Mirantis Container Cloud Reviews

We use the product for deployment purposes.

The product's most valuable feature is cloud simulation to predict application behavior on the cloud. It helps us with setting images and deploying them without a need to certify applications in the Kubernetes environment. We can work in a cloud-managed environment. It allows us to focus on testing properly.

There could be an automation feature included in the product. It will speed up application processes and will not require scripting codes.

We have been using Docker Enterprise for a year.

I rate the product's stability an eight out of ten. I have never had any stability issues.

The platform's scalability depends on the availability of resources. It is highly scalable if there is enough memory or storage space. A team of four to five executives from the CACD team uses Mirantis Container Cloud in our organization. They support all the deployments conducted by the rest of our engineers.

The initial setup is easy and takes a day to complete. The process involves downloading an executable profile, which is available online, and then executing it on the machine. It requires following guidelines from the CACD team for setting up applications.

I highly recommend Mirantis Container Cloud and rate it an eight out of ten. It is a good starting point for organizations adopting containerization and Kubernetes.

We use the solution for containerization and link Kubernetes to the Container.

The solution is simple and faster.

The solution is easy to use and difficult to understand. There are many courses available since it is difficult and has many things. Only experts can use it.

I have been using Mirantis Container Cloud for six months.

There were no issues with the solution.

I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

We use the application to monitor and orchestrate any applications and workloads.

I rate the solution’s scalability a ten out of ten.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I'm working for cybersecurity, so there are some thread data pipelines where we have data processing and then the pipelines are built and being containerized and then exported to the pipelines.

We're using version 20.10.11. It's deployed on a private cloud.

There are more than 20 people using this solution in my organization. We are all data engineers, and our managers are also from the same background. There are also machine learning engineers using this solution.

Before using this solution, we didn't have any kind of platform. This solution allows us to run anything and then post it like a single file. 

The solution as a whole serves a very good purpose.

The UI is very useful. We can look at all the remote repositories of the images and the volumes and containers. It shows all the images along with the total size. There is a huge difference by looking into the terminal and the UI.

An improvement would be automated testing.

I've been using this solution for three months.

The stability is good. We had a few issues before in terms of just running an application and explaining to the other teams and stuff. Because of this application, it's easier for the DevOps engineer. 

We don't need to dig around to know what is happening. We just run the container and put it in the pipeline and then it runs.

We haven't raised any tickets yet. We have a particular infrastructure team, and that team helps us.

It's pretty straightforward. It was easy to install on Windows rather than on a MacBook. On the MacBook, it was a little difficult, probably because of the version that my company is using. We had a little bit of confusion with that.

Everything was done onsite.

I would rate setup 4 out of 5.

I would rate this solution 9 out of 10.

It's a very good application. You don't need to do anything. Just deploy it, run it, and then it does all the work by itself. It's a piece of cake for someone new. If I'm a DevOps engineer, I don't need to worry about anything. I just have to run a command and it shows the errors. Then, I pass it to the other team and they look into it.

It's easy and straightforward to do the deployments. Before, we had to do the manual container when it comes to deployment. Now, you just make an image and then run it by using the commands.

My experience with Docker is in helping to provide solutions for my clients. Specifically, this involves continuous integration and continuous deployment for my clients' workflow.

We are using Docker for a client that we currently have in India. They are building a solution for the medical industry. Docker is very helpful for taking the code from development and applying it to the end user.

The most important thing that my clients focus on is rapid deployment. In this regard, Docker wins hands-down.

It would be very nice to have a GUI that can be used by any administrator, and not just people who have experience with Docker.

The stability of this solution is perfect. Five stars.

This solution scales very well, and it can be scaled to the entire infrastructure when required.

Three of my clients are currently using Docker, and all of them are involved in software development. One of my clients is in the process of scaling up, moving from ten to one hundred and fifty developers within the next six months.

The documentation for this solution is excellent. So far, all of the problems that I have faced have been solved by looking at the documentation.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

The setup was very straightforward. I just followed the documentation on the Docker website, and it went smoothly.

Implementation for the client was not very big. It was eight to ten developers, and it took between one and two days to complete. The most important thing on our end was to get our client's infrastructure up and running with Docker.

One person can handle the deployment and maintenance of this solution.

We implement this solution for our clients using our in-house team.

I am using the community edition, rather than the enterprise edition because I am operating on a very small scale at the moment. The community edition does not require a license and is completely free.

We did not evaluate options other than Docker.

My advice to anybody who is implementing this solution is to read the documentation very carefully. That can give a lot of relief when the client needs a solution.

If Docker had a graphical user interface then it would be a perfect solution.

I would rate this solution and eight out of ten.

I use the solution in my company since we have some in-house applications, and to spin up those applications, we use Docker Enterprise.

The most valuable features of the solution are its fairly good UI design and its ability to let users view logs.

Though I am unsure, I feel that the product lacks to offer a proper health status of the images which are running, making it an area where improvements are required.

I have been using Mirantis Container Cloud for six months. I work with the tool's desktop version. I am just a user of the tool.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

Around 20 people in my company use the product.

