What advice do you have for others considering OpenShift?

I recommend having a solid understanding of Kubernetes before transitioning to OpenShift as it is based on Kubernetes. Without this knowledge, managing and maintaining OpenShift can be a nightmare. I rate OpenShift as a nine point nine out of ten. I suggest considering the necessary infrastructure and related costs before adopting OpenShift.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I would recommend Red Hat OpenShift, especially for its automation capabilities. It's a solid platform, backed by reputable companies like IBM, ensuring stability and security. I rate it an eight.

The automation capabilities are straightforward. The tools are designed from the ground up to facilitate automation processes, making it increasingly comfortable to create CI/CD automation processes One piece of advice is not to be stuck in old ways of thinking because you may need to transition to different types of work. Once you make this shift, you'll find that it's easier than it was in the past. Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

OpenShift facilitates DevOps practices and improves CI/CD workflows in terms of stability compared to Jenkins. We receive new versions of the plugin in timely intervals. If we do not upgrade the plugins, it introduces some security vulnerabilities at a corporate level. I advise others to go for the product as it offers high security and reliability. I rate it an eight out of ten.

I rate OpenShift a nine out of ten. It is a wonderful product. I advise others to choose the environment size properly. You can deploy it on a public cloud and not necessarily on-premises. You can decide depending on the workload and data localization requirements.

The solution is an excellent platform with a fast return on investment. I rate it a ten out of ten.

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. The tool requires knowledgeable people to manage it.

The CodeReady Workspaces should help reduce time to market if I use the CICD pipelines. That's what we aim for, and that's what the container platform is built for. That's something that goes without saying. We're using Red Hat Linux across the bank for servers. We will use quite a number of Red Hat products during our core banking deployment, including AMQ, Process Automation Manager, and a couple of other products that are bundled with OCP. The integration is something that is out of the stack. It's more of a middleware conversation and the middleware for us is an IPaaS. It's less about the stack and more about the application. I don't think there are any issues communicating via APIs. And the access management is pretty adequate. I can plug in any IM or document archival solutions. It's pretty easy to integrate. Red Hat, as a vendor, has shared ample information with us to help us make decisions. That is where a partner comes into play and we're pretty happy with Red Hat.

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.

I rate OpenShift eight out of 10. Red Hart is a good partner for the most part. Like anything, it depends on who you work with. Some people will regurgitate the documentation, while others will bring their experiences from other locations.

I give the solution a nine out of ten. Depending on how we deploy OpenStack it can be difficult to work with. If we have deployed OpenStack for a couple of years, we have to choose a different type of automation. If we're fully integrated, we have a lot of requirements to map making it hard to change everything to match the OpenShift standards, so we deploy in a user-based install. We have written down a lot of knowledge about how to run a container platform. Depending on how many clusters and how many teams we have involved in the cluster, we manage 11 OpenShift clusters with people. That's only possible when we completely automate. If we do everything by hand, we require a lot of people. If we don't automate the complete infrastructure in OpenShift, we require 11 people, one person per cluster. Currently, we run 11 clusters with four people. If you're starting a company and don't have a lot of knowledge in the industry, I would recommend using OpenShift. It will make your life much easier, as Red Hat is a big supporter of the platform and is willing to help build our infrastructure and applications.

I give the solution an eight out of ten. Red Hat as a partner helps create the platform we need but we pay for the support as part of the licensing, which is super expensive. Once we have the right technical person and solution architects, we have everything required to be successful. I'm very passionate about Kubernetes and spend a lot of my spare time contributing to the project. It's something that I find very natural, but for regular developers or administrators, it can be quite new. There's a lot of education necessary for people to understand what Kubernetes is and how it will revolutionize their work. One thing I've learned is that we can never document or spend enough time training the end users. End users include administrators and developers.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten because this solution has been able to adapt to our needs as we continue to innovate.

My company uses OpenShift currently, but it's still under RFP. OpenShift is deployed on-premises on a disconnected cluster for a financial institution. Some maintenance is required for OpenShift. Whenever there's a bug, my team does the maintenance, but there's still a need to check with RedHat support on how to fix the bug. My team can't do the maintenance without support from RedHat developers. Less than ten people use OpenShift within the company. I would recommend OpenShift to others because it's a good tool for the financial sector versus public clouds such as AWS and Azure. I'd also advice others that if it's a public cloud, it's easy to manage, but if it's on-premise, then it can't be managed. My rating for OpenShift is seven out of ten. My company is a customer of OpenShift.

It is an excellent product. There are a lot of items that will be good to have in there, but based on the comparison with others and based on the kind of use cases I have seen, I would rate it a 10 out of 10.

I would recommend that organizations pay a lot of attention to the initial design and setup of the solution to ensure that it is optimized for their needs, as it isn't easy to make changes once this is complete. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I rate OpenShift an eight out of ten.

OpenShift 4 is more convenient than 3 because it has better features, which is characteristic of OpenShift's update history. I would rate OpenShift as eight out of ten.

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.

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.

You have to understand what you're getting into and you have to be committed to upgrading it. There are some people in the world who say they'll never want to upgrade it again. With Kubernetes, if you're going to get into OpenShift, you have to "sign the bottom line," so to speak, that says, "I'm going to update it," because the Kubernetes world moves at a fast pace. In terms of container orchestration, we are totally OpenShift, but we use other Red Hat products like Linux and Tower. We do have standalone Linux machines that we manage, but we'll be migrating some of the applications from those standalone machines into the OpenShift container world. That's where the cost savings are.

We are in the phase of moving out of OpenShifh to cloud-native services of Microsoft Azure or Amazon AWS. If anybody is looking for a solution that can work on-premise as well as on the cloud and gives the flexibility of not tying the solution to the underlying platform, then OpenShift is one of the popular choices you can make. I rate OpenShift an eight out of ten.

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.

If you really need an application, meaning one million customers are going to use the application, then this platform will be quite significant. If you only have 10 or 20 or 100 users of an application, OpenShift is not the right choice. The cost is quite high. For that number of people, there is no need to run in a container platform. You need a large number of concurrent users accessing an application and then OpenShift provides the scalability. We have not considered building our own container platform because it's very tedious to manage the infrastructure and you need a highly skilled person who knows Kubernetes very well, and OpenShift very well. We don't have that kind of team or people with the skill sets. When it comes to security, we have the Prisma Cloud image scanning so that each and every image is scanned and we get a report regarding the kinds of vulnerabilities there are in particular images. That way, in case there are any vulnerabilities or critical patches that need to be applied to the images, they will be taken care of before going to production. In addition, we have used SonarQube for code scanning and Prometheus for monitoring. On top of that, there are security properties in OpenShift as well, such as user authentication, user level, access level. But at the image level, we need specialist software to scan the images and report the vulnerabilities. If an application requires additional security in terms of images and the packages, we configure Prisma Cloud in the CI/CD pipeline, so that at each stage it will scan and evaluate the software and report the vulnerabilities to the respective teams. When we are developing our application to deploy into OpenShift, it can be challenging to refactor the application or redo the application. It takes some time for the team to do that kind of infrastructure stuff at the coding level. We don't use OpenShift's CodeReady Workspaces because that is for new infrastructure, for people who are new to the OpenShift platform. We just use Docker images and deploy the application.

OpenShift is the way of the future. I would recommend it. I would rate OpenShift a nine out of ten. Not a ten because it's not a standard solution and the endpoint protection user has to prepare to use it with documentation or has to get training from other people. It's not easy to start because it's not like other solutions.

Developers maturity is a key point.