Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for AWS

The main use cases with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for me are hosting Oracle databases, Oracle server database, and MariaDB. When we need to install Oracle, we put it on Linux, and it usually was Santos in the past. Then we moved to Oracle Enterprise Linux or Red Hat, and when Oracle released the Linux distro, we moved to Oracle because the devices are really open source.

Some of the best features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include stability; it doesn't break. Stability, along with management tools and users for management tools that they add to the Linux distro, are important. The main reason is stability. In the server area, we don't want change. That's why we're trying to move back to Debian, because Debian is stable—old, but stable. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) does help save time because the setup and general installation experience is very optimized and well-established. I made tests installing and setting up radioactive environments for virtual machines, and it was a very good experience, fast.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is for on-premises only; we try to avoid the clouds as much as we can. In Brazil, we are seeing an interesting movement with small cloud providers because Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are too expensive. I am noticing the rise of many small companies that build small data centers and offer cloud services to small companies. They prosper with a better price and a simpler solution—not a fancy data center with sophisticated security. Just a small space with a decent Internet connection and a stable energy source, and they are good to go. People are prospering with this model of small cloud providers.

The main difference between Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and some of the others that I'm evaluating now is that Red Hat tries to use more recent packages. The problem with Debian and some of the stable distributions is that they are too conservative, and they keep the version progress very slow. I sometimes develop and create things that need more recent packages and libraries, and with Debian, I usually struggle with that. Red Hat usually provides the new ones—stable, but new. That's one of the best features of using Red Hat. Ubuntu also upgrades some important libraries from Debian.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for more than fifteen years, because we have some infrastructure on it.

I assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as excellent; they have a great technology base on their website, but it requires a subscription. You might think you get free access, but I really don't prefer it. I usually find other sources. I know they have a very good knowledge base with excellent documentation, but I usually don't get access to it. I have not reached out to their support, so I do not have any personal experience with Red Hat support. The support that we really use from time to time is Oracle. My clients use the Oracle database, and they all pay for support. We use it because my partner, who is an Oracle database administrator, frequently deals with problems with Oracle and uses their support, and it works very effectively.

Positive

My thoughts on the deployment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are that it's easy, there are no problems at all. It's very easy, including in the cloud; they offer many partners, and it's really easy to move your loads to the cloud with Red Hat. I believe it's easier than with Microsoft. However, my clients usually do not get involved with this; most of them are Microsoft-based.

The ROI with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is useful if the company requires accountability or a formal contract, because they usually need someone involved in some kind of accountability process when lawyers get involved. Only in that situation does it make sense to pay that price. Usually, companies that are required by law to have licensed products, such as banks and insurance companies, have obligations by law. This is especially true in Brazil, where the insurance market is very regulated. It makes sense for these companies to have a license contract, particularly in the case of security leaks and similar issues.

My experience with the pricing or licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) indicates that our clients never chose to purchase a license. I watched the prices a few months ago while considering buying one for myself, and they were expensive; it's not a reasonable price, especially for small companies. The business value of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is compatible and on the same level as other Linux distributions I have used. They all charge the same for their products. I usually don't see much difference. When I compare the price of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to that of Windows, they are basically the same price, just a little cheaper, a small fraction. All of these big corporations try to squeeze the clients as much as they can. The only exception is Broadcom, which seems to try to charge an absurd amount for their products.

My clients all have their own firewall solutions and network security solutions that they purchase. We usually don't deal with that. We just keep the built-in firewall running, and that's all. That's the main feature that we use on Red Hat and other distros, the built-in firewall. 

Security Enhanced Linux (SELinux) is something we do not engage with. Last week, I tried to install a new version of Oracle Enterprise Linux from Red Hat on an old HP server, Gen 5, but it did not work; I needed to go back to Ubuntu. Ubuntu, even in the new version, uses a kernel that works on old hardware, so we have to deal with this situation. If you have old hardware and need to repurpose an old server, you can't use these new distros. Even Oracle does not work with very old equipment, more than ten years old. 

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a seven or eight out of ten.

I set up Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for my customers. The customers either install some middleware on top of it or manage it directly from my company, or the customer will manage the application on top of the server directly.

