Red Hat OpenShift Reviews

OpenShift as a solution is quite broad depending on the industry you are applying it to. For example, telco companies use the entire breadth of applications that the client wants from the web to their middle tier up to the back end. 

OpenShift is a platform for ensuring that your apps are running reliably. 

OpenShift has 100% compatibility with Kubernetes. I find using kubectl, and kubectl commands to be valuable.

The security features of OpenShift are strong when in use of role-based access. The solution is easily compatible with other solutions and the features are easily installed.

OpenShift could be improved if it were more accessible for smaller budgets. I currently mostly use Raspberry Pi, which will be over to use Kubernetes. As a platform, I am using Raspberry Pi rather than using a very large configuration computer. 

The solution requires eight or more cores of CPUs, multiplied over the number of nodes needed to make OpenShift reliable, making it susceptible to failures.

In the future, I would like to see a roadmap to have Wasm supported. If you have WebAssembly as an alternative to Docker, it would be great.

I have been learning how to use OpenShift for years, but actively using it for six months.

The solution is stable. We haven't experienced downtime. 

OpenShift is easy to scale. You just need to make sure you have the capacity to purchase and the number of nodes needed. Scalability only depends on your budget.

Currently, they are more than 10 users of OpenShift in the organization.

Technical support has been efficient, supportive, and communicative. They do not drop the ball. I would rate the customer service and support of OpenShift a five out of five. 

Previously, I had experience with VMware's Kubernetes version. VMware was very difficult to install. I could not understand the route they were taking and why there were so many steps. 

The initial setup of OpenShift is straightforward if you are an experienced platform engineer. Installing on AWS or Azure could be more complex. The product has a Terraform command to install everything.

If all of the tools that are needed and all the hardware is there, the implementation should be straightforward. I would rate the initial setup a four out of five overall.

Pricing of OpenShift depends on the number of nodes and who is hosting it. OpenShift is more expensive than other solutions, however, I think it is worth it.

Anyone looking to implement OpenShift in their organization should start with the most minimal setup for configuration. There is an OpenShift version with just the single master with a built-in worker. You will only need a single CPU and you can start with at least three masters and a single worker and scale from there as the need arises, whether it is to add additional worker nodes or as your app grows.

There is no product that compares to OpenShift. I would rate it a 10 out of 10 overall.

We are not using it for our core banking or any critical application. It's just for our remediation services. We have an ITSM tool, which is running on that, et cetera.

The support is very strong in Turkey. We are very happy with its capabilities. The steps are easy in terms of usage.

We need some kind of a multi-cluster management solution from the Red Hat site. With that, we have got some problems; however, right now, we can manage to run the solution without any problems.

The stability has been good. We haven’t had any real issues up to this point. It’s been reliable, and the performance has been good.

The scalability is fine. We haven’t had any problems in that regard.

The main reason that we chose OpenShift rather than Azure or AWS was the scalability. It’s the best one on the market.

We have gotten both local and international support from Red Hat company, so we are covered. We are satisfied with the solution’s support in general.

There isn’t really any initial setup to worry about.

I don’t have any information about the licensing costs or the process.

I’d rate the solution eight out of ten.

It's both very easy to start and learn and to improve yourself to manage Kubernetes environments. It’s very portable. You can easily switch from this product to another if you want. It's not like that with other products. For example, if you have an Azure solution, it's not that easy to port everything over.

Our company uses it as a platform as a service. We have business units with developers who deploy their containerized applications in OpenShift. We have a team that supports the infrastructure of clusters all over the world. We run thousands of applications on it.

It's deployed on-prem and in the cloud.

One benefit is that it provides you with the flexibility and efficiency of cloud-native stacks while enabling you to meet regulatory constraints. They have a catalog of the ratings of the base images that we use to build our containers. We reference that to show our security team that an application we're building has passed the security with vulnerabilities that are acceptable. We won't deploy it if something is not unacceptable.

In terms of our organization, the business units are able to deploy changes to the code rapidly. They can test it on the test cluster and, once it's tested, they can deploy an image in seconds. It has saved us time. Our guys are continuing to move to the OpenShift platform from whatever they were on, whether it was a mainframe or a standalone machine. And they're doing that for the cost savings.

