Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud is known for its efficient transaction processing, robust Kubernetes orchestration, and seamless portability. It enhances application management and provides a versatile GUI for accessing resources on any cloud, aiding developers with a stable setup across platforms.
| Product | Mindshare (%) |
|---|---|
| Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud | 1.4% |
| Amazon AWS | 13.5% |
| Microsoft Azure | 12.4% |
| Other | 72.7% |
This offering supports continuous integration and deployment pipelines, integrating security checks with Fortify. The intuitive console allows for direct resource access, streamlining application management. Suitable for deploying workloads on public or private clouds, it handles middleware telecom transactions, digital application APIs, and manages microservices effectively. While appreciated for easy setup and stable performance, areas like autoscaling, performance, and pricing require enhancements for improved user experience.
What are the key features of Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud?Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud is widely implemented in industries focusing on telecom and digital applications. Companies deploy microservices for secure, cloud-based environments, leveraging Kubernetes for managing services effectively. It enables advanced cluster management and supports deployment of customer services on both IBM and Microsoft platforms.
| Author info | Rating | Review Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Chief Software Engineer at Totalsoft | 4.0 | I use OpenShift on IBM Financial Services Cloud for a secure environment, though Azure offers managed services that benefit my DevOps team. Improvement is needed in security management due to the lack of accessible managed services. |
| VP of Product Technology Department at IDC Corporate | 4.5 | Our company uses Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud to deploy services. Its robust Kubernetes orchestration is valuable. However, frequent updates disrupt stability. A lighter version could benefit customers with fewer requirements. Other providers aren't as comprehensive. |
| Cloud architect at Vodafone | 4.5 | We manage multiple projects using Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud, deploying over ten microservices seamlessly, although improvements are needed in UI and pricing. Our pipeline utilizes robust monitoring tools for security, aiding our team in understanding processes effectively. |
| Enterprise Archiect/ IBM & Redhat Business Development at Cancom | 4.0 | I use Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud for deploying applications on Kubernetes and managing DevOps pipelines. I value its workload versatility and CI/CD capabilities but believe there's room to improve cost-effectiveness. |
| Technology Manager at Publicis Sapient | 4.0 | I found the UI console of Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud very valuable as it allows us to receive resources directly. However, improvements in service mesh integrations and the addition of Terraform integration would be beneficial. |
| Solution Architect at Banglalink | 4.5 | We use Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud primarily for middleware telecom transactions and digital application APIs. Its transaction processing and autoscaling are valuable, though improvements in cluster-based queue monitoring and autoscaling are needed. We've seen a positive ROI with minimal maintenance effort. |
| Solution Manager at Supermicro Computer | 4.0 | I find the solution's Kubernetes and GUI excellent, stable, and easy to set up, scaling well for larger organizations. However, I think performance is slow, integration needs improvement, and technical support could be better, despite my 8/10 rating. |
| UNIX & Storage Administrator at a financial services firm with 201-500 employees | 3.0 | After six months, I stopped using this product due to complex setup, poor scalability, and disruptive frequent updates. While portable and low-cost, I cannot recommend it based on my negative experience. |
If you want to control a more secure environment, like an on-premises environment, I use OpenShift on IBM Financial Services Cloud but not on the public cloud.
OpenShift does have more secure features. Azure also has equivalent services. For my client, it was good enough to switch to Azure. For development, there wasn't any significant change in effort, however, for the DevOps team, it was a relief since Azure has managed services. We used elasticity and scalability all over.
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.
I have been using OpenShift for about a year or so.
I used elasticity and scalability all over.
I work with the IBM team. I had a dedicated team from IBM's side for this project.
Positive
I switched from the financial services cloud, which was stripped of all the managed services that IBM Public Cloud had.
I worked with a dedicated team from IBM on this project.
From a cost perspective, some cost-effective situations were more difficult to achieve in Azure than in OpenShift. Comparing them can be difficult since the financial services cloud had stripped managed services.
I would rate the solution around eight out of ten.
If you focus on security, you have to handle more work yourself and involve more specialists.
Our company uses the solution to deploy services for customers via the IBM cloud.
Communication can be built and deployed on any public or private cloud and that is a big advantage to customers.
The solution offers the most robust Kubernetes orchestration available.