The most valuable feature is the support. The support from Red Hat is definitely valuable. Having a Technical Account Manager facilitates getting to the core of the issue and eventually tries to correct the behavior of the operating system in case something is not fitting what I expect.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux  (RHEL) is definitely good. Most of the simple issues can be fixed by going through it, including sometimes third-party issues that happen. I can mention a couple of incidents that occurred, one with CrowdStrike and one with Qualys Cloud Agent. In both cases, the knowledge base was informative about the existing issues. If I was a customer of those partners, then I would have been affected by problems that came from third-party products. Generally speaking, the knowledge base is absolutely good for problems that come from Red Hat itself.

The most important security feature in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the readability and detail of the security report. From a security perspective itself, it is not a game-changer, but when it comes to communicating to the customer that something is not an issue, this is beneficial because I can reference an article that is easily readable by the customer.

Red Hat Insights  is definitely helpful, providing information that I would not spot otherwise. However, there is room for improvement. Red Hat Insights  needs to be able to manage in a detached environment, which is on the roadmap as far as I know, because we are working with big banks, and therefore, we cannot have too much direct connection, especially from the cloud to the server. Another open point is that from Red Hat Insights, I cannot make use of my own Ansible  Automation Platform, unless I'm mistaken. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux  (RHEL) is derived from Fedora. Sometimes, we encounter features in a server environment that are more suitable for desktops, leading to unexpected complications. For instance, networking on a desktop is typically designed with different priorities compared to a server. We often find ourselves forced to use features originally intended for desktop use, even when simpler alternatives would be more effective and manageable. This complexity can be unnecessary, as it adds layers of functionality that do not provide any real value. Ultimately, users should be able to manage their connections without being overwhelmed by features that are irrelevant to their needs.

A downside is that it is sometimes difficult to agree on product modifications. For instance, one issue we encountered was that certain commands were not responding as we expected. Another example, which might be easier to understand, is during upgrades when certain directories are reverted to their original permission settings. This contradicts some hardening recommendations and makes it more difficult to advocate for a change to practices that have been in place for a decade, even when there are valid reasons for the change. It’s important to note that the resistance to change can be attributed to their collaboration with upstream developers, but that’s just our perspective.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux  (RHEL) for more than 12 years.

It is definitely a stable product. As I shared previously, my main concern is about desktop components that are coming into the newest release. If RHEL 6 was definitely a 10 out of 10, now with RHEL 9, I would rate it a 7 out of 10 because it no longer allows me to have a clear understanding of what is going on and a clear configuration that speaks for itself. The shift towards configuration as code has some drawbacks in this case.

With a Technical Account Manager, we have a very individual approach. I would rate the technical support from Red Hat a ten out of ten.

The support has had a positive impact. I was able to go through a huge incident that required getting to the core of the problem, such as what happened with CrowdStrike. It involved an issue perceived on the LDAP server caused by a change performed in the code of Red Hat. My feedback is that the support is always great when addressing complex analysis, and that's the most important value-added aspect I will mention.

I used different solutions before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but not from an enterprise perspective, so without support. I used Debian  and Slackware and other similar solutions. I decided to switch mainly because of the support. 

When I switched from my previous job to my current job, they were already using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) . I am working with banks, which are highly regulated, and I need backend support from the vendor in order to work with the bank.

We have seen a return on investment from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) so far. I don't have any specific metrics, but the penalty we would have faced if Red Hat had not helped us in identifying the problem would have been millions of euros.

Red Hat helps to mitigate downtime and lower risks through support, engaging them at the right time to promptly resolve issues. Red Hat Insights also assists in this regard.

I'm the one who's managing that. I find the pricing of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) affordable, but the subscription model is something that the business units of Red Hat need to revisit and fix.

I participated in a review to eventually switch to SUSE and to Oracle Linux  as well. Oracle Linux is a definitive no, mainly because of the support. The support from Oracle's side is awful. I don't want to ever have a case with them because it's terrible. For SUSE, it was mainly a matter of cost-benefit since we didn't have the chance to go into depth on that because the cost was not a game-changer, and we would have had to reinstall the whole 7,000 servers, so it was too much to get the benefit from the reduced cost.

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

As an end user and a trained engineer working on field development, I am required to use a Linux-based system for all aspects of our work. This includes everything from logical design to design verification, and physical design, all the way to integrating data into the silicon database at the foundry. Since all of this occurs in a Linux environment, I must ensure we have the right platform in place. The performance we achieve with the tools we use can vary significantly across different platforms. Additionally, the support provided by these platforms is crucial. In the field of silicon design, we rely heavily on electronic design automation (EDA) tools, which are continuously being enhanced. As this area evolves, it’s essential for our operating systems to keep pace with the migration of the latest tool versions. If I become stuck with an outdated version of the OS, it can adversely affect my productivity and the quality of my designs. Therefore, I need to be reasonably familiar with various operating system providers and understand the pros and cons of each. This includes comparisons between Red Hat, SUSE, and Ubuntu, which is essential for meeting my requirements.