The solution offers a good online community that offers users the option to ask questions related to the product and get answers to troubleshoot the issues.

The product's initial setup phase is simple.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

I rate the product price an eight on a scale of one to ten, where one means low price and ten means high price.

Maybe the other people in my company's environment might be using Doctor Enterprise to manage multi-cloud Kubernetes environments, but I don't use it for that.

The product optimizes and makes DevOps workflow better since it spins up images very fast, and it is a good thing that I have seen in the tool. It is easy to manage which Docker needs to be run and which one needs to be stopped, and it is an area where I use the product the most.

I don't use the tool's centralized management console. I use it individually.

I use the single dashboard option provided by the tool, and if I need to be helpful.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it.

I rate the tool a ten out of ten.

The most valuable feature of Docker is by far is creating your own image. By creating your own image, you can have an environment for whatever you are working on that is exactly how you want it.

The idea that you can create a machine this quickly, use it, destroy it if you want, build upon it, take things out, and rebuild very quickly is very useful.

For example, you could add a command that installs a certain tool to your Dockerfile and build that image. Your image now has that tool. If you want to get rid of that tool, you just get rid of the line from the Dockerfile, rebuild the image, and it’s like you never installed that tool.

It gives you a feeling of complete control. By comparison, doing the same thing with something like Vagrant would take a lot of time. With Docker, building an image is so fast that it’s practically disposable.

Docker has allowed me to have pre-defined working environments that can be moved to the cloud and I know they will be exactly the same. Something can be deployed to the cloud, but the overhead of running a virtual machine is wasteful. This is especially the case since on most clouds, an account is already contained by a virtual machine. Running a virtual machine within a virtual machine is possible, but not ideal.

Docker is already aware of how faulty their file system volume mounting technology is on the Mac. I see that they are making improvements in that area, but there is still a long way to go.

On the Mac, Docker is far from perfect. The program has issues communicating with the file system and receiving events. As a result, Docker’s volume features are very slow on the Mac. However, there is a workaround called Docker-sync. Docker sync goes around Docker’s weak volume support on the Mac by syncing files through the network using unison and rsync. Still, I would only give Docker a 10 if their volume experience were as good on the Mac as it is on Linux. I have used this product in a Mac environment as well as Linux.

I have been using Docker since November, 2016. I started using it to see what all the talk was about. The initial learning curve was somewhat steep. What Docker does is simple. However, understanding what Docker does is important and not obvious. That’s why I took Lynda’s course on Docker. This course gave me a good practical understanding of Docker. After understanding the basics, the documentation actually became useful to read.

In my experience, Docker has been very stable.

There have been no scalability issues. As a matter of fact, Docker itself can be used to help you scale up by allowing you to create a new environment quickly when you need more power, or if you want to deliver an instance closer to a customer.

In term of technical support, the Docker community is very helpful and active. There are already a lot of answers to common questions on stack overflow.

I previously used Vagrant. I switched because of Docker’s speed, ease of creating images, and its low overhead.

The initial setup of Docker on the Mac is simple. There is a very friendly GUI installer. If you already have Homebrew installed, you can simply run “brew cask install docker”.

Installing Docker on Linux is a different story, since the versions supported by the default package manager sources are out of date. It’s necessary to follow somewhat lengthy instructions from Docker’s website.

The Docker community edition is free. I don’t have any experience with their paid versions. I have not felt the need to upgrade.

I tried Docker because there was a bit of hype around it. I had been using Vagrant. I did not know about things like LXD before starting to experiment with Docker. If anything, I have learned about alternative container technologies that I might evaluate later.

I think that Docker is the best among its peers. Creating, downloading, uploading, and sharing images is faster than doing the same on something like Vagrant.

When using Docker on the Mac, I only used it to create a local development environment. I also have a Docker installation running in production on a production environment being used as the backend for an iOS app.

I would advise people to take the Lynda course on Docker. In my experience, the documentation only becomes useful after understanding the basics and the general idea.

I am using this as a lab costing application. It is pretty fast.

You can easily deploy it in different platforms and cloud providers. You are actually deploying container to container. 

The commissioning is very fast. 

I think this solution needs better security due to rising threats from the outside world. 

The product is stable. 

I am not scaling it very much at this time. I only have about 20 users at present. The roles of the users are information users, managers and middle managers.

The tech support is pretty good. 

It was straightforward for us. 

The pricing and licensing really depends on what your needs are. You could be paying $100 a month to $100,000. It depends on the needs you have from the solution, and the agreement you make.

This solution has cut down on our development time and allows us to spin off new instances for inner development, testing, productions, and security testing.

Areas for improvement are the privacy of container management and the documentation. In the next release, I would like to see best practices on how to manage distributed containers and networks.

I've been using this solution for about five years.

This solution is pretty much stable.

This solution is extremely scalable - we are able to spin off multiple instances very rapidly.

Initial setup was extremely simple and was done in minutes.

I implemented through an in-house team.

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.