I have been learning how to use OpenShift for years, but actively using it for six months.

The solution is stable. We haven't experienced downtime. 

OpenShift is easy to scale. You just need to make sure you have the capacity to purchase and the number of nodes needed. Scalability only depends on your budget.

Currently, they are more than 10 users of OpenShift in the organization.

Technical support has been efficient, supportive, and communicative. They do not drop the ball. I would rate the customer service and support of OpenShift a five out of five. 

Positive

Previously, I had experience with VMware's Kubernetes version. VMware was very difficult to install. I could not understand the route they were taking and why there were so many steps. 

The initial setup of OpenShift is straightforward if you are an experienced platform engineer. Installing on AWS or Azure could be more complex. The product has a Terraform command to install everything.

If all of the tools that are needed and all the hardware is there, the implementation should be straightforward. I would rate the initial setup a four out of five overall.

Pricing of OpenShift depends on the number of nodes and who is hosting it. OpenShift is more expensive than other solutions, however, I think it is worth it.

Anyone looking to implement OpenShift in their organization should start with the most minimal setup for configuration. There is an OpenShift version with just the single master with a built-in worker. You will only need a single CPU and you can start with at least three masters and a single worker and scale from there as the need arises, whether it is to add additional worker nodes or as your app grows.

There is no product that compares to OpenShift. I would rate it a 10 out of 10 overall.

We help some operators implement the container platform. Some of the operators use other software, such as VMware or Whitestack. Our focus is on pushing Red Hat products. We also use OpenShift for containerized applications in IT and networks, including applications like My Mobistar, My Carlos, and Smart Wi-Fi.

The solution primarily benefits our organization by reducing time to market, avoiding vendor lock-in, and facilitating multi-cloud environments. These capabilities allow us to leverage various cloud providers and integrate seamlessly between on-premise and public cloud solutions.

Valuable features include time to market, avoiding vendor lock-in, and the ease of working in a multi-cloud environment. This flexibility allows the use of multiple cloud platforms such as AWS, Microsoft, Google, and IBM.

The speed of deploying new applications can be improved. Additionally, enhancing the process for changing to DevOps models from Waterfall workflows would be beneficial. There are issues with capacity planning and lifecycle management that need to be addressed, particularly in avoiding problems due to congestion or misunderstanding between software factories and Red Hat experts.

I have been using OpenShift for more than three years.

In general, customers are very happy with the stability of the solution. In Argentina, the main three operators are using OpenShift and find the stability to be quite good.

All customers are very happy with the scalability of OpenShift. The main three operators in Argentina use OpenShift, and they find the stability quite good, contributing to its scalability.

Customer service is effective, particularly with the TAM (Technical Account Manager) service, which includes highly experienced personnel. Operators are very happy with the TAM services.

Positive

The initial setup is moderately complex. While it is not extremely difficult, operators typically require assistance from Red Hat experts.

Operators usually need the help of Red Hat experts during the setup phase.

I don't have detailed knowledge about the setup costs or ROI. However, I know it is cheaper than some other platforms.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use OpenShift for Health and Human Services to build an integration platform and deliver services. We use it to support public sector companies and organizations and we build an integration platform for the Medicaid information system.

We started using OpenShift because we have an alliance and connection with them from one of our previous projects.

We want to build a solution that can be deployable to any cloud because of client requirements and OpenShift allows us to do this. 

This solution could be improved by offering best practices on standardization and additional guidance on how to use this solution.

I have been using this solution for two years. 

This is a stable solution. 

We are not yet using this solution in production so I cannot speak to scalability yet. 

The customer support for this solution is good. We have a consulting agreement, so we are getting good support.

I would rate their support an eight out of ten. 

Positive

We do see a return on investment from using the solution.

I would advise others to review the applicability of the solution to your business. There can be some limitations on the usage of this solution for some products and software.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten. 

We are not using it for our core banking or any critical application. It's just for our remediation services. We have an ITSM tool, which is running on that, et cetera.

The support is very strong in Turkey. We are very happy with its capabilities. The steps are easy in terms of usage.

We need some kind of a multi-cluster management solution from the Red Hat site. With that, we have got some problems; however, right now, we can manage to run the solution without any problems.

The stability has been good. We haven’t had any real issues up to this point. It’s been reliable, and the performance has been good.

The scalability is fine. We haven’t had any problems in that regard.

The main reason that we chose OpenShift rather than Azure or AWS was the scalability. It’s the best one on the market.

We have gotten both local and international support from Red Hat company, so we are covered. We are satisfied with the solution’s support in general.

There isn’t really any initial setup to worry about.

I don’t have any information about the licensing costs or the process.

I’d rate the solution eight out of ten.

It's both very easy to start and learn and to improve yourself to manage Kubernetes environments. It’s very portable. You can easily switch from this product to another if you want. It's not like that with other products. For example, if you have an Azure solution, it's not that easy to port everything over.

