RHEV Reviews

We use the solution to deploy our OS.

The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization is its pricing.

The solution should be made more user-friendly.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization (RHEV) for five years.

Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization is quite a stable solution.

Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization is a scalable solution. Many users are using Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization in our organization, and we plan to increase the number of users in the future.

Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization's technical support is customer-friendly.

Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization's initial setup is straightforward and much easier.

Two engineers are required to deploy and maintain Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization.

Overall, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization a six out of ten.

On-premises

The most valuable features of RHEV are all the tools, such as virtualization, management of cloud platforms, and integration of container environments. The solution has good compatibility between virtualization, content management, and cloud management. Having the full set of these tools is the advantage of it. 

It is preferred to have everything from the same vendor. This solution is one of the best and it includes automation and supports many virtualization layers. I prefer to propose this solution to customers unless they have a specific choice. 

RHEV can improve by keeping pace with new features and new enhancements. They should not be halted or delayed innovation because over the past quarter the enhancements have not been as fast as they have been previously. 

I have been using RHEV for approximately four years.

RHEV is a stable solution.

We have not had any issue with the implementation of RHEV.

We have a team that does the implementation and configuration of the solution. 

The price of RHEV is high. It is an open-source solution, the price should be less. The price should not be on par with a solution, such as VMware. It's not more or equal to VMware, it's less, but the difference should be more substantial.

If the price starts getting too high people will start going back to pure open source products. If the prices are the same as compared to VMware, then why would they use any Red Hat solution, such as RHEV. The features, robustness, and suitability for enterprise VMware has an edge over RHEV. The price should come down.

I have evaluated many other solutions, such as IBM OpenShift and VMware.

RHEV is a good solution and it's a stable product. When any organization needs end-to-end infrastructure deployment, configuration management, and automation, then RHEV is the best fit. The solution has all the best components in each of these areas from a competitive point of view. It is a benefit of having all the tools from one vendor, it make management easier.

There are many other solutions available, such as IBM OpenShift, but when comparing RHEV it is very good.

I rate RHEV an eight out of ten.

We are a company who sells the solution to end users and we're a business partner with Red Hat. I'm an IT project consultant 

The valuable features of this solution are that it's open source, non-proprietary, and we can do just about anything we want to with the codes. There are no legal issues stopping us and of course Red Hat is rock solid and very stable.

To be honest, I can't think of anything that needs improving, they work faster than I do and produce things so quickly and swiftly that I can't catch up with them. Before I can think of something new, they are already there and have done it. What they have right now is way beyond the essential requirements of our customers who would not require more than 20%-30% of what they offer.

There aren't any additional features I can think of that should be included. They're already offering hyper convergence which is way beyond the world for us and beyond what ordinary users could imagine having. Maybe one day they'll come up with a way of running their software without any hardware.

This is a very stable solution. 

Scalability depends on the applications. Red Hat by itself is not scalable. But you can have third party add-ons like Ceph to make it massively scalable.

The technical support is very different from what most vendors are currently selling or providing to their customers. Because of the nature of the product, it's ongoing and subscription based. You don't pay for new versions, it doesn't exist in the open source world. As long as the customer pays their annual subscription, they receive all the updates automatically. Support is more towards the end users on the day-to-day things.

If you're comparing it to larger solutions like VMware, the setup is slightly more complex because it requires a lot of technical knowledge. But the offset is that once you cross that hurdle, your system is super reliable. And it works and works. We have servers that have been running for the past eight years without having to be turned off.

Red Hat is easily three to five times cheaper than the nearest competitor. Our business model is slightly different. If you look at Gerome HCI, for example, the core product that we sell, it is not Red Hat based but certain components use Red Hat components, for example, sales and subscription. It would cost about $USD5,000 per year to keep that going. Instead, we charge slightly more initially, maybe $USD7,000-$8,000, and then reduce the annual support fee to maybe $USD1,000.

There are other platforms like Proxmox that are very stable and good because they run on KVM just like we do. But if you have hands-on experience with Proxmox, for example, you know that the entire thing is full of buttons and switches and I believe most clients don't like that. Red Hat, and Gerome HCI keep that to a minimum and give the customers what they need to do to get their work done.

