Electronics Engineer at a consultancy with 1-10 employees
Real User
Top 20
2024-09-13T16:46:00Z
Sep 13, 2024
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.
The platform's documentation could be more comprehensive to cover the full spectrum of user needs. Sometimes, achieving specific goals is challenging due to a lack of detailed guidance.
There are some features regarding English and communication. This refers to external communication points to and from the OpenShift cluster. However, there are limitations due to the cluster's setup. There are configuration problem, but we managed to find a workaround. Now, we're waiting for Red Hat to address it as a patch. In the meantime, we're using the workaround and are somewhat satisfied. Dealing with just one issue was unexpected, but it did take longer.
QA Lead at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 20
2024-01-25T07:42:20Z
Jan 25, 2024
There are challenges related to additional security layers, connectivity compliance for endpoints, and integration. Additionally, it needs a little training to understand the process.
The solution encounters lengthier downtime issues for virtual upgrades. In this case, we have to opt for alternative upgrade strategies. This area needs improvement. Also, they should release its serverless version.
Lead Enterprise Architect at a financial services firm with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 20
2023-04-19T11:49:00Z
Apr 19, 2023
Room for improvement is around the offerings that come as a bundle with the container platform. The packaging of the platform should be done such that customers do not have to purchase additional licenses. They should partner with Jenkins. It goes without saying that I need Jenkins for my CICD. If Jenkins comes with support, that's good. But if there is a licensed product, I need to secure that license and then I will get support. Although the bundling with OCP is better than that offered by others, they can work more on it.
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.
One glaring flaw is how OpenShift handles operators. Sometimes operators are forced to go into a particular namespace. When you do that, OpenShift creates an installation plan for everything in that namespace. These operators may be completely separate from each other and have nothing to do with each other, but now they are tied at the hip. You can't upgrade one without upgrading all of them. That's a huge mistake and highly problematic. They shouldn't be linked together so that when you upgrade one, you must also upgrade the other. It doesn't make sense if they aren't related as operators.
The operators need a lot of improvement, with better integrations. What we see now is a move from traditional DevOps to GitOps. We use Argo CD for that, which provides a little more integration. It would be nice to have the same UI experience in the OpenShift console without having to log in on a third console.
There is no orchestration platform in OpenShift, but we do in Kubernetes. So, it'll be great to get an orchestration platform like Rancher or Kubernetes.
My team has found some bugs in OpenShift due to continuous integration, and this is an area for improvement in the platform. RedHat should fix the bugs. Another area for improvement in OpenShift is that upgrading clusters can be challenging, resulting in downtime. Application support also needs improvement in OpenShift because the platform doesn't support all applications in the cloud. I'd like upgraded storage in the next release of OpenShift, especially when I need to do a DR exercise. It would also be good if the platform allows mirroring with another cluster, or more portability in terms of moving applications to another cluster.
Head Of Infrastructure & Cloud ops at a comms service provider with 10,001+ employees
Real User
2022-09-14T10:05:28Z
Sep 14, 2022
One of the features that I've observed in Tanzu Mission Control is that I can manage multiple Kubernetes environments. For instance, one of my lines of business is using OpenShift OKD; another one wants to use Google Anthos, and somebody else wants to use VMware Tanzu. If I have to manage all these, Tanzu Mission Control is giving me the opportunity to completely manage all of my Kubernetes clusters, whereas, with OpenShift, I can only manage a particular area. I can't manage other Kubernetes clusters. I would like to have the option to manage all Kubernetes clusters with OpenShift. I would like to have self-service capability. A lot of developers want to become independent today, and they don't want to depend on the Infra teams for managing, provisioning, etc. If we can give a self-service capability, in terms of building a particular Kubernetes cluster end-to-end, to developers, that would be a plus. That's the ask of the hour.
Head of Architecture at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Real User
2022-08-01T13:44:00Z
Aug 1, 2022
We experienced issues around desktop security, which stopped us from implementing a new feature that had been developed. This needs to be improved in order to expand the usage of the product.
Head Of Department Digital Center of Excellence at Pegadaian
Real User
2022-07-29T18:11:17Z
Jul 29, 2022
OpenShift can improve monitoring. Sometimes there are issues. Additionally, the solution could benefit from protective tools if something was to happen in our network. In a new release of OpenShift, they should add Kibana, Grafana, and Elasticsearch.
