Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are that I work at a university, and the infrastructure of the university is all based on open source, with the main operating system being Linux.

The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate the most is the scalability. Scalability has helped my company grow in general by allowing us to handle the inscriptions of students simultaneously. We have to subscribe to tens of thousands of students at the same time, and only with an operating system that has scalability can we accomplish this.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk, though I don't have specific numbers about this.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved in terms of applications to interact better with the operating system for monitoring, control, and a better administration interface, though I don't work in the technical department.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for four to five years.

The stability of the platform is very good.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my organization very effectively. During the time of company growth, we needed to scale the services and equipment that use the operating system, and it performed very effectively.

The customer service and technical support with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are very good. We have technical support in Brazil that's very good, and I don't have any complaints about this.

A long time ago, I considered other solutions before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I don't consider any other options anymore.

The deployment was very good. I liked hte process very much. 

I have only used one version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and have upgraded the operating system during its lifecycle. My experience upgrading it was very easy.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for me is the security, the scalability, and the integration with other platforms and tools.

While there is always room for improvement as there's no perfection, I would rate this solution nine out of ten.

I still have experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but I mainly work with SUSE Linux. The solutions are for on-premises deployments.

From what I have heard, my organization is going to use SUSE Linux as a standard. For Red Hat, the people who deal with servers have a few of them and are probably migrating them through VMware.

The part that my group deals with the most is SAP, and all that we have on them is SUSE Linux.

The main differences between Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and SUSE Linux may be in some commands. The heart is very similar with logical volume manager and other components, but there might be commands that change, such as command line interface commands that might change even when they perform the same thing.

I believe that the best features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include the interface with logical volume manager and file system management, since I work more with storage administration.

I used to deal more with Unix, and the way Unix performed things was better for me. For example, at the Linux level, all the partitioning is difficult for me in the way it uses certain terms, such as physical disk, when you call it SDB or SDBA.

From this perspective, I found this hard. I used to be more accustomed to Unix. However, they are very similar at this level with the device types and other components.

I believe that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved in areas such as monitoring, storage, and virtualization.

Everyone today is talking about virtualization and there is a need for it. There are many virtualization implementations, and everyone is moving toward that area.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for several years in total.

I assess the knowledge base for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as good. The documentation is nice and good, and it is available. The documents I have seen are self-explanatory, and the explanations are clear.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) support as good. I know it is good, but since we usually look at the documentation, I have not placed a request for an error or similar issue. I probably have not had the need to do that. I would rate it a nine or ten. In our case, I have not dealt so much with that part, as there has not been a need to request a patch or upgrade.

Positive

I personally have not used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Image Builder or Red Hat system roles. I know that some of the people who give us support do use them. I know it is helpful, but I do not have details about them because my group is dealing more with the hardware parts, such as HP physical servers and storage.

We are dealing more with that aspect.

I believe that the most important security features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include the standard ones, such as user and password authorization and read and write access, which are standard in Linux.

I believe that you probably want to use additional software. My company has many tools, and another team works with the security part. However, you probably need integration with that. The basic features that every Linux software has are standard and robust.

I would rate this review a nine out of ten overall.

The primary use case for our company is for deploying applications.

The most valuable aspect is for deploying applications.

The ease of use works well and is what I appreciate the most about the solution's most valuable features.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me to automate my process to mitigate downtime and workloads.

The solution has improved my organization, especially with the ease of deployment, as it's mostly just a better user experience for our users.

The challenges that we've had with different servers that don't have access to the internet require an installation, and keeping track of all the different versions on the different deployments is a challenge. I would love a feature that could manage the agent versions.

On the Ansible side, from what I've seen, there are certain templates and playbooks that can be used for specific use cases that I'd like to see in the next release.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for a couple of years.

The stability and reliability of this solution is very good.

In the environments that I work in, I've had no downtime, crashes, or performance issues.

It scales well with our growing needs and organization, and it's been pretty easy to spin up new servers as we require them.

The other users of the solution in my company are probably more on the operation side.

I think it would be suitable for a couple more roles.

I've been made aware of some of the latest announcements that were made today; for a large organization, it takes a while to get there, so we might not be able to realize those for another couple of years, but it seems there are new features that are coming out.

I'm not sure if there was one specific feature that stood out to me today; I'd have to look back at my notes, but it seems there's more functionality that's being offered.

I would rate this review a 9.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for our applications. I use it for many applications, especially SAP.

We install it on the server so that we can install our applications running on that server.

The benefits I get from this operating system are that it's secure, easy to use, and stable.

