Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

The company that I worked for that employed RHEL was a PACS (Picture Archiving and Communication System - think of an image repository for x-ray, CAT scan, MRI, etc., that allowed radiologists to read the images and report on their findings). Our software was a FDA-certified medical "device," based on an open-source DICOM toolkit. We had a custom repository that served up our packages. We needed a stable, supported version of Linux since we would have to get FDA certification for each major version upgrade.

Enterprise support is available for our customers. Pre-RHEL, I used Red Hat desktop for personal PC.

Support.

Rarely were there stability issues. We regularly had servers running for three years without reboot.

Yes, there were scalability issues, but I blame that more on my employer than on Red Hat.

Support seemed to be great for day-to-day issues that our customers would experience (the customer would engage Red Hat support and escalate to me if there was no resolution). I only had to engage support once for an escalated issue and their support team tried to pass the blame onto our Hypervisor vendor, when it was indeed an issue with a Red Hat package.

I have used lots of flavors of Linux going back to 1995. Enterprise support was the reason Red Hat was selected.

Easy. Used Kickstart to automate installation and post install config.

 I was an engineer, never discussed pricing.

CentOS, Slack, Ubuntu, Arch, LFS.

My advice: Kickstart is your friend.

Red Hat is mission critical to our environment.

Red Hat has improved the mission critical environments running Oracle databases, while CentOS has improved our web environment and MySQL.

Oracle and SAP Environment and all HPC environments.

10 years

No issues

Very stable i don´t find any problem we have many environment using redhat since first version.

Not encountered problem with scalability

The customer service is good and all problem was solved, i dont have any problem

Very good

We have many kinds of the linux version on the all environment but to HPC environment we use Redhat but all another versions work very well

I work with the two scenario

The licensing valor is too high and must be improved

Red Hat is similar to CentOS, except that CentOS doesn't offer to support certain solutions, such as Oracle.

Stable Linux OS. The stability of the OS is very important for the computer system. Unstable means you never know when it will crash or fail while your valuable data and business applications are running.

It's an open source solution.

Many areas in version 5 are obsolete such as filesystem ext2, ext3, while the new versions (v.6, 7) support ext4, Btrfs, ZFS, etc.

10 years.

No.

No.

No technical support.

No.

No.

No more support and licensing.

No.

Absolutely rock solid performance, security, stability and reliability, essential features for a business that needs to mission critical applications in a 24 x 7 environment.

Plethora of useful tools and services that just make getting the job done a lot less time consuming.

RedHat Enterprise Linux has been running mission critical systems in my organization now for nearly 8 years, in a 24 x 7 environment.

During this time we have never, ever had any of our servers fail to function as needed.

Red Hat Linux has given us five nines (99.999%) uptime for years.

I have been using Linux in various forms for 10+ years

Mainly just the usual issues one will encounter whilst learning the platform, working out the best way to deploy and configure the servers, other than that though, the actual deployments were very straight-forward.

None, our RHEL servers have been rock solid.

No, we have RHEL servers of varying capacities and workloads, so far it's taken everything we can throw at it.

The technical support subscription is absolutely worth while if you need to use RHEL in production, knowing you can get support if you need it is comforting.

I've lodged a few support tickets over the years and always had prompt, informative responses, I would rate their support as being excellent.

We were using an earlier version of HP UX running on PA-RISC architecture, however we became concerned about the cost of remaining on the PA-RISC HP UX platform and possible future issues at virtualization.

When setting up any Linux environment, make sure you understand how the LVM works. Other than that it was all fairly straight-forward.

It was implemented in-house.

The uptime and reliability are the main ROI's, the product is also very competitively priced RE: Licensing, so many thousands of dollars in licensing costs alone.

The ROI on 10 years of rock solid reliability is almost impossible to calculate.

In Australia, you need to go through a channel partner, shop around and find a good partner that understands the licensing model well.

We evaluated HP UX 11.23, which we had been using before hand. However HP (at the time) had not delivered an x86 port of HP UX at the time when we were going to virtualization, so we needed an alternative to HP UX as we could not move into onto VMWare.

RHEL ticked all the boxes and was support by our technology provider.

Well worth a look if you want supported enterprise Linux.

We use this solution as our operating system.

The security, ongoing support, and ease of taking a system and getting authorization from a government agency have helped the way our organization functions.

The built-in security features support certain security standards such as encryption. It is simpler to meet FIPS 140 encryption requirements such as the ATOs.

The ease of use of this solution has been most valuable. 

The cost of this solution could be improved. 

I have been using this solution for two years. 

This is a stable solution.

We previously used Linux. Red Hat meets our needs more comprehensively.

Our main ROI is in the ability to readily get ATOs.

For somebody familiar with the Linux platform, it is not difficult to troubleshoot when using this solution.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten. 

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux on-premises and in the cloud.

We are able to easily move workloads between the cloud and our data center using Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps us avoid cloud vendor lock-in.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has helped save us costs.

The frequent updates are valuable.

The training documentation requires revision. The numerous links to different pages disrupt the flow of information and make it difficult to maintain focus.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable.

The technical support is good, but they need to work on their response time.

Neutral

We previously used Windows and switched to Red Hat Enterprise Linux for flexibility and support.

The price for Red Hat Enterprise Linux is reasonable.

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

We have around 20 Red Hat Enterprise Linux users in our organization.

We use Red Hate Enterprise Linux in our infrastructure, which consists of VM and Linux. We use it to create clusters. 

I would like to see the GNOME system monitor feature, which shows CPU usage and other aspects. It will help to save time. 

I have been working with Red Hate Enterprise Linux for eight years. 

We have a separate team that handles any issues. We inform them whenever we encounter issues. 

I would like to see user training sessions that last about one to two hours on new features and releases. 

We have a separate team that creates dashboards for us. I rate the product a seven out of ten. 

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for its specific security features.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has specific security checks that are beneficial. We follow its support and it helps with security verification.

The security features are the most valuable. The long-term support for weekends is also beneficial.

Risks, for example, specific to Linux, need improvements.

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