In addition, a perfect example of the solution's automated processes and their effect on development time is the source-to-image feature. The developer can use that tool to improve his code's quality and it saves him some time. He doesn't have to understand the specifics of building a container.

There is also an advantage due to the solution's CodeReady Workspaces. That definitely helps reduce project onboarding time. There are prebuilt packages that they use. We have a lot of Java and some .NET and Python and the CodeReady packages help. Conservatively, that feature has reduced onboarding time by 50 percent. It also helps reduce the time to market by about the same amount.

Overall, Red Hat is a handy tool to have, like an electric screwdriver instead of a manual one. We don't have to write things manually. We can use what they've already written to make us more productive.

The developers seem to like the source-to-image feature. That makes it easy for them to deploy an application from code into containers, so they don't have to think about things. They take it straight from their code into a containerized application. If you don't have OpenShift, you have to build the container and then deploy the container to, say, EKS or something like that. It's a little different.

In terms of the solution’s security throughout the stack and the software supply chain, it meets our needs. It's excellent as far as we're concerned. It goes right along with the Kubernetes role-based assets control. OpenShift's security features for running business-critical applications are excellent. A lot of our external-facing applications have been protected. We do use Apigee for a lot of it, but we also do security scans so we don't expose something to a known vulnerability.

The software-defined networking part of it caused us quite a bit of heartburn. We ran into a lot of problems with the difference between on-prem and cloud, where we had to make quite a number of modifications. That heartburn meant millions of dollars for us. That was a year ago and the product has matured since then. They've since resolved it, so it's not really an issue anymore.

The storage part of it was also problematic. There were quite a few things that really hampered us. But it's much better now.

I've been using OpenShift for five years.

It's extremely stable. We haven't had any outages that were caused by the software. There have been issues due to human error on our side, such as not buying enough memory for the host. 

It's also extremely scalable. On our dev cluster, we auto-scale from 50 nodes up to 130 on a weekend, when there is a need. It also scales itself down to save money over the weekend. When people start hitting it on Monday, it scales back up, seamlessly.

In terms of users, we have about 20,000 developers, all over the world. It's used 24 hours a day. We have centralized development clusters that are being used all the time because we have deployments on every continent except Antarctica.

We're moving off mainframes and monolithic apps into the containerized world. Increasing our usage is a stated management decision in our organization. OpenShift has been growing in our company in the last couple of years.

We use the tech support daily and they're pretty good. There are always going to be a few rough spots, but most of the time they're responsive.

You may get one support guy who doesn't understand the solution or the problem and they give a wrong solution, and we all know that it's the wrong solution. The problem is that we have people who have different first languages, so they don't always phrase the question well. I can see where a tech support guy might get a little confused because of the wording of an issue.

Red Hat, as a partner for helping to create the platform we need, has shared code, information, and ideas. They've been very helpful and open. We have a couple of technical account managers who meet with us once a month. One is in the UK and the other is in the US. They're very responsive when it comes to any problems we run into.

Positive

Previously, all we used were standalone Unix machines. We didn't use a different container orchestration, like Mesos. We never considered building our own. We took a look at OpenShift a long time ago and it was really the best at the time.

Version 3 is very complex but it's 1,000 times better than five years ago, and it's even much better than it was a year ago. The deployment was a pain point for our company, but it's irrelevant for someone buying it now. They have fixed a lot of stuff.

We have huge deployments, hundreds of nodes in a cluster. The deployment time is relative to the size of the cluster, but the deployment time has gone from a week to a day for a 100-node cluster. Red Hat has improved the process considerably.

It provides us with good value.

There weren't a whole lot of options. There was Mesos or home-grown or Kubernetes using Rancher. There wasn't anything that really compared to OpenShift at the time. OpenShift was a complete package. There were a lot of things you had to do manually with the other products. The Kubernetes world has changed a lot since then.

The fact that Red Hat was open source was a factor and the security was what we really liked about it. They use CRI-O, which is a secure runtime container, as opposed to using Docker, which is super-insecure running as root. Red Hat is definitely the leader in the container security world.

