Red Hat OpenShift Reviews

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. 

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.

I am using OpenShift as a container platform to host various applications in a containerized environment.

It has really helped me a lot in debugging the issues.

The most valuable thing about it is the support available. 

Installation and setup are a bit tedious, especially in a proxy environment.

Our primary use case for Red Hat OpenShift involves utilizing it as a solution for backup purposes, specifically for OpenShift and O365 backup. It supports multiple workload backups, including AI-related projects. We also have multiple customers hosted, as we provide services such as implementation, integration, and partnership.

Red Hat OpenShift stands out as a robust enterprise solution due to its superior support and documentation. Our projects, including AI workloads that require GPU worker nodes, have performed well with OpenShift. The platform's support for virtualization allows us to migrate VMs and run them as containers. Additionally, it offers multiple storage options, including Red Hat Data Foundation (ODF). Compared to other Kubernetes solutions, OpenShift is more enterprise-oriented. We are able to meet most of our current business requirements with this solution.

While Red Hat OpenShift is stable, monitoring and reporting capabilities need improvement. Integration with tools like Grafana and Prometheus is necessary for capturing logs, and manually managing these aspects is time-consuming. Network management is also challenging, especially when planning and adjusting the CIDR network ranges. Finally, there is a need for improvements in layer four ingress communication for database connectivity.

We have approximately two years of experience with Red Hat OpenShift.

Red Hat OpenShift is a stable solution.

I would rate the scalability of Red Hat OpenShift as an eight or nine out of ten. The platform has shown significant improvement with each new version, adding valuable features while making it easy to scale by adding or removing worker nodes and storage.

Red Hat's technical support is good, and I would rate it a nine out of ten.

Positive

We provide a range of services, acting as implementers, integrators, and partners with Red Hat OpenShift.

Red Hat OpenShift has a high price, and the licensing model can be prohibitive for smaller customers. Initially, licensing was per CPU, with a memory cap, but the price has doubled, making it difficult to justify for clients with smaller compute needs.

We have worked with native Kubernetes and Tanzu, and we are planning to explore SUSE Rancher. OpenShift is more enterprise-oriented, offers good support, and provides integration with multiple solutions.

Overall, I would rate Red Hat OpenShift a nine out of ten. Despite the higher price and needed improvements, OpenShift is an enterprise-grade solution that meets most business needs. I would rate the overall solution a 9 out of 10.