My main use case for Red Hat OpenShift is that we had several security tools that we deployed to Red Hat OpenShift platform, specifically when we were migrating our applications from monolithic architecture to microservices, and our OpenShift platform was using some of the AWS VMs as master and worker nodes, so it was completely on AWS, and we actually set it up from scratch, setting up those projects to be used for our applications and then deploying them with Red Hat OpenShift version 4, which we started using five years back, as it was the latest at that point in time, and then we continued to operate and run our applications there.

A quick, specific example of an application I deployed on Red Hat OpenShift is a banking-based application which we moved from a monolithic architecture to a microservices architecture, and we completely deployed it end-to-end, split into 10 plus microservices, and then it was deployed to Red Hat OpenShift platform 4.

The best features that Red Hat OpenShift offers in my experience include being a pre-assembled product where Red Hat actually makes choices for you, which for example, as a CloudOps Engineer, means I don't have to explicitly go into CLI because the web-based UI is simple and helpful for debugging, and they've integrated the logging of the application within Red Hat OpenShift. I really appreciate the automated updates, built-in observability comes with pre-configured Prometheus and Grafana stack for monitoring our cluster health, and the native tooling it has such as Red Hat OpenShift GitOps, which is a Red Hat supported Argo CD, and the integration into clusters are based on role-based access control with security by default, where Red Hat OpenShift is quite secure out of the box, having those strict permissions and using Security Context Constraints, and especially the immutable OS and Red Hat OpenShift virtualization, which is something that is really helpful.

Red Hat OpenShift has positively impacted my organization primarily through observability, as for us, application uptime matters a lot when providing public-facing products consumed by customers, and hence, we're using that to keep refining our application and products through observability metrics and keeping pace with market trends, as we promised 99.99% uptime to our customers, and the observability in Red Hat OpenShift is really helping us a lot with that.

Areas where Red Hat OpenShift can be improved include the licensing being a bit complex and maybe expensive, as that is something in the hands of the organization's higher management, especially when those licensing agreements are done, and I think Red Hat OpenShift is quite resource-heavy because the control plane and default monitoring stack consume significant resources, meaning for small clusters, a large percentage of compute goes just to running Red Hat OpenShift itself, not our apps.

I have been using Red Hat OpenShift for close to six years across those different organizations.

Red Hat OpenShift is stable in my experience.

Red Hat OpenShift's scalability is really good.

Customer support is really good because so far in our case, we have always received a prompt response, and they have been really helpful to us. I would rate the customer support a 10 out of 10.

We did not use any other solution before Red Hat OpenShift.

Red Hat OpenShift is deployed in my organization on AWS.

We have saved a lot of time with Red Hat OpenShift.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing would suggest that it was more into a high cost, but then again, I'm an engineer, so this is taken care of by the higher management, and I don't have any definitive answer.

We did not evaluate any other solution before choosing Red Hat OpenShift because we wanted to use a licensed product for Kubernetes that has enterprise support.

I would rate Red Hat OpenShift a 9 out of 10 overall. I choose a nine for Red Hat OpenShift because for such kind of tools, there is always room for improvement, as I already mentioned the things that can be improved in my previous answer. I would suggest that it's quite better if you're using Red Hat OpenShift for an enterprise solution, as it's really better to have the enterprise support which Red Hat OpenShift offers, and it's easy to use for Kubernetes-based applications.

Red Hat OpenShift is used to host all services running on containers on specific ports for both production and non-production environments.

Red Hat OpenShift is utilized in the healthcare sector.

Red Hat OpenShift provides good value as a cloud service, comparable to other public clouds such as AWS and Azure, but it functions as a private cloud rather than a public one.

A smaller cloud running on containers enables easy deployment with the ability to scale up and scale down, and it can host multiple services on the same platform.

Red Hat OpenShift is currently running with VMware, and there are some issues on the storage side that are still being addressed.

The support from Red Hat is rated around a six or seven in those kinds of cases.

Support could improve with faster response times, as responses are currently quite slow.

The team has been working with Red Hat OpenShift for over five years.

The initial setup for Red Hat OpenShift is easy to deploy.

There are approximately two resources working on the Red Hat OpenShift cluster for deployment.

