There is more work and effort needed for when many of the managed services are not accessible, especially in the security area. You have to do your own security setups as opposed to using a managed firewall.
The effectiveness is satisfactory, and there haven't been any additional fees due to meeting demands. However, there's room for improvement in pricing, performance, and stability. Regarding the UI, it could be more user-friendly and integrated with various platforms. Currently, the UI lacks user-friendliness, especially for developers unfamiliar with container technology. Expecting them to create YAML files for security purposes is unrealistic without proper guidance or experience. This aspect needs improvement.
There is room for improvement in cluster-based queue monitoring and autoscaling, which is not currently available. For example, it has a built-in queue but lacks the necessary mechanisms for clustering and autoscaling. Other containers have autoscaling features for service containers, but not for the queue part, and we do not have this feature in the cache. We expect these features to be available in the next release of Red Hat. There are around 100 people using this product in our company. Moreover, the maintenance is minimal because we have a small team of four to five people for maintenance and local support.
VP of Product Technology Department at IDC Corporate
Vendor
Top 20
2023-02-22T07:52:38Z
Feb 22, 2023
Kubernetes upgrades occur three or four times a year and that creates hassles for customers. Some customers need production stability so frequent upgrades cause too many interruptions. The general purpose solution tries to cater to too many customers so it is heavy. They should offer a light, out-of-the-box version with standardized installation for general customers who don't have many requirements. At one time, a version called MicroShift was supposed to be released but that never occurred.
UNIX & Storage Administrator at a financial services firm with 201-500 employees
Real User
2020-10-23T18:59:01Z
Oct 23, 2020
We had an issue where it was always getting interrupted for the services. We were not able to scale up the application, so we decided that a container platform was the but solution for us. Scalability is something that can be improved. The installation and configuration procedure should be simplified.
I more like a traditional Kubernetes compared with OpenShift. There's some function call or some commands that only work on the Red Hat systems. There needs to be more integration across systems. On Red Hat, some functions are polarized. The performance could be better. It's a bit slow right now. The solution is a paid service. It's not free. The solution isn't very straightforward for end-users. Technical support could be a bit better.
PaaS Clouds provide a strategic way to develop, run, and manage applications without dealing with infrastructure complexities. Offering scalability, developers focus on coding while platforms handle backend processes.Offering a highly flexible environment, PaaS Clouds allow developers to use pre-configured systems, minimizing setup time and speeding up the development process. They focus on delivering robust solutions suited for modern tech landscapes. Incorporating features like integrated...
There is more work and effort needed for when many of the managed services are not accessible, especially in the security area. You have to do your own security setups as opposed to using a managed firewall.
The effectiveness is satisfactory, and there haven't been any additional fees due to meeting demands. However, there's room for improvement in pricing, performance, and stability. Regarding the UI, it could be more user-friendly and integrated with various platforms. Currently, the UI lacks user-friendliness, especially for developers unfamiliar with container technology. Expecting them to create YAML files for security purposes is unrealistic without proper guidance or experience. This aspect needs improvement.
Making it even more cost-effective could be explored.
The service mesh integrations could improve the solution. A Terraform integration would be useful.
There is room for improvement in cluster-based queue monitoring and autoscaling, which is not currently available. For example, it has a built-in queue but lacks the necessary mechanisms for clustering and autoscaling. Other containers have autoscaling features for service containers, but not for the queue part, and we do not have this feature in the cache. We expect these features to be available in the next release of Red Hat. There are around 100 people using this product in our company. Moreover, the maintenance is minimal because we have a small team of four to five people for maintenance and local support.
Kubernetes upgrades occur three or four times a year and that creates hassles for customers. Some customers need production stability so frequent upgrades cause too many interruptions. The general purpose solution tries to cater to too many customers so it is heavy. They should offer a light, out-of-the-box version with standardized installation for general customers who don't have many requirements. At one time, a version called MicroShift was supposed to be released but that never occurred.
We had an issue where it was always getting interrupted for the services. We were not able to scale up the application, so we decided that a container platform was the but solution for us. Scalability is something that can be improved. The installation and configuration procedure should be simplified.
I more like a traditional Kubernetes compared with OpenShift. There's some function call or some commands that only work on the Red Hat systems. There needs to be more integration across systems. On Red Hat, some functions are polarized. The performance could be better. It's a bit slow right now. The solution is a paid service. It's not free. The solution isn't very straightforward for end-users. Technical support could be a bit better.