I find the clustering feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux the most useful. It helps us to cluster our application service to maintain high availability.

I access the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux through their websites. The knowledge base is helpful to me.

The Image Builder is easy to set up, and overall, it is helpful to me.

I recommend that they improve their virtualization product, specifically the management console.

Support should definitely be improved.

I do not have any complaints with the stability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux in multiple locations. We are using it in the IT industry.

I would rate their support a three out of ten. I find them slow to respond. The quality of support is not acceptable in the way they provide solutions.

Negative

I manage Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems by installing it from the disk, specifically from a CD-ROM. It requires maintenance from our side. We have 11 people for maintenance in the team.

I have not seen a return on investment since I started using it. The cost is a reason for that.

I find the cost of this solution expensive.

I would recommend not using Red Hat Enterprise Linux because there are better products out there. I prefer SUSE because of the cost and other features.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux as four out of ten.

The main use cases were certifying our product with this OS platform, installing our product on this platform, and identifying the challenges we face, such as memory leak issues or OS-level issues, such as some libraries not being supportive, permission-related issues, or glitches due to different folder structures because the paths vary from Windows. Developers mostly keep Windows in mind as they have Windows laptops for the development environment.

Most of the time, we only certify our product with this OS. We perform most of the operations related to that only, leaving very little chance to explore features. However, as I read the news and newsletter from the Red Hat side, there are a good number of features, such as server editions, that can be really helpful.

System roles are helpful because we can achieve security through them. This is a good feature, as we can restrict permissions and policies with their help. 

When interacting with terminals, most of the errors can be a bit complicated for humans to read. If they used more user-friendly error messages, it would help people understand quickly. 

There are also a few changes needed at the library level. Some libraries supported by others, such as Oracle, are not supported by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Especially in terms of Java, as now Java is with Oracle, if the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) system could align with those libraries, it would be helpful for end-users, eliminating the need to figure out which library is causing issues.

I have been working with Linux solutions for four to five years.

It is stable.

We create a ticket when we contact Red Hat support, but most of the time, we are able to find solutions through the community. The support is good from both Oracle and Red Hat. I would rate their support an eight out of ten.

I have tried Oracle Linux and SUSE Linux, and we've explored different versions. It depends on the customer's requirement and whatever platform the customer is comfortable with; we have to certify our product with that.

There are multiple factors that led to our decision to move to Linux: pricing is one of the biggest factors, then security because Linux is more secure than Windows. Performance is another reason since malware programs do not run directly on Linux. Additionally, the command prompt is always faster than GUI mode.

When it comes to learning, it's all about perception because most people carry their perceptions from their college days. If someone is new or a fresher joining the industry, they have their own perceptions in mind. They often feel comfortable with Windows because most colleges provide Windows machines, but once they get hands-on experience with Linux systems, they start preferring Linux over Windows.

I haven't seen many complications with the initial setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because whenever we provide a build or our product, we have a readme file with all the steps included. It's usually not that difficult. It's a couple of hours of work, and if any difficulties arise, it doesn't take long because we have a good community online to find solutions.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine out of ten.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is used within our organization to orchestrate a multitenant, microservice-based architecture. This supports a distributed system of predominantly web-based applications and frontends. A typical deployment involves around 60 to 70 Amazon EC2 instances working in concert.

The primary use cases involve running interconnected applications with requirements such as low latency and high availability, often achieved through redundant, multi-tenant, and load-balanced architectures. These applications may utilize read or write-optimized instances or be memory or processor-optimized, depending on their specific needs. Optimization is achieved through the processor, RAM, and connected protocols. The foundation for these applications is Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux facilitates seamless workload migration between diverse cloud environments and data centers. In DevOps, workload portability between cloud and data centers is crucial, so we prioritize operating systems supported by multiple cloud providers and available locally. Key considerations include stability, security hardening capabilities, and the ability to obtain government or compliance organization approvals, which are incredibly stringent in sectors like banking and securities exchange. Red Hat Enterprise Linux meets these requirements by providing a secure, reliable, and consistently delivered operating system that facilitates approvals and ensures seamless workload mobility.

Regarding Red Hat Enterprise Linux provisioning and patching, both processes are generally straightforward. Patching can be completed within a few hours. Once the automation pipelines are properly configured, tested, and operational, provisioning can be fully automated. This applies to any operating system, not just Red Hat. Setting up a correct pipeline ensures smooth provisioning regardless of the OS.

Implementing Red Hat Enterprise Linux has resulted in significant resource savings due to its efficient usage of minimal resources. Compared to other operating systems, Red Hat Enterprise Linux requires less RAM and CPU allocation, which translates to cost savings. Additionally, its stability and minimal downtime contribute to operational efficiency.