Since it is widely used, I believe the knowledge base is fairly good. In my own organization, which has three vertical companies, two others were already using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for production. They were asking me to go with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) unless I had a compelling reason to go to SUSE or Ubuntu. This indicates that the IT team within my company preferred Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for support and documentation purposes. The company has been around for more than a decade, so familiarity might be one reason, or resistance to change may have been another reason to stick with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). In my role as the design manager, I have not heard anything negative about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

My decision to go with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was influenced by three main factors:

1. The IT team’s familiarity with Red Hat due to its previous deployment in other units.

2. Competitive pricing, which was 25 to 30 percent lower than other options.

3. The perception that Red Hat offered long-term service pack support for an additional fee; something that other providers like SUSE may not have offered.

Ultimately, the first two reasons were strong enough for me to lean towards Red Hat.

To some extent, I am speculating, but at the end of the day, the main thing we care about is how the resources are getting scheduled and utilized. Without an external load-sharing application, the number of cores in our servers and the memory should all be utilized effectively. If they can do very good dynamic resource allocation, maximizing the number of cores and the memory without external applications, that would be beneficial

Additionally, this is not just for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but for any OS - I would really love to make sure that their security features are robust and getting updated regularly. I believe at a given point of time, they may be very good, but hackers are also improving their techniques. I would definitely expect Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) or any OS provider to constantly monitor, understand if there are any new vulnerabilities in their OS, and provide patches or fixes so that we are always guarded from any security threat because what we are developing consists of very important IPs that have to be protected from malware attacks.

The most important thing is that it has to be stable. If it is not stable and we have to reboot it because of something, that would be problematic. The kind of tools it provides natively is important. For example, if I am doing development, I want to have a checkout process. If they have well-developed documentation and the ability to work with the code itself, along with good support for developing, then the performance of the OS would improve. If I see that one of my runs for any workload is taking five days, I immediately question why it is not completing within a day. If the load sharing is not happening correctly, there might be switches or features that the OS provides that can help use more memory or similar resources. Being developer-friendly would be beneficial. One thing managers hate is nasty surprises, so even if something is not working in the OS, it should provide some ability for IT to observe potential issues three or four weeks in advance.

I have only been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for a short duration of time, about six to eight months because the migration happened very recently.

I am working for a startup company. We used to use open source SUSE because that was kind of easy to use and we did not have to spend many dollars. When we reached the point where we had to go to production, we needed to ensure we were using something more reliable because open source is open source. When I go to a newer version or a production version of the OS, some of the designs we are developing will be around because our startup is focusing on accelerators for the cloud. Some of these can be around for seven years, 10 years, and beyond. Hypothetically, even after 10 years, somebody who is using our silicon can find a bug, and we are obligated to fix it through software or other means. If we do not have the OS support at that point in time, because 10 years is a long time, it becomes problematic. When we go towards production, the kind of analysis that I do involves determining how many years this OS is supported and whether they will support it for an extended period, provided I pay them extension money. I am an end user, and I try to look at the facets of the OS based on my current business needs.

When we were using Ubuntu, I initially found it sufficient for my EDA tools under the evaluation licenses I had. However, as I progressed into silicon design and needed to purchase production licenses, I realized that the older version of Ubuntu wasn’t adequate. The question arose: if we were to upgrade to a paid version of the operating system, which one should we choose? I conducted some research comparing Ubuntu and Red Hat, and ultimately decided to go with Red Hat. Once I made that decision, I simply needed to explain my reasoning to my IT team, stating that I wanted to upgrade the twenty or so servers I was using to Red Hat 9.1, or whatever the current version was at that time. They took over from there.

We experienced some initial challenges when we moved to Red Hat, mainly due to the tools' versions. At first, we struggled to navigate these issues, but once I contacted support, they were able to resolve them quickly.

The maintenance is handled by the IT team.

Most of the studies that I did were between Ubuntu and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I did not check extensively on SUSE Enterprise.

I was inclined to choose Red Hat for a couple of reasons. First, the IT team’s familiarity with Red Hat was crucial since it had already been deployed in other areas of the organization. This existing knowledge made the transition smoother.