Our service order management platform was cloud-native. We deployed its microservices on Red Hat OpenShift. When we did that, we were able to increase the capacity of order processing from 100,000 a day to at least 400,000 orders daily. That is the incremental capacity that OpenShift gave us.

The company had a product called device financing, where the company worked as a partner with Google. It allowed customers to take mobile phones on loan or via credit. When we migrated those services to OpenShift in February last year, we were able to sell over 100,000 devices in a single day, which was very good.

We deployed some microservices to handle Airtime Advance and Data Advance. This product from the consumer commercial team needed a throughput of around 2,500. They were able to get that from Red Hat OpenShift.

The self-healing of pods is a valuable feature. This feature goes a long way in helping us ensure our uptime for services, improving the performance of the system.

The solution provides us with the flexibility of cloud-native stacks while enabling us to meet regulatory constraints. Since most of our services were deployed on-premises, this allowed us not to get into data privacy issues for services with personally identifiable information belonging to customers. It is microservice-ready from a cloud-native perspective, which is a benefit.

With the automation that OpenShift gives you, you can automate as much as possible. This goes a long way in reducing time to market and errors due to human intervention. So, if an organization can do a lot of automation, e.g., automating deployments, that can go a very long way in reducing the time to market and the time required to fix issues that arise out of deployment.

The whole area around the hybrid cloud could be improved. I would like to deploy a Red Hat OpenShift cluster on-premise and on the cloud, then have Red Hat do the entire hybrid cloud management.

I was using this solution at my previous company. I left that company in October of last year.

We implemented the project mid-2019. We went live just before the pandemic in 2020.

It is very stable.

From some issues in production where some nodes went down, we just needed to improve in monitoring the Red Hat cluster. Then, we could know when there was degraded performance and repair it before it could cause an impact to the customer.

It is able to scale based on load.

The support is amazing. They stick to the SLA, and even go out of their way to research and assist customers to resolve issues. I would rate the support as nine out of 10.

Red Hat is amazing. With the proper leadership in place and proper partnership, you can do a lot more with Red Hat. There is a very active community where they share codes, information, and ideas.

Positive

Initially, we used to run Vanilla Kubernetes, which is open source. Then, we realized we were short on skill sets. Another organization had done a PoC of Red Hat OpenShift, and it passed. So, our organization was gracious enough to allow us to spend money on Red Hat OpenShift licenses. That was in 2019.

With Vanilla Kubernetes, we were not able to successfully implement service mesh. That comes already preconfigured for you with Red Hat OpenShift. 

In terms of traffic routing and firewall management, it was a nightmare managing that in Vanilla Kubernetes. However, with Red Hat OpenShift, you only add specific IPs in firewalls, as opposed to the nightmare that we used to see with Vanilla Kubernetes.

Red Hat's commitment to open source is one of the reasons that we went with it. We knew that we would get continuous updates. Also, the option of keeping our OpenShift cluster up-to-date with new services was a headache that we passed onto Red Hat. 

Initially, the deployment process was complex. However, with repeated use, it made more sense. Deploying TIBCO BusinessWorks Container Edition and optimizing it on Red Hat OpenShift is complex.

We teamed up with Red Hat's OEM to do the Red Hat OpenShift implementation. So, it was a small team. We just did a waterfall implementation, not agile.

We did see ROI.

The solution's CodeReady Workspaces reduced project onboarding time by over 50% and time to market by 70%.

The organization really wanted to go open source for a very long time to reduce its CapEx and OpEx costs.

We had a Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) license for all our servers' operating systems. By having multiple Red Hat products together, you can negotiate costs and leverage on having a sort of enterprise license agreement to reduce the overall outlay or TCO.

The pricing and licensing for OpenShift is okay.

At the time of our evaluation, our options were only OpenShift and Vanilla Kubernetes. Now, there is also VMware Tanzu, which wasn't as mature a product when we did the PoC in 2019.

I am currently implementing VMware Tanzu in my new role at another company. I have not seen any significant differences between Tanzu and OpenShift.

Go for this solution.

Red Hat does a good job of ensuring that their solutions are operable and you can take advantage of the features within a solution.

We also had Red Hat Ansible for automating server provisioning and some operational tasks.

We didn't get any security breaches from Red Hat OpenShift.

I would rate OpenShift as eight out of 10.

We use OpenShift as an accelerator for our projects. We provide an environment for containerization. Our company has multiple clients using the infrastructure to build and test their applications.

We've both cloud and on-prem installation of the tool. For the cloud installation, we use the AWS cloud.

The quality of the product is good. There are no performance issues or any tools-related issues. We get excellent performance and application integrity. We use multiple internal applications, and they are integrated with OpenShift. Our end users are happy using the platform, and they are able to test everything using the OpenShift testing environment.

