Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

We have a lot of Oracle databases, Tomcat, and Java microservices running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

A lot of our applications are like Java microservices. Deploying them on a Unix platform is so much easier. It's open-sourced and provides a lot of compatibility. It makes it easier for us to roll out applications. It is compatible with most Java microservices applications.

We like that Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a vendor-supported product. When we have problems, we just call Red Hat Enterprise Linux for support. The product employs a lot of automation tools to manage its OS. We love using Red Hat Satellite. We have close to 5000 servers. Managing individual servers would be a nightmare.

Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform and Red Hat Satellite help us automate our repetitive tasks. Every flavor of Linux distribution has its own specialties. The product offers a lot of integration within the Red Hat products suite. We use Red Hat products mostly, so it works for us.

The vendor keeps rolling out many packets, which complicates our job. We keep patching our servers. CVEs come out all the time. However, having a solid and secure OS will make our life much easier.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since 2004.

I never had any problem with support. I didn't have any issues that I did not get a resolution for. Sometimes, it takes a little bit of time, but eventually, it gets resolved.

Positive

I was using AIX, which is also an IBM product. IBM bought Red Hat Enterprise Linux. AIX was more expensive and required IBM System p. Moving to Red Hat Enterprise Linux was much easier because it is a lot more compatible with the regular hardware like HP and Dell that we buy on the market.

I have seen an improvement in our deployment. When we have applications running on Windows, it takes longer to get them set up and provisioned, and the security is different compared to Red Hat.

The pricing could be better. The tool is getting expensive. Before, we could license only the hypervisor where Red Hat Enterprise Linux is running. Now, if a customer has a 12-node hypervisor, Red Hat Enterprise Linux forces customers to license all 12, even though they use only six.

We evaluated SUSE. At that time, SUSE did not have good support. We needed good support worldwide.

We use AWS and Microsoft Azure as our cloud providers. We don't use the off-the-shelf product that we get from the cloud. We build around it because we have a standard template. When we deploy our solution in the cloud, all the security features we need are already within the OS, as opposed to using the cloud OS and applying all the changes we need. It's easier to get our template to the cloud and use it.

The licensing for the cloud environment is totally different than the on-premise one. We use the Virtual Datacenter license on-premises. I don't see any difference because Red Hat Enterprise Linux still supports it, whether on-premise or on the cloud.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux knows its product. Whenever I have an issue, an engineer gets assigned to me. I can always escalate if needed. We're not using every host that we license. We ensure that we can fail over smoothly on every single hypervisor. It's fair to license them. We're not using it, but we're still paying for it. I do not like it, but it is a business cost.

We migrate workloads to the cloud. I never upgrade an OS. I usually replace the old OS with a new OS and migrate the application. I use the OS versions 7, 8, and 9. The migration is pretty straightforward. AWS and Azure have a tool that we can use to integrate with our environment. It's a lift and shift. We grab the VM from our on-premise hypervisors and move it to the cloud.

We use Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform mostly for patching and upgrading to the next revisions. We don't upgrade from one OS to another. We build on a new OS and get all the applications running there. Once the application is running, we move all the workload from the old OS to the new OS. There's no impact on the existing system.

I don't do the day-to-day patching because we have a managed service. However, it does create interruption. When we do a patch, we have to reboot, especially when there's a kernel update. It causes an outage. I have used Red Hat Insights. It gives us insight into what's happening on every single Red Hat VM that we have. It tells us if it's behind or has some performance bottlenecks. It gives us visibility on the health of the whole OS.

People who are looking into the product must get a good account manager. We must have a good account manager who we can always contact and who gives us all the updates that we need. They keep us in the loop on what is happening in the Red Hat world. We are satisfied with the product.

Overall, I rate the tool a ten out of ten.

We have Ansible deployed on our Red Hat Enterprise Linux servers. We use it to manage the security of our fleet of Ubuntu virtual machines.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is way ahead of Ubuntu in terms of security and compliance. It is mainly the ecosystem of data science tools that our developers want that pushes us in that direction. As a security engineer, I have a lot more peace at night knowing that my Red Hat servers are doing a good job keeping our Ansible infrastructure safe because that has fingers into everything we do. It is pretty critical.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has not affected our system's uptime in any particularly noticeable way.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has not enabled us to achieve security standards certification because we do not have any yet. We will have them hopefully in the future.

There are some nice integrations with scanning for vulnerabilities. That is the feature I have enjoyed the most because I am a security person, and that is my bread and butter.

Ansible has certainly been a game-changer. It is a lot easier to keep a whole bunch of virtual machines consistent with each other and make a change consistently across all of them. We use them for data science activities. Our data scientists are constantly trying out new packages and downloading new tools. We have to enable them to have root access on their machines but also need to ensure that they are not doing anything stupid at the same time. There are competitors to Ansible, but we are a big Python shop, so it is a very comfortable environment for us.

The only issue we have had with it is around the SELinux configuration because the way Ansible installs, it sticks the platform passwords in a flat file. We want that locked down more strongly than what is there currently with SELinux. 