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.
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.
The software-defined networking part of it caused us quite a bit of heartburn. We ran into a lot of problems with the difference between on-prem and cloud, where we had to make quite a number of modifications. That heartburn meant millions of dollars for us. That was a year ago and the product has matured since then. They've since resolved it, so it's not really an issue anymore. The storage part of it was also problematic. There were quite a few things that really hampered us. But it's much better now.
OpenShift could improve by providing the ability to integrate with public cloud platforms. This way we can easily use the services that these platforms offer. For instance, Amazon AWS. However, all the three major hyper-scalers solutions offer excellent DevOps and CI/CD tooling. If there was an easy way to integrate with them it would be beneficial. We need a way to easily integrate with the monitoring and dashboard services that they provide. Making use of features, such as serverless technology we easily integrate these services with OpenShift. It would be a win-win, because then you can choose the best of all the worlds, and then build your solution.
Executive Head of Department - M-PESA Tech at a comms service provider with 10,001+ employees
Real User
2022-01-26T12:05:00Z
Jan 26, 2022
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.
Infrastructure Architect at a government with 501-1,000 employees
Real User
2020-11-15T06:19:18Z
Nov 15, 2020
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.
Most of the configurations are command based. If we can have a GUI-based configuration with better flexibility then it will be great. You need to have in-depth technical knowledge of the platform to do any kind of application setup due to the complexity of configurations related to infrastructure, security, etc. Maybe in the future, we can get multi-cloud options such as GCP, Azure, etc.
TechOps Engineer - Middleware & Containers specialist at EBRC -European Business Reliance Centre
Real User
2018-04-02T10:24:00Z
Apr 2, 2018
We submitted over 25 requests for enhancement to Red Hat from the beginning of the OpenShift version 3.1, and they were implemented in the last version of the product 3.11. The main drawback was the upgrade from Openshift Enterprise 3.11 to Openshift Enterprise 4 up to now. But the new release Openshift Enterprise 4.2 add a way to migrate from old cluster to the new one easily based on Appranix solution. Namespaces with all data-protection mechanism is taken into account.
System Installation Solution Department Manager at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
MSP
2018-04-02T10:24:00Z
Apr 2, 2018
I think that OpenShift has too many commands for running services from the CLI, and the configuration files are a little complicated. This scares newbies from learning it. I hope that the OpenShift developers will improve this "dark side" of OpenShift.
OpenShift is Red Hat's Kubernetes platform that provides a cloud environment for development, hosting, and scaling applications. The solution enables a cloud-like experience regardless of the location where it has been deployed, including in the cloud, on premises, or at the edge. It allows developers to select where to build, deploy, and run applications through a consistent experience, supported by full-stack automated operations, and self-service provisioning.
OpenShift employs an open...
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.
The platform's documentation could be more comprehensive to cover the full spectrum of user needs. Sometimes, achieving specific goals is challenging due to a lack of detailed guidance.
There are some features regarding English and communication. This refers to external communication points to and from the OpenShift cluster. However, there are limitations due to the cluster's setup. There are configuration problem, but we managed to find a workaround. Now, we're waiting for Red Hat to address it as a patch. In the meantime, we're using the workaround and are somewhat satisfied. Dealing with just one issue was unexpected, but it did take longer.
There are challenges related to additional security layers, connectivity compliance for endpoints, and integration. Additionally, it needs a little training to understand the process.
The product’s integration with Windows containers and other third-party products needs improvement.
The solution encounters lengthier downtime issues for virtual upgrades. In this case, we have to opt for alternative upgrade strategies. This area needs improvement. Also, they should release its serverless version.
The tool lacks some features to make it compliant with Kubernetes.
Room for improvement is around the offerings that come as a bundle with the container platform. The packaging of the platform should be done such that customers do not have to purchase additional licenses. They should partner with Jenkins. It goes without saying that I need Jenkins for my CICD. If Jenkins comes with support, that's good. But if there is a licensed product, I need to secure that license and then I will get support. Although the bundling with OCP is better than that offered by others, they can work more on it.
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.