I would suggest people take a serious look at Red Hat and open source, and what KVM offerings can provide to end users. KVM and Red Hat, the open source community, are different to what they were 10 years ago. They are so advanced today and so mature in what they do that they could easily give any top-notch industry leaders a run for their money. They are definitely the market leader in terms of open source. No one can beat them at the moment.

I would rate this product a 10 out of 10. 

Private Cloud

The price is the solution's most valuable aspect. It's much cheaper than, for example, VMware.

The interface is a bit complex, in my opinion. They should work to simplify it if possible.

Currently, we cannot get a direct local resource mount. 

When I want to customize the solution, I would like to have a similar operating system resource included, similar to what VMware offers. We'd like to have the same hosting features VMware has.

I've been using the solution for about two years now.

In comparison to VMware, this solution isn't as stable. We're testing it right now, and we're not trusting the stability of the product.

We only two people working on the solution currently, as we test it. We haven't scaled it at all.

The technical support offered by Red Hat is average. It's not exceptional, but it's not bad either.

I didn't set up the solution at our organization. I don't know if it is complex or straightforward in terms of implementation.

The solution is quite inexpensive.

I wouldn't recommend the solution currently. We don't trust the product, so to use it as a mission-critical solution wouldn't be advised. However, overall, it's okay.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. Red Hat solution is not the best, in my opinion. It's not as stable, but it is much cheaper than VMware, so companies can save money using it if they need to.

On-premises

The primary use case was running an entire government payroll system.

Basically stability and speed are the most valuable aspects.

Realistically, I found Red Hat to be fairly usable. It was an easy transition from Unix to using Linux and I can't think of any real improvements necessary. If anything, I actually like check config better than system CTL.

For improvements or additional features, it would be nice for it to integrate better into two in ones. If you wanted to go to the desktop computer side of things, it lags behind in that you need to go to something like Fedora to get all the extra bells and whistles.

I used the product for 10 years. 

The product is stable.

The product scaled very well. The only issues that we have ever really had was in relation to the Oracle database that we're running.

I previously used VMware and then Citrix. We made the switch predominantly because we wanted to consolidate licensing. We were using Citrix for our VDI environment and it made sense to shift from VMware to Citrix Zen because the licensing for the actual ZenServer was embedded within our DDI license. It made no sense actually licensing a product that we could actually utilize within our existing license. When you look at the budgetary figures and everything like that, VM ware is not exactly light on the back pocket.

For me, the initial setup was fairly straightforward and because I've been using it for so long I was able to do it myself. In terms of initial deployment, I was able to run up five DMs running Red Hat with Oracle database within a week. 

Several options were evaluated. I need to keep up to date on all technical offerings on the market, so it was really about doing a product comparison.

I've always used separate hypervisors so it's difficult for me to give advice. I'm more familiar with the other products so I would rate this product a six out of 10. 

On-premises

We have several applications that are pillars of the business, such as ERP and SAP, which were previously in a Windows environment. Our system architects have been working on moving these applications to a Linux environment. This is why we are using this solution.

At the point, all of our work with Red Hat is on-premises.

One of the most valuable features of this solution is the popularity of the OS.

The support for this solution is very good. This is the major thing that we are considering with respect to moving platforms.

There has to be more effort into closing the security vulnerabilities in this solution because we are facing daily attacks. We would like to have this done faster.

We would like to see live-patching on the systems, without having to require a reboot. It would be better to have more patches, especially kernel-level updates, live and online so that we can keep the business up and running during this period.

Improvements can be made to managing this solution, such as enhancements to the GUI.

There should be better integration with third-party tools.

Tools for scanning the hardware, such as the CPU and memory, would make life easier.

We have been using this solution for about two years.

I have found that the stability is related to the upgrade cycle. I find the cycle a little bit annoying.  If the system is constantly upgrading then it is very painful in terms of the operation.

In terms of scalability, it is handling the load that we have. I don't see any major problems.

In addition to using this solution, we are trying to move our CRP solutions to our other platform, SUSE Linux. All of our business applications are moving to Red Hat, although we are getting better support with SUSE.