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for two years.

I would rate their support an eight out of ten.

Positive

Primarily, we have used Ubuntu. We have had some of our use cases on CentOS, and then, of course, our workstations are all Windows, but I wish they were not.

We chose Ansible, and that chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux for us.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the cloud. We have Azure because it is the corporate standard. We do not have any concerns about using Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the cloud. Obviously, everything in the cloud is more exposed than everything on-prem, but it has got good, sensible, and secure defaults built in, so there are no concerns there.

In terms of Red Hat Enterprise Linux upgrades, when we upgraded Ansible this fall, that pushed us from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8. It should be a little easier from now on. Now that we have made the big jump from the older Ansible to AAP, we will probably be upgrading the systems on a quarterly basis.

We probably have not yet seen an ROI. We purchased it a couple of years ago, but we have not had the time to put it to as much use as we wanted to put it to. The cost is low, so it would not take very long to reach a return on investment.

We have not made use of the Committed Spend.

For its use case, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a ten 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.

We run IT and telco workloads and applications on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helped us centralize development. We use a complete ecosystem of Red Hat for end-to-end development, deployment, and operations. 

Centralizing development is achieved as we have clearly defined platforms to host applications, like OpenShift. 

Additionally, the ACS on top of containers scans to ensure they are compliant, reducing vulnerabilities within our software.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides a standardized environment with Kubernetes and good support behind it. The end-to-end delivery for developing, testing, and deploying containers in the same ecosystem is a very valuable feature. 

The built-in security features are fine, we don't receive complaints about them.

One area for improvement is dealing with specifics developed by Red Hat Enterprise Linux that are now end of life. We have to remediate these changes, which is a disadvantage. 

Additionally, better comparisons between different stack providers in pricing and functionalities could help, especially since public clouds often appear less expensive during planning but are more costly in practice.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux personally since joining my company ten years ago. Within the company, it has been used for more than 20 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux performs quite well for business-critical applications. Although we have some outages, it's not unusual, and I cannot blame RHEL entirely for it.

Scaling Red Hat Enterprise Linux OS is smooth and without complaints. We are planning to widen its use by moving from OpenStack to bare metal according to Red Hat's roadmap.

The customer service rating varies at around an eight or nine out of ten.

Positive

They conducted tests with Ubuntu. That said, it was less expensive and not as stable or developed as Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

There is a return on investment since we can host our applications on top of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is quite expensive, yet the technical support, available roadmaps, and services justify the cost. We receive value for the price we pay, including technical support, which enables business continuity and compliance.

We evaluated Ubuntu, but it was less stable.

I would advise trying it out to see for yourself. Red Hat provides great technical support. That said, the pricing may need careful evaluation, especially when comparing with public cloud offerings.

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

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for file transfers and changing file permissions. It is also used to check file spaces and for migration purposes. Our tools are hosted on the Linux environment, and our agent services run on it.

We use Red Hat Linux to start and stop our agent services during migration, install new agents, and transfer files. The primary benefit is that it's a widely used open-source solution with good support. Now that we've migrated from CentOS to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we will realize some benefits. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has more features. 

I like Red Hat Enterprise Linux's clustering capabilities and high-level architecture. It has high availability, built-in disaster recovery, SSH features, and scripting. 

The documentation is excellent. Since it was acquired by IBM, the open-source tools and technologies hosted on the Linux environment have been updated with many new features. 

It would be great if Red Hat had its cloud instead of using AWS, Azure, or GCP. Red Hat Enterprise Linux should have a dedicated cloud. I would also like to see more Windows support. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux could also be more user-friendly and use AI or machine learning to automate processes. That is the most dynamic feature in the information technology industry.

I have used Red Hat for five years.

We have intermittent issues with stability, but we're hoping they will improve in the latest version.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is quite scalable. We can place a lot of agents on Linux servers, some on the cloud, and a few on-prem. It can handle the workload. 

I rate Red Hat support eight out of 10. We have communicated with Red Hat support via email. 

Positive

Before Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we used CentOS. Another Linux flavor I've used is Ubuntu. 

The first deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux had a learning curve, but I've learned a lot since then. Once you know the process, then it's straightforward. It uses a command-based process, but if it were based on a GUI or a console, like a Windows installer, that would be a significant improvement. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux requires some housekeeping. We have to restart and patch servers weekly or biweekly and check the CPU, memory size, file size, the database used, and whether the IP network protocols are defined. All this happens monthly, weekly, or fortnightly.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux eight out of 10. 

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to run Oracle Databases for CC&B and JDM. All the RHEL stuff is on-prem. The CC&B team manages the customer care and billing stuff, but we take care of the operating systems, and the application users manage the applications. We have 200 to 300 users on RHEL. 