You have to understand what you're getting into and you have to be committed to upgrading it. There are some people in the world who say they'll never want to upgrade it again. With Kubernetes, if you're going to get into OpenShift, you have to "sign the bottom line," so to speak, that says, "I'm going to update it," because the Kubernetes world moves at a fast pace.

In terms of container orchestration, we are totally OpenShift, but we use other Red Hat products like Linux and Tower. We do have standalone Linux machines that we manage, but we'll be migrating some of the applications from those standalone machines into the OpenShift container world. That's where the cost savings are.

We use OpenShift for the deployment of microservices architecture and containerizing applications.

The product is easy to use. It has valuable features for integrating CI/CD pipelines, repositories, and support from open-source communities.

The product’s integration with Windows containers and other third-party products needs improvement.

We have been using OpenShift for three to four years.

It is a stable platform.

The product is expensive to scale for smaller businesses in an on-premise environment. They can instead opt for a public cloud setup. The enterprises that can afford the cost should only opt for it if they have a specific use case or want to transform applications.

We receive remote and on-call support services on purchasing an enterprise support subscription.

The implementation is not as straightforward as VMware products. It requires prior experience for easier deployment.

The product’s pricing is expensive. It has the biggest market share right now as a containerization platform. It is the highest-selling product.

Vanilla doesn’t have essential features like CI/CD integration, repositories, and community, similar to OpenShift.

I rate OpenShift a nine out of ten. It is a wonderful product. I advise others to choose the environment size properly. You can deploy it on a public cloud and not necessarily on-premises. You can decide depending on the workload and data localization requirements.

We use the solution to split monolithic into microservices. I mostly use OpenShift as a Kubernetes distribution. 

I am impressed with the product's security features. 

The tool lacks some features to make it compliant with Kubernetes. 

I am working with the solution for four years. 

The tool is stable. 

The cloud version is scalable. The solution's on-prem scalability can be improved. 

The tool's support should be improved. 

Positive

The tool's deployment takes a matter of hours to complete. You need a team of three to four to maintain the solution. 

The product's support is expensive. I would rate the tool's pricing an eight out of ten. 

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. The tool requires knowledgeable people to manage it. 

Our organization is the product and we have applications that are based on microservices. Our microservices are deployed on OpenShift.

The security features and the support from Red Hat are strong and they have helped our organization.

Integrating the gen case and the CSC pipeline has allowed us to automate processes in OpenShift, reducing the time taken significantly. The system runs smoothly without any issues.

The most valuable feature is the auto scalers for all microservices. The feature allows us to place request limits and it is much cheaper than AWS.

The metrics in OpenShift can use improvement. There are vast metrics and if OpenShift can provide the geometric thread that would be helpful.

I have been using the solution for two years.

The solution is stable with no downtime.

The solution is very scalable.

Generally, our tickets are resolved within 15 days.

Neutral

Based on feedback from my colleagues, the initial setup is complex with a lot of dependencies to set up the environment.

The implementation was completed in-house.

We use the license-free version of Red Hat Openshift but we pay for the support. The support fee is expensive.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

We currently have 100 people using the solution made up of architects, developers, DevOps teams, and testing engineers.

Maintenance is required every two months to restart the ports that get hung up. The solution requires between two and five people for maintenance.

We have built our own container platform. We have lots of products deployed on OpenShift. And there are lots of namespaces all deployed on the same OpenShift control platform. Everything is running fine.

OpenShift is a very stable solution with a lot of support features. I recommend the solution.

We use this solution to support our clients and specifically for package delivery and the ordering of individual items. 

We are evaluating a few others products that are complementary to OpenShift including Advanced Cluster Management, Advanced Cluster Security, and Depth spaces. 

This solution helps us to account for peak seasons involving higher demand than usual. It also gives us confidence in the security of our overall systems. 

OpenShift allows us to take advantage of the cloud in terms of sizing, especially during times when the prediction of volumes is difficult. 