The Red Hat command line interface is more user-friendly than the Windows command line interface. Red Hat makes it easier to perform tasks like reviewing logs, checking network connectivity, checking DNS, and setting up a proxy. Additionally, searching for specific characters within numerous log files is simpler in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux instance compared to other operating systems.

The implementation and limitations of SELinux should be re-evaluated. Its current configuration presents numerous challenges and restricts certain functionalities, hindering the overall usability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Addressing these limitations would significantly enhance the operating system's flexibility and efficiency.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for six years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is almost perfect in terms of stability. It works consistently with minimal downtime and very few bugs or glitches, deserving a high rating for stability.

There are no issues with scalability when it comes to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It scales efficiently, fulfilling our needs without difficulty.

My experience contacting Red Hat technical support was positive, with knowledgeable and supportive staff, particularly during early hours. However, I found more detailed knowledge through community interactions on platforms like Stack Overflow.

Positive

Before adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux for production applications, other Linux operating systems like Ubuntu and Windows servers were used for monitoring and testing purposes. Red Hat Enterprise Linux became the choice for critical server applications.

The initial setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is straightforward. Once the images and database information are available, the automation process is simple and efficient, taking only a couple of hours to complete.

Using Red Hat Enterprise Linux can yield resource savings of 200 percent to 300 percent compared to Windows Server instances. Its minimal RAM and CPU usage allows for smaller instances, resulting in significant cost reductions.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a more cost-effective solution than Windows Servers. Windows Servers base their cost on the number of users and have high licensing fees, while Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers free versions alongside its paid, supported versions. This makes Red Hat Enterprise Linux a good option for startups and organizations with limited budgets. While the free versions may lack direct vendor support, the availability of paid support options and the robust Red Hat Enterprise Linux ecosystem provides flexibility for growing businesses. Additionally, the presence of compatible open-source alternatives further enhances cost-effectiveness and choice. Overall, Red Hat Enterprise Linux presents a compelling advantage in terms of cost compared to other operating systems, especially for nascent organizations.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux eight out of ten.

While Red Hat offers free license versions and CentOS provides a similar platform, the official Red Hat documentation may not be the most helpful resource. More valuable support can often be found in community-driven platforms like Stack Overflow, where users share their knowledge and experiences through questions and answers. This user-generated content often proves more practical and supportive than the official Red Hat resources.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is deployed in a multi-region configuration with three availability zones per region. Data is replicated from region one to region two, which serves as a read-only replica. Traffic is load-balanced across all availability zones within a region, ensuring automatic failover to the remaining zones in case of an outage. Similarly, if an entire region fails, traffic is redirected to the other available region. This setup provides high availability and disaster recovery capabilities. We have a couple of thousand users in our organization.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux requires periodic updates. To manage logs, a retrieval and deletion method is necessary, which can be achieved using built-in features like cron jobs. Red Hat supports these features. Additionally, security patches should be applied as they become available.

I recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux, particularly for enterprise implementation, due to its lightweight and secure design. Its robust community support and extensive availability of solutions in forums and unofficial resources make it preferable to other operating systems.

The solution is used for on-premises data centers. Multiple private data centers run workloads on VMware Cloud solutions, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux is deployed on critical systems. We use KVM virtualization technology to host various virtual machines on Red Hat Enterprise Linux that run workloads and applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux improved our compliance by working with third-party security providers, like CIS Enterprise Internet Security. It's a nonprofit organization that provides many security solutions and benchmarking for each operating system. CIS and Red Hat jointly developed a CIS-approved operating system. They work with various public cloud providers like App Engine, Google, and AWS to provide comprehensive CIS-approved images in Red Hat Enterprise Linux. 

The US federal government has already certified the OS for FIPS compliance. FIPS is the organization that designs cryptography algorithms for federal agencies, and they approved Red Hat Enterprise Linux. 

It takes some time to realize the benefits. Some customers cannot see a direct benefit because the licensing is a bit complex. In a huge enterprise environment, you could see an immediate effect, but a smaller or medium-sized organization may take a while to yield a return on investment.

The most significant advantage is that it is more stable and secure than other operating systems. Years ago, we worked on Windows-based systems with more challenges regarding patch management and vulnerabilities than Unix operating systems. We get more frequent patch releases from the vendor weekly, monthly, and quarterly. It also has strong security features, is OIS and FIPS certified, and has built-in Linux security configurations.