We are missing random devices for patching and everything, and we don't have the Linux data license for that. If we had that, life would be much easier. Right now, we patch using Yum updates and we manually do configuration changes from our end.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux improves our security. On our end, we only use the console to reboot the server and apply security. We patch it completely if we have any security updates. Every quarter, we run a report using quality and whatever it was pulling. That's what we are patching. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux makes patching and scripting much easier, and it provides all the features I need for patching and VM updates. It's easy to apply Red Hat Enterprise Linux's built-in security features when it comes to simplifying risk reduction or maintaining compliance.

For phone support, we had to buy a license for all our servers, and it was a bit pricey for us. 

I have used RHEL for 21 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is highly stable. We've never had any problems or crashes. It's very smooth from our end.

It's easy to scale Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Right now, we're discussing what will happen a year from now, when we plan to increase our usage. 

I rate Red Hat customer service eight out of 10. Their knowledge base is fantastic. You can easily find whatever you need. Their support responds immediately, whereas we struggled with support from Oracle. 

We were using Oracle Linux, and I don't see much difference except the support. We were not getting good support from Oracle because it took too long whenever we opened a ticket. Oracle was also too expensive, and patching is much easier with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We were not looking for more features. Oracle Linux has a lot more packages than we need.

Setting up Red Hat Enterprise Linux was straightforward. You need at least two system admins to do so. Migrations and upgrades are also easy. Our main products are CC&B and JDM, with an Oracle database on the back end. We were highly satisfied with Red Hat Enterprise Linux for migrating all of those. We also have other solutions like SQL Server, which is on the Windows operating system.

Performance-wise, this Linux is better because you can ignore some packages if you don't need them. 

Oracle Linux is free, but we were having many other issues with it.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux nine out of 10. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very easy to install and manage. 

We are currently in the midst of a POC phase with a standalone cluster. This cluster consists of both coordinator and worker nodes, with a metadata store for storing various metadata. The entire setup is deployed on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8, and we have established a connection to the OpenShift UI.

While using it, we encountered far fewer complexities, and the entire process is much smoother and streamlined. For patching purposes, we simply need to communicate with our system administrator. They take care of the patching process, so we don't have to get involved and we can easily connect to the artifact repository and download the necessary artifacts to install in our system. 

We have a set of JSON files containing YAML configurations where all the required image details are documented and this setup makes it very straightforward for us.As for the Web Console, if you're talking about the user interface for tasks like creating ports, deploying applications, managing secrets, and other functions, I haven't encountered any significant issues. 

The process is generally straightforward and quick, taking just a few minutes. OpenShift offers two types of interfaces: one where you can edit YAML files for more advanced customization, and the other where you can use forms for faster deployment, though with fewer features.

Continuous improvement is essential to enhance user experiences and address evolving needs.

I have been working with it for approximately six months.

Our experience with its customer support is very good. Whenever we encounter any issues, we receive prompt and comprehensive assistance. There's no need to wait or take any additional steps to get the help we require, which is highly appreciated. I would rate it nine out of ten.

Positive

In the past, our work primarily involved Hadoop, and we also dealt with Solid Cloud for security and other purposes, but we found that this setup was slow and not open source. On the other hand, the DLP solution we're currently using is not only cost-effective but also significantly faster. 

I also used a Linux browser, specifically the KCL browser which required me to go through the process of installing packages and various components, while in the current setup, everything is seamlessly connected. We simply use the OC command with a private key to connect to OpenShift. There are no extra or additional steps required, making the whole process exceptionally fast and efficient. It's quite remarkable and makes the workflow truly hassle-free.

The initial setup was easy.

The deployment process is straightforward. I simply had to deploy the images using OC commands, and the process of connecting to OpenShift was remarkably fast and smooth.

Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.

The SAP solution subscriptions have made things a lot easier because it's a standard build. 

The solutions were premium and standard, which were not the same. They've combined those into just one standard version. Only the support hours are different. That is fantastic for us. It makes life easier.

For the standard subscriptions, in the past, updating the OS could increase your downtime. With the production ones, it did not. It got our non-production and production out of sync. Now, they've combined that all into one. It's just the support hours that are different. They're fantastic.

We use the SAP solution subscriptions only for SAP, which are great. 

We also use Ansible. Ansible is a wonderful tool for automation. We use it to automate our patching. We use Ansible to get playbooks to take care of anything that's manual.

We were able to achieve our security standard certifications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has affected our HA systems in a negative way. We're working through some of those issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 came up with a new feature that's like a MOM API in our cluster. It goes out into the AWS side and it needs to be adjusted. It does a retry that causes a cluster to failover pretty quickly, so we turned that feature off. That's something that could be improved. 

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for a long time. It has been at least 10 to 15 years.

Support has been great. We get the right people for what we need.

Positive

The patching has been good, but we scan with Qualys all the time. It comes up with thousands of EIDs all the time, but putting on the patches seems to resolve that.

We're operating right now from 7.9 to 8.6. We have to go with the supported versions. We did qualify for RHEL 9. 

We used Unix in the past. We did have to come up with the SAP side. It was always Unix.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.