The DevOps engineer and the Red Hat OpenShift Linux engineer are the job roles required for deployment.

There is no free open-source version available; a license must be purchased for Red Hat OpenShift.

The pricing for Red Hat OpenShift is considered quite high.

Red Hat OpenShift cannot be compared with other options for PaaS clouds because other private services have never been used.

There is no current knowledge of other available options.

I am not familiar with the mobile app platform for Android.

I don't have experience with VMware or AWS products at this time, although a team member may be working on the technical side.

My focus is on the management side rather than the technical side.

Microsoft tools are not being used.

The team is focused on the Linux side for the private cloud for Red Hat OpenShift.

I have minimal familiarity with Red Hat OpenShift. I don't have experience with Red Hat OpenShift Data Foundation. The technical side of Red Hat OpenShift is handled by a team member. Management tools, help desk software, or ITSMs are not being used. The overall review rating for Red Hat OpenShift is seven out of ten.

We already were having that microservices architecture, so there was not much change from that perspective. We had small services, so here we had to create multiple pod IDs. Even today, we are using a hybrid microservices architecture. Our DB still has two or three services that hit the same database. From that perspective, there was not much change that we did in our case.

We have certain applications on-prem on physical servers. We had some on Windows and some on Linux. There we had requirements where every time we had to manage extra load, we had to spawn a new Tomcat node. Scaling was one of the issues we were facing, and every time we had to scale up, it was a challenge. Plus, we had to procure infrastructure and do a lot of configuration and setup for the new instance being launched.

Once we set that up, scaling down was a challenge as we did not always bring that down when not needed. When we did not have too much traffic, we still had a lot of infrastructure lying idle. At the same time, when we had high load, we were not able to scale up quickly.

There was too much patching that happened, and every time we had to patch something it became a challenge. There were versioning issues with operating systems versus Java and other technologies we were using. That is why we moved to containerization, where we defined what operating system we need, what Java version we need, and what steps we want to do. Containerization helped us create that one unit we wanted to deploy. Red Hat OpenShift helped us with managing scaling up and scaling down.

Because it was centrally managed in our company, many metrics that we had to write code for were available out of the box, including utilization, CPU utilization, memory, and similar metrics. We performed multiple transformations from physical servers to Red Hat OpenShift, and some from virtual servers to Red Hat OpenShift.

The OC utility tool is something we use very often for replication, replica sets, and config maps for managing all environments and secrets. This is very useful for us. Routing is another beneficial feature we get, so we do not need to manage or do too many things for load balancing.

Currently, one of the biggest challenges we face is with services and jobs. For spawning batches, although it has crons, it is not easy to integrate with enterprise systems such as Autosys. The entire company uses Autosys, but we are not able to integrate it effectively.

We need intermediate servers to run OC utility commands and initiate the cron job. We have to do a lot of modifications to ensure our batches work properly. With physical or virtual servers, even in AWS, we are able to write and manage multiple jobs. Managing batches in Red Hat OpenShift has been a significant challenge.

Integrating third parties is a challenge with Red Hat OpenShift. For example, with Elasticsearch, onboarding itself was difficult, running file beats and dealing with routing issues. It is not straightforward, especially since we have some components in AWS as. AWS has many capabilities that come out of the box and are easier to work with compared to Red Hat OpenShift.

Red Hat OpenShift's biggest disadvantage is they do not provide any private cloud setup where we can host on our site using their services. The main reason we went with Red Hat OpenShift was because it is a private cloud, and we have regulatory requirements that prevent us from using public cloud.

The main reason we went with Red Hat OpenShift was because it is a private cloud, and we have regulatory requirements that prevent us from using public cloud. Red Hat OpenShift's biggest disadvantage is they do not provide any private cloud setup where we can host on our site using their services. For the use cases we dealt with, we have not seen much challenge with AWS. It has been better for us, but due to our requirement of being on private cloud for some applications, we are using Red Hat OpenShift.

We do not have any AI products at this time.

We have certain applications on-prem on physical servers, some on Windows and some on Linux. We had requirements where every time we had to manage extra load, we had to spawn a new Tomcat node. Scaling was one of the issues we were facing, and every time we had to scale up, it was a challenge. We had to procure infrastructure and do extensive configuration and setup for new instance launches. Once set up, scaling down was also a challenge as we did not always reduce capacity when not needed. When we did not have much traffic, we still had substantial infrastructure sitting idle. Simultaneously, during high load periods, we were not able to scale up quickly.