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.
I have been using the solution for three years, including when I previously worked for IBM Red Hat.
The setup is not very difficult because everything is pretty much automated.
We implement the solution for customers.
The pricing is a little high in China. Customers who are value driven want automation so they appreciate the solution work with the vendor on a price agreement.
Some other providers have bigger packages. For example, Kubernetes offers a total package, compelling price, and bigger photo package. But their platform is not as good as the solution.
I rate the solution a nine out of ten.
We have several projects on IBM Cloud, one of which is using first-generation microservices. We used Microsoft services for some external tasks and have over ten microservices deployed on both IBM and Microsoft platforms. We manage our deployments using Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud. Our pipeline collects data from our packages, deploys them to Nexu's Artifactory, and then pushes them to our OpenShift Kubernetes cluster.
We involve many developers in our development workflow. We start by prioritizing tasks from our backlog in NetZero. These tasks are then created using Acronion. After completing tasks and code reviews, we merge pull requests. We have three different environments: testing, staging, and production. The deployment process, from Bitbucket to deployment on Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud is managed end-to-end.
Our pipeline integrates various monitoring tools like Fortify for security checks. Once the pipeline processes the code, the finished product is deployed on Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud. We ensure application setup and recovery by utilizing two separate clusters on OpenShift.
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.
I have been using Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud for the past 5 years.
The stability is perfect.
The scalability of Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud is excellent. It's easy to expand and satisfies my needs. I would rate it a solid ten out of ten.
Our team consists of five developers: one for Red Hat and the rest for tech support. I'm not sure about the size of our core IT team since I primarily focus on the development department within the solution department.
It took me a significant amount of time to understand and learn YAML files when I copied them from older ports. This learning curve is a challenge, especially for beginner developers and free users. As for workload management, we utilize replica sets for fault tolerance and security. We also employ middleware like Taff and sometimes Kubernetes patches. Overall, Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud has effectively supported our workflow management, both in personal and work environments.Learning Jenkins and OpenShift took a lot of time for me as a developer, especially transitioning from Java. It's challenging for beginners to grasp concepts like service route configurations. However, IBM's focus on Red Hat OpenShift helps developers adapt. Regarding deployment models, we deploy everything on the cloud; there's no on-prem deployment. Overall, Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud works perfectly for us.
Having a user-friendly interface is essential for all types of users to comprehend. We've categorized our users into testers, new developers, and others who may not fully understand everything. However, with a dashboard like OpenShift, it's easier for our team to grasp and learn what's happening.
If you aim for zero downtime and prioritize reliability and scalability, then having the best user experience is crucial.
Customers use it for various purposes, like deploying applications on Kubernetes, advanced cluster management, and managing DevOps pipelines. It can run different workloads.
In general, customers appreciate its ability to run different workloads, manage applications through CI/CD pipelines like Jenkins, and leverage tools like Helm charts and Kako.
Making it even more cost-effective could be explored.
I have been using this product for one year.
It's very stable, but there's always room for improvement.
I would rate the stability a nine out of ten.
It's highly scalable.
The customer service and support are very good. The support team is fast, responsive, and knowledgeable.
The initial setup is straightforward. It doesn't take much time.
The deployment is generally quick and straightforward.
I would rate the pricing an eight out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive. It is an enterprise-level application. It offers a lot of capabilities and a lot of tools. Think of it like this: if you have something like VS Code with tons of extensions, OpenShift is like a whole suite of powerful tools built-in. So, in terms of value for money, it's worth the investment.
It's a fast, scalable platform with good support and a friendly community.
Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. It's a great platform with room for improvement in pricing.
The solution can be deployed on a cloud, private or public, and hybrid methods.
The most valuable feature of Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud is the UI console. We are able to receive the resources from the console directly.
The service mesh integrations could improve the solution.
A Terraform integration would be useful.
I have been using Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud for approximately one year.
There have been some times when the platform was down.
I rate the stability of Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud a six out of ten.
We have millions of people using this solution. Our customers are enterprise-size.
I rate the scalability of Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud a seven out of ten.
The support is good.
I rate the support of Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud an eight out of ten.
Positive
The initial setup of the solution was complex.
The full initial deployment took approximately seven months.
I rate the initial setup of Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud a five out of ten.
