Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure Reviews

Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure is mainly used for customers' companies.

The features I find most valuable in Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure are mainly that it's dedicated to containerization, not virtualization.

Utilizing Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure's software-defined storage helps increase data consistency for specific use cases, aligning with customer requirements, depending on which type of data we are storing. The mainly capacity-based storage is not useful, and another solution such as object storage would be necessary.

Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure can be improved primarily because the biggest problem in Sri Lanka is its high price compared to other solutions. Feature-wise, it's very mature for the containerization side, but the price point is an issue.

I would like to see more features related to disaster recovery and continuity in Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure, specifically disaster recovery, disaster recovery sites, and business continuity.

I have been dealing with Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure for around four or five years.

Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure is definitely pretty stable and scalable. I'm only referring to containerization, not virtualization, and it's very stable.

The technical support by Red Hat is very good and very responsive.

Positive

Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure is not used for edge computing. Most people are referring to centralized data centers for requirements, and in Sri Lanka, there are not many edge computing solutions. Edge computing is not very popular in Sri Lanka.

My customers usually do not buy Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure from the AWS Marketplace since it is not very popular in Sri Lanka, although some customers are using it. On-premises solutions are preferred.

I usually recommend Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure because it's very mature technology-wise.

I rate Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure an eight out of ten.

Depending on the requirements of the consumers, Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure can be used for any application that can be deployed.

We have our own product deployed on this infrastructure.

I like the support and the updates. 

I like that you can add other types of services.

It should be more user-friendly, in my opinion.

We have been using Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure for three years.

Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure is a scalable product.

Red Hat provides technical support directly.

The installation is straightforward.

It is deployed by two teams.

It is a subscription-based service. Red Hat charges you a subscription fee.

I would recommend this solution depending on the use case.

I would rate Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure a seven out of ten.

It has storage and Hypervisor from Red Hat. It is used for computing and the virtualization workload for databases and other things.

It is stable and scalable.

The main issue is the initial investment. It is an expensive product, and it should be cheaper.

It should also be easier to use and manage. The professional service for this solution is quite complex and expensive.

I have been using this solution for more than two years.

It has good stability.

It is scalable.

Their technical support is amazing in general.

It isn't complex.

It is quite pricey.

I would not recommend this solution. There are a couple of other solutions that are easy to manage and install, and they are also not expensive. We plan to keep selling this solution, but we are not 100% sure.

I would rate Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure a four out of ten.

It was implemented in a solution center for our land environments. We had three x86 servers interconnected with 10 gigabytes network.

The consolidation of the management in one control point is the most valuable. The whole infrastructure management is consolidated in just one console point. The documentation is also pretty good.

It is not user-friendly, and it is very difficult to operate. You have to have a deep understanding of the technical details of the infrastructure to implement it. When you compare it with VMware, it is totally different because the graphical user interface is not that easy to understand. It is not intuitive. To use it, you have to read a lot of documentation and even understand what is going on behind the solution. It is not for someone who has a little bit of knowledge.

Currently, it is too complex. I need something that is easy to implement. It should have a basic configuration as well as a complex configuration.

I have recently started to use it. 

I cannot say about its stability because I only have experience in installing it.

Scalability should be good. You can increment the components for your installation. I don't have that much experience, but it seems to be good. My clients are small, medium, and large businesses.

I didn't use their technical support.

It was complex. In general, it took me two months but not just because of Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure. I also had some other issues.

Currently, we are using just three machines at our site, and I don't know if my company is using it at other sites or planning to increase its usage. It seems very complex to manage the infrastructure.

I would rate Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure a seven out of ten because of the implementation and integration issues.

We use this solution for verticals like banking, robo, oil and gas, retail — It could be pretty much anything. It encompasses the whole gamut of vertical solutions.

The cloud deployment could be improved. I also don't believe there is VDS support either. 

I have been using this solution for around six to eight months.

Both the scalability and stability of this solution are excellent.

Red Hat's customer support is excellent.

The initial setup was fairly straightforward; it's not super complicated.

Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure is an open-sourced, low-cost solution with full features.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of ten.

We use the solution as a part of our in-house use in our R&D department. We use it mainly as a desktop as a service.

The most useful feature is the solution's automation in terms of how we are able to spin up a certain workload in real-time when we are doing R&D.

The licensing policy needs to be improved. They have a licensing policy based on the number of CPU sockets. Nowadays what has happened is that the license they are trying to move is based on the number of CPU cores. With the advancement in technology there are now more cores in a single CPU. It's been very challenging in terms of managing the license around everything. Today we have a processor with 24 and 32 cores on the same physical CPU.