We have support available, but we never had to use it because we have our own internal teams who provide support. We have not encountered any issue where we had to reach out to Red Hat.

It is not difficult to onboard onto Red Hat OpenShift. Once you understand deployment configs, configs, replica sets, the basic components, routes and all, it is straightforward to onboard an application there. This applies mainly to services. Beyond that, it becomes challenging. We have not tried too many things because we struggled with batches. Getting things up and running in AWS, such as Kafka and Elasticsearch, is much easier than doing it on Red Hat OpenShift.

It is cost-effective. The only consideration is that you have to use it wisely. Use only what you need because it is not very difficult to add resources. It is always advisable to get the bare minimum that you need, and then add more when necessary. When you do not need the services, bring them down so you are not unnecessarily using compute resources. If you use it efficiently, then it is beneficial, which is applicable to any cloud platform.

If you are dealing with services and need private cloud, go for Red Hat OpenShift. Regarding cost, if you compare to public cloud platforms, it is cheaper. If you are mostly on the services side and need private cloud, Red Hat OpenShift should be the solution. The overall rating is six out of ten, as it is not seen as a complete solution, but rather as a solution only for services. For other requirements such as integrations or batches, other cloud providers might be more suitable.

Our primary use case for Red Hat OpenShift involves leveraging its container orchestration platform to enhance application modernization efforts. We host containerized applications and integrate GPU capabilities for optimized deployment of AI workloads.

Simplifies transitioning from legacy systems to containerized environments, enabling better scalability and flexibility.

Provides GPU integration and infrastructure that support the deployment and scaling of data-intensive AI workloads.

Accelerates delivery pipelines with robust CI/CD features, helping teams bring applications to market faster.

Scalability and High Availability: OpenShift makes it easy to scale applications horizontally or vertically based on demand. Its high-availability capabilities ensure reliability and minimize downtime.

Built-in Security Features: Enhanced security tools like role-based access control (RBAC), network segmentation, and image vulnerability scans protect containerized applications.

Operator Framework: This simplifies the management of Kubernetes applications, automating tasks like installation, upgrades, and maintenance.

Simplified Networking: While OpenShift has advanced networking features, simplifying configurations for complex setups could make it more accessible to users with varying expertise levels

Resource Management Visibility: Improving the display of limits and quotas issues can help developers better manage resources and avoid bottlenecks.

Availability and capacity reporting

We have approximately two years of experience with Red Hat OpenShift.

Red Hat OpenShift is a stable solution.

I would rate the scalability of Red Hat OpenShift as an eight or nine out of ten. The platform has shown significant improvement with each new version, adding valuable features while making it easy to scale by adding or removing worker nodes and storage.

Red Hat's technical support is good, and I would rate it a nine out of ten.

We provide a range of services, acting as implementers, integrators, and partners with Red Hat OpenShift.

Red Hat OpenShift has a high price, and the licensing model can be prohibitive for smaller customers. Initially, licensing was per CPU, with a memory cap, but the price has doubled, making it difficult to justify for clients with smaller compute needs.

Not tested any other solution

Overall, I would rate Red Hat OpenShift a nine out of ten. Despite the higher price and needed improvements, OpenShift is an enterprise-grade solution that meets most business needs. I would rate the overall solution a 9 out of 10.

I used OpenShift for the enterprise service cost system of a bank. We completed the migration of the bank's core banking system using OpenShift as the infrastructure. OpenShift acts as an orchestration platform and is used as our private cloud.

OpenShift is a spin-off of Kubernetes, built on top of Kubernetes. It has features that enhance security, ease of deployment, and service exposure compared to Kubernetes. It also provides good integration with GitOps and ArgoCD.

Additionally, OpenShift offers an easy-to-use graphical user interface for cluster management, making it more accessible for administrators.

I had to frequently upgrade my cluster due to OpenShift's rolling updates every six months, which I found to be excessive. Making updates a yearly occurrence could be beneficial. In terms of self-service for developers, there is room for improvement. The removal of Grafana and HPA from monitoring caused some issues. Observability could be more robust.