OpenShift provides good security throughout the stack and the software supply chain, and we use it in conjunction with Azure authentication. We haven't had any security breaches or issues with the tool. We don't run any business-critical applications with the product, but it offers good security and prevention. Overall, we're satisfied with it from a security perspective.

The solution is very reliable. We have excellent documentation, and we get good support for open-source products. If we need to learn new features or do new types of implementation, documentation is available. 

In terms of implementation, OpenShift is very user-friendly, which is an advantage. We are using it along with GitLab for implementing CI/CD pipelines. That's a feature that other products also have, but in OpenShift, we find it good.

Upgrades are easy. We could do upgrades with a single click. The GUI is very user-friendly. We are also very comfortable with the CLI.

We want to see better alerting, especially in critical situations requiring immediate intervention. Until we go to the dashboard, it can be challenging to quickly recognize that there's an issue for us to deal with. Therefore, a popup of the event or a tweaked GUI to catch our attention when it's alerting would be a welcome change. Everything else is good. We don't need any additional features. From the operations perspective, as an administrator, there is nothing concerning.

Red Hat has to improve its support. They should provide quicker and better support for issues with lower severity.

We've been using this solution for around two years. 

It's stable. The cluster is pretty stable. With version 3.11, we were having some issues, and it wasn't a pretty stable cluster. We had issues often on the backend nodes, but version 4.x is very good. We have been using it for more than one year. We have had multiple versions such as 4.7, 4.8, and 4.9, and now, we are into 4.10. We upgraded our staging cluster to 4.10, and that upgrade was very smooth. We had some issues, but we were able to fix them.

It's very scalable. We can see the cluster size we need. We can also scale down. So, scalability is good. The MachineSet feature in OpenShift is very good. It's user-friendly, and we can scale up and scale down as per our needs.

We have thousands of projects. So, many users are using this solution. We have around three production clusters and two development clusters. For now, we don't have any plans to expand its usage. Currently, the market is still in a stagnant state, and there is not any plan for expansion. If the number of users increases, we might increase the number of clusters.

The support people who join our calls or take care of the issues are technically strong. There is no doubt about that. They're able to find out the issue, and they give us a quick solution. If there is any bug, they coordinate with their engineering team and provide us a bug fix in the next version or internally to upgrade it. Overall, their technical support is good, but for the lower priority cases, their response is not very satisfactory. If we open a case with severity 3, 4, or 5, we don't see an active response. We get a good response only for severity 2 and 1. I would rate their support an eight out of ten.

Positive

We were using Kubernetes. We switched to OpenShift because we wanted an enterprise-level usage tool. So, we needed a more stable product.

We chose OpenShift mainly because we get good vendor support. In case of any issues, we can easily collaborate with the vendor to get a proper solution. From the operations perspective also, OpenShift is good. That's also the main reason why it's being used here.

For the installation of OpenShift, we used the IPA method of installation in AWS. It's pretty straightforward and easy. It isn't complex, but you have to go through the documentation. You have to read the documentation before implementing it. Overall, the initial setup is good. There isn't any complexity in the installation.

We have a good procedure to implement it. We just followed our internal procedure and the OpenShift document, and we were able to install it.

When we deployed a cluster, it took us about one and a half hours to bring the cluster. It took us around two days to complete the setup. After installing OpenShift, we needed to do some peripheral installations, such as authentication, creation of objects such as resource quota limitations, creation of templates, etc. In a maximum of two days, we were able to bring the cluster back into the required state.

In terms of maintenance, we have five clusters that are being taken care of by four people. My team doesn't only take care of OpenShift. We also take care of GitLab, so that also takes some resources. Overall, four people are taking care of five clusters.

I didn't work on its deployment. For the on-premise installation, my colleagues worked with the vendor to implement it. We got help from the vendor. 

We considered VMware Tanzu. They are still in the pipeline. We are planning to implement VMware Tanzu inside our environment. OpenShift is very good, but we are considering VMware Tanzu because we already have a good VMware environment. We thought of using that VMware environment also for the containerization application. That's the reason for considering VMware Tanzu.

I would recommend OpenShift to others because of its stability and usability. We have been promoting it to multiple clients inside our organization.

We use Red Hat Linux and Ansible. Red Hat Linux and OpenShift have good integration and support. We haven't used Ansible much. We have only used Terraform with OpenShift. Ansible is good. It has good integration with OpenShift, but we haven't used it much. 

Red Hat is good at creating technologies. They consistently improvise their products. There is a massive difference in handling and performance between OpenShift version 3.x and version 4.x. In terms of stability, they have shown enormous improvements. So they're good at improving their products.

OpenShift provides the flexibility and efficiency of cloud-native stacks while enabling us to meet regulatory constraints, but our implementation at this level is basic. We haven't implemented any strict rules or compliance setup.

I would rate it an eight out of ten.