I would like to see the inter-operative ability of different hyper-converged platforms. For example, Nutanix came out with a VM platform where you would be able to manage a couple of workloads on the cloud as well. I would like to see the same from Red Hat where users could not only manage direct hyper-convergence from their end but at the same time have a couple of workloads on AWS, Azure, and/or Google. 

Seamless migration of one workload to another would be ideal.

I've been using the solution for a couple of years. 

The stability of the solution is good. We haven't experienced any bugs or glitches. We've been satisfied so far.

The scalability of the solution is good. We can scale up to a 32 or 64 load.

We have about 800 to 1,000 people in R&D using the solution. Mostly they are architects, programmers and virtualization engineers.

We often use technical support. We've been satisfied with their responses and their turnaround times.

We also use Zero Stack, which is an open stack platform. Zero Stack is a very simplified version of Red Hat. In Red Hat, you get a wider variety of choice and the stability is superior.

The initial setup is straightforward.

We had a very small cluster for the hyper-converged, so it took a few days to a week to deploy. We only had three or four nodes, and that was it. For us, it was quite simple.

We handled the implementation ourselves with the assistance of three experts within our organization.

We evaluated Zero Stack as well and we ultimately ended up using both in our organization.

We were using an app as well, which is built on OpenStack, so it was a cloud hyper-converged solution. However, we saw there were certain challenges in terms of scalability and that was an issue so we moved to Zero Stack, and then finally to the Red Hat. Zero Stack a year back got acquired or they closed down. Ultimately, all the staff left in December of 2018. We found it a huge challenge because we no longer had support, so we moved to the Red Hat almost a year later.

I have been using Red Hat and there is a small hyper-converged solution called Zero Stack which I also use.

We're in discussions with Red Hat in India to have some sort of enterprise agreement with them in the future.

I'd recommend Red Hat to others. I'd rate it nine out of ten.

We have a legacy application virtualized on top of the solution. It is our own product. We select what we want to run there. It is not possible to run all kinds of software because of the setup. We run a server application. For us, it is like a kind of small cloud.

The most valuable feature for us is the size. We have a small, compact model. It does not have any different separate management because management is built into our engine. Our product has its own problems because it has its own manager inside the cluster. That poses some limitations. It is also a problem. The size of the hardware is what we need because it is very good for small configurations. But this gives us three to six servers in principle.

This product is not so stable. Maybe it is just not mature enough in its development. When we upgrading from one version to another, there have been some hiccups. There have been a few times where upgraded features cause changes that make problems with existing implementation on the deployment side.

I'm not sure if I really need any new features in this product at this point. For us, it is a fixed solution. It's not a full-blown solution and doesn't need to be. It is not really a cloud product, but we use it like some kind of cloud in a box. It is very limited in our use case.

It has limited capability in general. You can not really have something like private security domains. Or there are so few servers that you can not really use the different kinds of applications you could with different physical servers. So you cannot select the kind of security that you can have on a cloud with separate layers.

We have worked with this product for a little under two years.

New features that seem to be small improvements have caused some hiccups after upgrades. As you upgrade from version 1.5 to 1.6, the new iterations of existing features should not cause changes to existing versions of that feature that create problems in operation. It is not like when you do a full version upgrade like from version 1.6 to 2.1. Bigger changes should be expected in full version upgrades and changes in existing features would be more acceptable and may be expected. 

Scalability for this product would be changing the storage size. They claim that the limit is quite high. We do not need storage for this solution at this point, so I cannot say from personal experience if it is really scalable. As far as I know, our setup does not scale up to more than 12 hosts, which is far beyond our needs. If our need gets bigger, then most likely we would use a totally different solution in the form of a real cloud solution. 

We have had some issues which take a longer time than expected for technical support to resolve, but generally, we have a quite good relationship with technical support. For some reason, Red Hat consults with us directly. We have some kind of preferred treatment.

Before this solution, we used to have a totally open-source solution that we used with our previous generation of products and that caused us some hiccups. It was free so there was no support. You were totally alone when you implement it and without commercial support that might help with problems that were encountered. The idea of making our change from the open-source to this solution is that we wanted to have some kind of commercial support when we needed it and a reliable product that worked. Of course, that costs something.

The initial setup is quite straightforward.

We are using consultants to work with us on the implementation. They are helping us out but we are the ones principally doing the implementation by ourselves.

My advice to those considering this solution is that they should get what they actually need. Red Hat is a big company and it is quite flexible in the kind of environment they support. There are other products we are aware of and tried, but they failed to support our application running on top of them. With the Red Hat KVM (Kernel-based Virtual Machine), we could play the tricks we needed to more easily to get our application to work. KVM was the key.

On a scale from one to ten where ten is the best, I would rate this product as maybe a seven. It is not bad, but it is not perfect.