I've been working with OpenShift for four years.

OpenShift is very stable. I've had my cluster running for over four years, with issues caused more by poor monitoring or user error rather than the product itself.

OpenShift is highly scalable, allowing us to manage thousands of pods effectively. We've implemented features like Horizontal Pod Autoscaling to adapt based on demand and integrated with F5 for high availability.

Red Hat's technical support is responsive and effective. I had 50 to 59 support cases, many of which were resolved quickly depending on the urgency and expertise needed.

We moved from a legacy system to OpenShift due to its stability and capabilities provided by being backed by Red Hat.

The initial setup was straightforward, especially on the cloud where it was set up quickly. The on-premises setup was more challenging due to additional configurations required.

We handled the implementation internally with our team, which consisted of three engineers managing the analytics environment.

Moving to OpenShift resulted in increased system stability and reduced downtime, which contributed to operational efficiency. Although it increased costs, it helped modernize our infrastructure.

The pricing for OpenShift includes support and licensing, which costs approximately $400.

We did not evaluate any other options aside from our legacy system before choosing OpenShift.

If you have the skill and experience, Kubernetes can be used in production. OpenShift provides extra coverage in terms of security and management. Have a disaster recovery plan due to frequent updates.

I rate OpenShift at nine out of ten.

The main goal is the modernization of our applications. We have a few applications running on mainframes, which increase costs. We aim to modernize them on containers and microservices. We are shifting towards Kubernetes or Docker. As an enterprise client, the best solution is Red Hat OpenShift paired with support from Red Hat.

A valuable feature of Red Hat OpenShift is its ability to handle increased loads by automatically adding nodes. This automation impresses us and benefits us in managing loads on applications.

Although we have just started the transition and are moving slowly, OpenShift has been helpful in modernizing our applications, and it is a positive step forward.

The GUI could have more capabilities, particularly around virtualization. Some features are missing, such as storage migrations, when compared with VMware.

As we use both Red Hat virtualization and OpenShift together, differentiating between them becomes challenging. We should aim to include VMware-like capabilities to be competitive, especially considering cost factors.

I have been working with OpenShift for a year now.

Right now, I would rate the stability of OpenShift as eight out of ten. It performs well under load, providing the desired output.

Red Hat OpenShift scales excellently, with a rating of ten out of ten. It allows for scaling as much as needed, which is a significant advantage.

We are currently dealing with both local support and Red Hat support, and they have been amazing.

We were a VMware house for a long time, about ten to 15 years. However, the cost for VMware skyrocketed, making it hard to continue using it.

The initial setup is complex.

The cost is a crucial factor, particularly with licensing. As things evolve, companies increasingly focus on cost-effectiveness.

Kubernetes, as an open-source option, is a significant competitor, particularly for those dealing with cost concerns.

I would rate OpenShift nine out of ten overall.

It is suitable for any company, regardless of size. Smaller companies may opt for open-source solutions like Kubernetes. However, OpenShift offers comprehensive support, which is appealing to enterprise clients.

We use it for container orchestration. Some customers don't need to go with the coordinated open source as they need a more enterprise solution, so we use OpenShift. We mainly use it to host IBM CloudSec. We are working with CloudSec for integration, CloudSec for automation, and as a prerequisite for them, they need an OpenShift.

With OpenShift, it gives me the ability and capability to monitor all my microservices and all my containers using its integrated monitoring. Its horizontal pod scaling is more efficient than the one used in Kubernetes.

Most benefit from it, however, I work with Kubernetes, and installing Vanilla Kubernetes is easy. That said, it introduces many tools that need to be set up individually. OpenShift comes ready out of the box, with all tools installed and configured. Red Hat certifies and confirms that all the components are compatible with each other.

OpenShift's superior dashboard is a notable strength, especially when compared to Kubernetes. The integrated DevOps capabilities, such as pipelines and the container registry, are extremely beneficial.

Additionally, its capability to monitor microservices and containers with integrated tools like Prometheus is a major advantage. The horizontal pod scaling exceeds the scalability features I found in Kubernetes.

OpenShift requires a very expensive and complex infrastructure. If I have a Kubernetes cluster with one master and three workers, to apply the same configuration in OpenShift, I need about three masters, three infra, and three workers.

