Red Hat OpenShift Reviews

Migrate to microservices.

Has helped us with faster deployment time, zero downtime.

• Scaling
• Fast deployment
• Zero downtime when releasing a new version
• Auto-recreate pod if pod fails
• Fast rollback, with one click, to previous version

It could use auto-scaling based on criteria such as transaction volume, queue backlog, etc. Currently, it is limited to CPU and memory. 

Credential not hidden, so people on the same group can view it.

Java and WildFly.

OpenShift is great for flexibility, agility, and speed of delivery. We use WildFly as an application server. We have not started to use OpenShift mainly, yet.

• WildFly, because it standardizes infrastructure.
• The git repository and docker. Git is essential for source code and Docker for infrastructure.

It would be great if it supported Bitbucket repositories too.

The ability to persist data, the security model, the web console, the installation - all of those features make using the product easier.

We develop software for customers that runs on OpenShift, so developing on a standard product like OpenShift supports our customers' need for cloud based container solutions.

The security model is hard to understand and use. Debugging errors can be hard as well.

We have been using the solution for two years.

The product seems to be mature enough to use for production application deployments without stability issues.

The product is able to meet most scalability goals.

The technical support is generally good and there are ample materials available on the web to help find answers to issues.

We have not switched from another product. We also support other cloud offerings like Kubernetes.

The installation is better now than early on and can be complicated to set up if you are not familiar with Red Hat Linux and Docker.

For trials and prototypes, the open source version of OpenShift will suffice for most users and is compatible with the licensed version of OpenShift.

We evaluated Cloud Foundry but decided upon a Docker container based platform like OpenShift.

Start small, try the open source OpenShift Origin first, then develop a sample application to get accustomed to the platform.

The OpenShift environment will be used by medical applications. This environment is still in the development/QA phase.

Not yet.

The scaling and uptime of the applications.

Needs work on volume handling (although this is already better with GlusterFS). Security (SSSD) would also be an improvement.

Not at this moment (still running in dev/QA phase).

Not at this moment (still running in dev/QA phase).

Five stars out of five, all issues were solved in an acceptable timeframe.

This was my first installation. It was not straightforward due to internal limitations, not the product.

I rate it a six out of 10. There are still some issues with it. I have several cases at Red Hat that need to be resolved.

Do a test to try the solution.

We were running many of our products on OpenShift.

We had to discontinue this solution due to many limitations.

Has a better UI and is good as a CICD solution.

Some of the features are platform-specific, so if it is ported to other cloud solutions it requires a lot of changes.

Migration of old and custom APIs and development environments, for both internal and client-facing use. This migration has been going on for two and half years now. It is a rather large endeavour. I would estimate we have another six to nine months ahead.

No longer do I have to pay VMware large amounts of money to only run in-house solutions. (I give a particular heartfelt thank you for that).

This is an easy question to answer: the virtualization of my APIs. 

There have been some issues with security, in particular, that we had to address. At times they make it “clunky." I am quite confident these parameters will appear in the next releases. They have been reported as bugs and are actually in process. Despite this, the competition is rapidly losing ground.

The use of creating environments (Development, Staging, and Production) using easy to use PaaS dashboard, and through the use of RHC.

It has a simple yet powerful way of managing environments, without many governance issues.

The product has helped kick off applications for developers at speed. New joiners can just start using the platform, without bothering to set up an application stack and/or server stack on their local laptop.

It has also helped us ship products at ease, using the Docker and Kubernetes platform, which forms the basis of RedHat OpenShift 3.

Scaling has a few defects, such as not scaling up at threshold values. This needs improvement. Also, require little more integration perspective, such as Service Desk integration and Source Code/CI integration.

I rated the solution as an eight out of 10 for two reasons:

1. Autoscaling issues. It does not increase in a seamless manner. Sometimes, CPU utilization/Memory utilization exceeds and the application just hangs or gets into HeapSpace or OutOfMemory error.
2. Sizing. Maintaining the number of pods at scale.

I've used this solution since 2013. Over almost four years, the product has evolved from a basic PaaS to a full-fledged PaaS and Private Cloud solution (with OpenShift 3)

Yes, as specified in areas for improvement answer.

It's good. Community support is also good. Easy to deal with.

Yes, we used IBM SoftLayer and we were not happy with it. Another solution that we are using is AWS, and we are pretty happy with it.

The initial setup was straightforward; not complex.

Pricing is good in comparison with AWS. The enterprise pricing is also competitive and is specifically fine-tuned to the type of environments we have.

IBM SoftLayer.

It's a solid solution if you are looking for a perfect enterprise-level PaaS. AWS is a better solution if you are looking for IaaS.

We're using this solution for newly developed applications in house development applications. I'm an infrastructure architect and we are customers of Open Shift. 

I think the most valuable feature this solution provides is the possibility to have support throughout the whole platform, including logging, monitoring, op features, and the like. It's a simple solution. 

I'd like to see support for more than one server, a mobile user registry. With that, you could divide it more granulary for development and render for testing and using different IDs.

I've been using this solution for six months. 

This is a stable solution. I think we're going to stick with it. 

This is a scalable solution, we have around 40 users. 

We previously used IBM WebSphere.

The initial setup is straightforward, it took around three to four days. We used the support and four or five of our engineering personnel for deployment. 

The licensing costs are quite cheap compared to other similar solutions.