Additionally, I did not inquire about pricing immediately because, ultimately, my business unit would be responsible for the costs. I recall that the price for Red Hat Enterprise Linux was less than one lakh rupees per license per year. The annual cost might be around 1.2 lakh or slightly more, but it was certainly under that threshold. Furthermore, I believe that if we were to negotiate for a larger number of licenses, we might have received a better rate. Regarding the initial pricing I received, I remember it being about twenty-five percent lower per license per year compared to other options. 

For my use case with EDA tools, Synopsys EDA tools' local AE team said that support in India is better for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Additionally, Ubuntu and SUSE support for 10 years, whereas Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports for 10 years plus an extended two to four year period for a cost. Since our chips will be in the cloud market for at least a decade or more, this long-term support influenced my decision.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight out of ten.

The main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are all application-based; it's an enterprise-level OS based on open source. There are many applications. We are using it for Oracle databases and applications which need more security and flexibility. 

Red Hat provides support for a variety of file systems, making it easy to create and manage them. It also allows for straightforward management of volume groups. Although we have not used it for our client, Red Hat offers services such as Satellite service for online patching and automated patching, among other features.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is excellent. If you have an account created with even a single subscription, you get access to all documents available online free of cost. 

From the security perspective, IP tables are very important for firewall protection and network communication. While these features exist in other Linux distributions, the implementation in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is particularly robust.

Regular patching rollouts and immediate bug fixes help maintain compliance with cyber security requirements. 

All major Linux distributions should have common commands, which would make it easier for users to understand and remember. Each flavor has their own native tools and features, which can be confusing when managing multiple flavors in a single environment.

Documentation is comprehensive and available in one place on the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) portal, but connection and integration could be better with more out-of-the-box connectors. 

Recently, I came across something interesting regarding the management of multiple environments. SUSE offers more flexibility in managing multiple environments, as their product can manage Ubuntu and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). However, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Satellite server can only patch Red Hat and CentOS, not Ubuntu or SUSE. Cross platform support should be implemented in their product.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for almost 15 years.

It helps to mitigate downtime and lowers risk. Most environments have very high uptime values with Linux machines. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) rarely crashes or has issues. All the security features are very good in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

The documentation clearly explains what each patching or update will do to your environment, and whether it is required. When asking for support, even for informational purposes, they provide detailed information about whether it is required for your environment, including bug fixes and CVEs reported by local cyber security personnel.

The business value of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) compared to other Linux distributors is their strong support process. While we haven't worked much with other flavors, we are satisfied with Red Hat support. Their technical expertise is excellent, especially for premium support. They helped us solve critical issues, such as when we had a file system corruption in a production environment that we couldn't mount or fix without their support.

Positive

There are other options such as Ubuntu, SUSE, and Oracle Linux. It depends on requirements. Some application vendors want to go with Ubuntu, so we have to provision Ubuntu. Some want to have SUSE. SUSE is used less frequently, but mostly people are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Ubuntu here.

Ubuntu is a Debian-based Linux distribution. While all belong to the Linux category, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is more mature and flexible but costlier in terms of support. Ubuntu is less costly but has a different system administration approach due to being Debian-based. SUSE has more inclination towards ERP systems, with most SAP environments running on it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) operates in a vast environment with multiple products including Ansible, containers, and OpenShift. System administration is straightforward in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because people are more familiar with these open source tools and commands. There is extensive online documentation and free versions available, making administration preferred by most administrators.

The setup is very straightforward. Even someone with minimal experience can follow the documentation and install it.

It brings ROI and measurable benefits. When support is needed for issues such as security vulnerabilities, ransomware protection, or bug fixes, Red Hat will resolve system downtime issues.

The licensing cost for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is comparable to SUSE for premium support. For approximately $2,000 per year, you can get premium support for one subscription which allows you to run two VMs.

I have not tried the Leap or Red Hat Insights feature because we currently work with standalone systems. For image builder and system roles, we can get the recovery system built with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) tools, which are very good and handy for recovery.

Since most systems are based on VMs in private cloud or hypervisors, it's straightforward to take snapshots for any changes on Linux. If something goes wrong, reverting the snapshot is simple.

My advice to other organizations considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that while other enterprise Linux distributions such as SUSE and Ubuntu are good in their respective areas, they should have cross-environment support for products, especially for patching, centralized monitoring, and user management.

Based on my experience, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine out of ten.