One glaring flaw is how OpenShift handles operators. Sometimes operators are forced to go into a particular namespace. When you do that, OpenShift creates an installation plan for everything in that namespace. These operators may be completely separate from each other and have nothing to do with each other, but now they are tied at the hip. You can't upgrade one without upgrading all of them. That's a huge mistake and highly problematic. They shouldn't be linked together so that when you upgrade one, you must also upgrade the other. It doesn't make sense if they aren't related as operators.
The operators need a lot of improvement, with better integrations. What we see now is a move from traditional DevOps to GitOps. We use Argo CD for that, which provides a little more integration. It would be nice to have the same UI experience in the OpenShift console without having to log in on a third console.
There is no orchestration platform in OpenShift, but we do in Kubernetes. So, it'll be great to get an orchestration platform like Rancher or Kubernetes.
My team has found some bugs in OpenShift due to continuous integration, and this is an area for improvement in the platform. RedHat should fix the bugs. Another area for improvement in OpenShift is that upgrading clusters can be challenging, resulting in downtime. Application support also needs improvement in OpenShift because the platform doesn't support all applications in the cloud. I'd like upgraded storage in the next release of OpenShift, especially when I need to do a DR exercise. It would also be good if the platform allows mirroring with another cluster, or more portability in terms of moving applications to another cluster.
One of the features that I've observed in Tanzu Mission Control is that I can manage multiple Kubernetes environments. For instance, one of my lines of business is using OpenShift OKD; another one wants to use Google Anthos, and somebody else wants to use VMware Tanzu. If I have to manage all these, Tanzu Mission Control is giving me the opportunity to completely manage all of my Kubernetes clusters, whereas, with OpenShift, I can only manage a particular area. I can't manage other Kubernetes clusters. I would like to have the option to manage all Kubernetes clusters with OpenShift. I would like to have self-service capability. A lot of developers want to become independent today, and they don't want to depend on the Infra teams for managing, provisioning, etc. If we can give a self-service capability, in terms of building a particular Kubernetes cluster end-to-end, to developers, that would be a plus. That's the ask of the hour.
We experienced issues around desktop security, which stopped us from implementing a new feature that had been developed. This needs to be improved in order to expand the usage of the product.
OpenShift can improve monitoring. Sometimes there are issues. Additionally, the solution could benefit from protective tools if something was to happen in our network. In a new release of OpenShift, they should add Kibana, Grafana, and Elasticsearch.
OpenShift's storage management could be better. In the next release, OpenShift should include a console for running scripts.
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.
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.
The software-defined networking part of it caused us quite a bit of heartburn. We ran into a lot of problems with the difference between on-prem and cloud, where we had to make quite a number of modifications. That heartburn meant millions of dollars for us. That was a year ago and the product has matured since then. They've since resolved it, so it's not really an issue anymore. The storage part of it was also problematic. There were quite a few things that really hampered us. But it's much better now.
OpenShift could improve by providing the ability to integrate with public cloud platforms. This way we can easily use the services that these platforms offer. For instance, Amazon AWS. However, all the three major hyper-scalers solutions offer excellent DevOps and CI/CD tooling. If there was an easy way to integrate with them it would be beneficial. We need a way to easily integrate with the monitoring and dashboard services that they provide. Making use of features, such as serverless technology we easily integrate these services with OpenShift. It would be a win-win, because then you can choose the best of all the worlds, and then build your solution.
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'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 don't really see any improvements that need to be done.
Most of the configurations are command based. If we can have a GUI-based configuration with better flexibility then it will be great. You need to have in-depth technical knowledge of the platform to do any kind of application setup due to the complexity of configurations related to infrastructure, security, etc. Maybe in the future, we can get multi-cloud options such as GCP, Azure, etc.
We submitted over 25 requests for enhancement to Red Hat from the beginning of the OpenShift version 3.1, and they were implemented in the last version of the product 3.11. The main drawback was the upgrade from Openshift Enterprise 3.11 to Openshift Enterprise 4 up to now. But the new release Openshift Enterprise 4.2 add a way to migrate from old cluster to the new one easily based on Appranix solution. Namespaces with all data-protection mechanism is taken into account.
I think that OpenShift has too many commands for running services from the CLI, and the configuration files are a little complicated. This scares newbies from learning it. I hope that the OpenShift developers will improve this "dark side" of OpenShift.