We had a dedicated OCP team that worked on provisioning the resources. We worked on microservice architectures based on different project needs. Different teams were deployed to work on different projects.
To ensure smooth provisioning, it is crucial to establish your requirements clearly from the outset. This is particularly important for projects where deployments can be easily facilitated through Terraform integration. By being precise about your initial requirements, you can save significant time and avoid delays. In our case, for instance, it took around six to seven months to complete the initial deployment due to unclear infrastructure needs. A substantial amount of time was spent understanding the existing architecture. Therefore, having a clear understanding of what is needed upfront and approaching the solution accordingly can be highly beneficial.
I rate Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud an eight out of ten.
The solution does exactly what it says it does.
We use Red Hat for middleware telecom transactions and the APIs for digital applications. These are the main use cases for us.
Red Hat OpenShift has improved our deployment process and made it more efficient. The deployment mechanism has become more dynamic with the use of the product. The organization no longer has to wait for midnight to deploy, and they can do it anytime. This means there is no downtime, and they can autoscale whenever there is a surge in traffic.
We find the transaction processing system and autoscaling features of Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud to be the most valuable.
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.
We have been using Red Hat in our company for three years and we are using version 3.11.
I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. The product is stable. Our system is handling around 4,000 PPS transactions, which translates to around 32-35 million transactions per day, indicating that the system is able to handle a high volume of transactions.
The product is not dynamically scalable on the current VMware deployment. But it can be instantly scalable if moved to the cloud, such as IBM Cloud or OpenSec.
The deployment process is complex. But the performance is good.
We are satisfied with the technical support provided by Red Hat because we have a premium support package that includes 24/7 assistance. They prioritize support based on the severity of platform problems.
We have seen a positive increase in ROI. We have compared it to an earlier product and have seen a better benefit. The company's OpEx and CapEx have increased due to the expanded use of this product.
The pricing is reasonable. Our company has a discount with a global contract for the pricing, which is reasonable. The pricing is a yearly subscription for three years. There is another license available, but there are other costs only for storage and the financial team.
Overall, I would rate the product a nine out of ten. I like the Red Hat OpenShift platform because of features like the cluster mechanism and scaling. It allows for backup at any time.
The Kubernetes are the most valuable aspect of the solution.
The GUI on it is great. The customer likes OpenShift because of that. In North America, if you are not on Google, you will typically choose Red Hat. In Europe, that's another story. In any case, a lot of people will select Kubernetes.
The initial setup is easy.
The system is largely stable.
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.
I've been using the solution for more than two years at this point.
The stability of the solution is good. There aren't bugs. It's reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze.
The Kubernates scale well, more so that Open Shift. We have just one data center, which is maybe less than 1,000 machines.
We have less than 2,000 people in the company using the solution. Most people in the company either use it or indirectly benefit from it.
We barely have any interactions with technical support. In the past seven years, we may have only contacted them five times. We might ask for help if there's a bug in the program. That happens very rarely however as the solution is quite stable.
Typically their response is fair. Sometimes they help and sometimes they don't.
I found the initial setup to be very straightforward. It's not complex.
It only takes a few hours to deploy the solution. If you are familiar with it, it's pretty fast. However, if you are new to the solution, it may take a few days. That's normal, however.
The pricing should be less expensive.
I'm not sure of the exact pricing as it's not a part of the solution I deal with.
I'd warn companies that they need to be of a certain size in order to consider this as a viable solution. It's much more suited to larger organizations.
I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.
There are many issues that have been reported, so we made the decision to move to another solution.
The portability, moving from one platform to another, is easy.
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.
We used this product for almost six months before we had an issue and stopped using it.
They have been regularly released updates. Every year, they have perhaps four versions released. This means that we have to do application bouncing, which is a big problem for the customers.
The technical support is good.
The initial setup is complex. When we first implemented it, we wanted the partners to do it. However, they were not able to complete it because of the complexity.
It took around three weeks to deploy.
We had some assistance from the partners.
This product is not costly when compared to other vendors.
At this point, I cannot recommend this to other users because of the experience that we have had. If they were to finalize this product and stop the frequent releases the new would give it another try. Some of the other products are much more expensive.
I would rate this solution a six out of ten.