The most valuable feature of this solution is its scalability and maturity. It is also easy to start to use and offers good customer support. The Red Hat team assists us whenever we have questions. 

The latest 4.0 version of OpenShift disabled a few of the features we previously made use of, although this wasn't a huge deal. 

We have been using this solution since 2017. 

This solution offers excellent stability and we have not experienced any issues.

This is a scalable solution. 

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten for support. Their customer support is outstanding and we always get the answers we need very quickly. Their technological know-how is good and we are able to get assistance from one architect without getting passed on. 

Positive

Setting up OpenShift 4.0 is simple. It takes between 45 minutes and one hour. 

We have seen a return on our investment. We received payback for our projects in one and a half years which has been advantageous for us.

The model of pricing and buying licenses is quite rigid. We are in the process of negotiating on-demand pricing which will help us take advantage of the cloud as a whole. 

We evaluated other solutions including Rancher. OpenShift is built with the developer in mind which is advantageous versus most other products on the market. We also chose OpenShift due to the peace of mind of knowing it is a solution supported by Red Hat. It is also an easy-to-use solution for our developers and has a great administrative interface.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten. 

We are modernizing our data staging environment and moving from traditional virtualization. A year ago, we started deployment with the container. We moved to OpenShift because we wanted to modernize the application with quick deployment and portability and explore the users of that particular containerization feature.

There is a quick deployment of the application, and we can scale out efficiently with the help of OpenShift. We can run containers quickly.

The GUI functionality in the black command is great because, in Docker, we get only CLI. In the OpenShift, we get the GUI interface, and we can manage the GUI itself.

There is no orchestration platform in OpenShift, but we do in Kubernetes. So, it'll be great to get an orchestration platform like Rancher or Kubernetes.

We have been using this solution for one year. We were using version 4.6, and we upgraded to 4.10. It is deployed on-premises.

OpenShift is more stable than the Docker Platform. As a result, it is a stable platform for container workload deployment.

It is very scalable. We have deployed approximately 30 plus apps with the help of OpenShift. We require one senior system engineer for maintenance. We plan to increase the workload on OpenShift once we get a staging environment.

We evaluated Docker before moving to OpenShift.

The initial setup was a bit complex because we needed to configure the work upload and the master mode. We also need to run many containers inside to run the OpenShift Platform, which is complex. The deployment was done in-house with the help of Red Hat as an OEM.

It helps us utilize our resources conservatively and minimize our footprint. We can reduce the virtual machine and move it to the container, so it saves the computer, memory, and network resources.

We get a bundled cost with one of our product suites, but I am unsure of the exact costs.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. Regarding advice, I would suggest working on your application to migrate it. For example, if you go with OpenShift, you need to convert your application virtual machine to the container version. I would also recommend networking inside the load balancer and the routing capability.

We use this solution as part of our containerization so that we can manage different applications in the system. We use it to make the CICD pipeline and integrations smoother.

This solution really makes a lot of the containerization work really simple and reduces complexity which is important for us.

The most valuable aspect of this solution is the great customer service and the ability of our team to get assistance when we need it. 

This solution has been used by our business for three years. 

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution. 

I would rate the support for this solution a nine out of ten. 

Positive

It seems like we're getting a pretty high return on our investment because of our ability to navigate, integrate and migrate across platforms. We have gone from one cloud platform to a new platform and that has been almost seamless and exceptionally simple.

This solution is fairly expensive but comes at an average cost compared to other solutions in the market. 

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten because this solution has been able to adapt to our needs as we continue to innovate. 

We use the product primarily for CI/CD activities across different platforms using Argo CD and Tekton to deliver applications.

The platform's documentation could be more comprehensive to cover the full spectrum of user needs. Sometimes, achieving specific goals is challenging due to a lack of detailed guidance.

I've been using Red Hat OpenShift for about six months.

I would rate the product stability as an eight.

The platform is scalable. 

I'm not directly involved in the deployment process, but from what I've observed, it seems manageable.

I would recommend Red Hat OpenShift, especially for its automation capabilities. It's a solid platform, backed by reputable companies like IBM, ensuring stability and security.

I rate it an eight.