In addition to Linux's built-in security tools, it has Red Hat Enterprise Linux configuration features that provide robust security controls. We also have third-party solutions that provide more in-depth solutions for our cloud and on-premises infrastructure. We have to provide security at each layer of the OSI models. For example, on the application layer, we have to provide web solutions or application gateways, but it provides good security features for the OS layer. 

We use another Red Hat product called Ansible to automate patching tasks and infrastructure deployment. We don't have a large number of servers, so we manage patching and configuration through Ansible. For bigger deployments, they have solutions like Satellite, but we use Ansible. 

We use Image Builder to create a Golden Image for our CICD pipelines. We have a CIS-approved image that integrates their security controls for our automation tools and some of the ones specific to our organization. We added some of the controls from the Red Hat management framework that govern how an image should be created and what controls must be integrated into this base image. 

The web console is useful for people without Linux backgrounds who lack experience working with the command prompt. The web console helps them manage the system better without knowing all the commands.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux licensing is a bit complex. The solution operates on a subscription-based model, which may not provide immediate return on investment for small to medium-sized organizations. It also has a steep learning curve for employees unfamiliar with Linux, and it demands a skilled team or a dedicated service center to operate effectively.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux for about four to six years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers great stability and performance compared to other operating systems. It does not have issues with crashing or substantial downtime.

I rate Red Hat support seven out of 10. We have only opened one or two cases with technical support, but we've had good experiences. They respond immediately based on the SLA level. In the future, we plan to use Red Hat's OpenShift and Kubernetes solutions, so we expect to work with the support team more because we're new to those products. 

Red Hat's Knowledgebase is an excellent support resource. It stays updated about new things coming to our region and provides lots of articles about the products. It's a good starting point for troubleshooting without the need to call the support team. We use the knowledgebase to resolve issues as often as we can, but we contact support if we get stuck and can't find the solution. 

Neutral

We have physical systems running SUSE Linux and Windows, but we're gradually migrating them to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Some systems are running Solaris, and we haven't decided whether we'll migrate to Red Hat Enterprise Linux or other operating systems.

Our operations team takes care of migrations and installations. We're primarily responsible for business impact assessments and helping the operations team do a POC to determine the effect on the application environment. We consider the licensing and give the operations team approval to do the migrations and install the new operating system. 

The team consists of two or three people. We cannot migrate directly from one system to another. We simulate everything in the POC environment and perform migrations in the development environment using our in-house tools. They will check the source machines and find out what applications are running. It will assess them and look into the destination systems. Using some replication technology, it will do a direct synchronous verification between one storage to the other.

We need some downtime to complete the migration, and most of the data is stored in SAN storage. That is called a long migration. Once the operating systems and associated patches and applications have been migrated, we have to migrate them manually for the storage side.

The subscription-based pricing can be costly, particularly for smaller deployments. The more subscriptions you have, the easier it is to see a return on investment because it helps larger organizations more. It may be considered expensive compared to other solutions like CentOS or Ubuntu, which offer some of the same features without additional costs.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux eight out of 10. I recommend new users get some training on the platform because installations and migrations can be complex. Setting up clusters can be challenging for new users who don't have hands-on Linux experience without vendor assistance. 

The main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at the bank involve internal applications, as we do a lot of internal applications not exposed to clients.

From my perspective, the best features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) lie in its ease of use, especially compared to AIX, which has a lot of functionalities requiring extensive learning. It was easy for me to shift from AIX to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps manage our hybrid cloud environment, but being a bank, we are highly regulated internally, so there is limited direct involvement with the cloud environment in Royal Bank cloud, which is Azure.

One area I see for improvement in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is in the documentation. I encountered some scarcity when looking for information regarding structure, commands, and administrative tasks.

I have dealt with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for around 10 years, even when it was not part of IBM.

My opinion of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s scalability is that it was very easy.

I would rate Red Hat's customer service or technical support as a 10, as my experience with all IBM products, including Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), has been very satisfactory all the time.

Positive

The initial setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is straightforward compared to AIX, which is more convoluted.

I have experience with platforms like Linux, and I am also working deeply with MongoDB and Node.js, tools that I use constantly every single day.

I am familiar with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and here in RBC, we are a big IBM shop, currently using JBoss and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as part of our environment.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is used for both cloud-based solutions and on-premises.

From a business value perspective, the business folks do not notice much difference between Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and other distributions, as long as their application functions well, they are satisfied.

We utilize two cloud providers for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) solutions, mainly Azure and also Amazon. I cannot answer how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was purchased, but I know we have it on both Amazon and Azure.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine, as I find it satisfactory in various aspects.