We are not using the most current release of this solution because from our perspective, it is not mature enough yet.

Another example is that we are moving our Enterprise Content Management (ECM) solution, which is similar to Microsoft SharePoint, to Red Hat.

We have already moved all of our big data systems, as well as all of the digitalization systems to Red Hat. Our Splunk is also on Red Hat. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

In my company, I am working in a strategic department. My primary task in the company at the present time is looking into an overall roadmap for our organization to adopt a virtualization solution. We are doing this mostly for cost optimization.  

So I am exploring the potential benefits of different solutions and what the potential options are for us to minimize and optimize the costs and our overall tax expenditures by bringing in these VMware solutions.  

Our goal is hosting multiple applications within one single host. The purpose is to reduce the number of physical servers and then to move from a physical to a virtual environment. This is the reason that we introduced the VMware solution.  

So VMware is basically purely on the virtual environment that we have adopted because we are moving out from a physical environment to a virtual environment where we have deployed some VMware licenses to manage our various systems applications on one single host.  

Of course, VMware is not an OS by itself. When it comes to the operating system, we are leveraging on the Red Hat virtual environment to be able to run and support the integration of multiple systems. So the VMware is being used to host the virtual environment. We have actually a combination of both Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization and VMware virtualization solutions to create the needed environment to meet these goals.  

Red Hat Enterprise has provided the flexible platform on which we can build the solution we envisioned of hosting multiple applications in a single host.  

The most valuable feature in this product is that it is easy for us to deal with when comes to application migration and its compatibility with the multiple component applications that are available. For example, we have Drupal, Magento, Node.js, and other applications to host. So when we are looking for a base system solution that is able to support all of these components, I look to Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization. It provides a lot of flexibility in terms of compute scaling, resource allocation, and also the stability of the platform.  

Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization is giving us more benefits in these situations because it is stable. This makes it easy to do this migration and easy to manage as well.  

There are two things that I would like to see improvement in when it comes to Red Hat. First is the pricing and second is the support. Of those two, I think support should be the main focus.  

We are facing some challenges within Malaysia because we do not really have system integrators for Red Hat available who can provide on-site support. This would be useful in critical situations such as outages. At those times, it would be optimal to have an expert technician who has significant experience with the product on the company site to help us more quickly resolve these critical issues.  

The closest that we have come to this within Malaysia was an instance where we had to join an online conference call. It was complicated and inefficient. We had to bridge the connection with the principals, login, and then to check and to dump the data for the troubleshooting purposes.  

If Red Hat can expand their services to include physical support within Malaysia then it would be great for us. We need to have access to immediate support of this type when it comes to critical issues.  

I have been working with Red Hat Virtualization for between 10 and 15 years.  

Red Hat Virtualization is a stable and versatile solution.  

We have close to 20 users now and I do not see a problem with the potential for scaling that and the use of the product to further build out our environment.  

We have some issues with getting on-site support in Malasia. This is an issue for critical situations.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I can rate Red Hat Virtualization as a seven-out-of-ten.  

It is a seven and not higher because of the various issues like lack of availability of on-site support.  

Even with these issues, I would definitely recommend Red Hat virtualization to other customers who are actually looking into moving from a physical environment to a virtualized environment. Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization can help to optimize their space utilization and optimize their costs.  

Few pros of Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Hypervisor are- 1) Kernel based virtual machine(KVM) virtualization technology 2) Good application compatibility and interface 3) Memory page sharing 4) NIC bonding 5) Multipath I/O 6) Efficient guest consolidation, live migration and HA 7) SELinux for enhanced security

Few cons of Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Hypervisor are1) Need to create virtual machine environment per node 2) Issues with clustering 3) Load balancing not very efficient and fails to utilize and distribute network resources.

Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Hypervisor is an enterprise virtualization solution made by Red Hat. It has been designed for intergration with Virtualization manager with servers. It has robust virtualization management features with proven enterprise security and performance. This Hypervisor is basically based on Kernel Based Virtual Machine. It has inbuilt features such as live migration, high availability (which manages server availability), and zero downtime for the virtual machines.