It uses around double the resources of vanilla Kubernetes. Also, learning OpenShift requires complex infrastructure, needing vCenter integration, more advanced answers, active directory, and more expensive hardware. These demands can deter people from learning OpenShift.

I have been working with Red Hat OpenShift for about four years now.

OpenShift is stable but comes at the cost of a very expensive infrastructure. It provides better performance yet requires more resources compared to vanilla Kubernetes.

OpenShift's horizontal pod scaling is more effective and efficient than that used in Kubernetes, making it a superior choice for scalability.

We have dealt with many cases with Red Hat support, and while they eventually solve issues, it sometimes takes them a long time to reach a resolution, particularly with complex matters related to IBM Cloud. We have rated their support a seven out of ten.

I have used Vanilla Kubernetes, VMware Kubernetes, etc., before. OpenShift is the more powerful and supported solution between them.

The setup involves creating a configuration file called 'install-config.' After providing necessary parameters such as vCenter's URL, username, and password, an Ignition file is generated. A virtual machine is then created from an OVA file with attached parameters.

Although the process is still somewhat complex due to user-provisioned infrastructure, OpenShift offers a simpler installer-provided infrastructure. We chose user-provided because it offers more control over our environment.

With OpenShift combined with IBM Cloud App integration, I can spin an integration server in a second as compared to traditional methods, which could take days or weeks.

The cost of OpenShift is very high, particularly with the OpenShift Plus package, which includes many products and services. While I know it's expensive, I do not have the specific numbers.

I have used Vanilla Kubernetes, VMware Kubernetes, etc., before. OpenShift has proven to be better.

I recommend having a solid understanding of Kubernetes before transitioning to OpenShift as it is based on Kubernetes. Without this knowledge, managing and maintaining OpenShift can be a nightmare.

I rate OpenShift as a nine point nine out of ten. I suggest considering the necessary infrastructure and related costs before adopting OpenShift.

We are building an application that is a containerized application, and we are using Red Hat OpenShift for that application.

The concept of containers and scaling on demand is a feature I appreciate the most about Red Hat OpenShift.

Our solutions can easily scale to any number of users or requests if we are running on the cloud. The cloud also supports the pay-as-you-go model, so scalability is the biggest benefit.

They could work on the pricing model, making it more flexible and possibly lower.

It has been almost one and a half years, maybe a little more.

I would rate the stability somewhere around eight to nine out of ten. It is very stable.

It is easy to scale Red Hat OpenShift. The on-demand provisioning of pods and auto-scaling, whether horizontal or vertical, is the best part.

I have been pretty happy in the past with getting support from Red Hat. We haven't had many cases regarding the support for OpenShift, however, we opened a couple of tickets, and they were satisfactorily answered.

We have also used the VMware environment in our setup.

I would say the initial setup is not very complex, but moderately complex, similar to other containerized platforms like Kubernetes. Compared to what we are used to running, such as other virtualization platforms like VMware, it is moderately complex.

Red Hat can improve on the pricing part by making it more flexible and possibly on the lower side.

For the very basic features, I can compare it with VMware Tanzu as we are running a basic setup at the moment.

I rate Red Hat OpenShift somewhere around eight out of ten.

AI integration sounds like a good idea as AI is the future, and a lot of products in the market are benefiting from AI integration.

We help some operators implement the container platform. Some of the operators use other software, such as VMware or Whitestack. Our focus is on pushing Red Hat products. We also use OpenShift for containerized applications in IT and networks, including applications like My Mobistar, My Carlos, and Smart Wi-Fi.

The solution primarily benefits our organization by reducing time to market, avoiding vendor lock-in, and facilitating multi-cloud environments. These capabilities allow us to leverage various cloud providers and integrate seamlessly between on-premise and public cloud solutions.

Valuable features include time to market, avoiding vendor lock-in, and the ease of working in a multi-cloud environment. This flexibility allows the use of multiple cloud platforms such as AWS, Microsoft, Google, and IBM.

The speed of deploying new applications can be improved. Additionally, enhancing the process for changing to DevOps models from Waterfall workflows would be beneficial. There are issues with capacity planning and lifecycle management that need to be addressed, particularly in avoiding problems due to congestion or misunderstanding between software factories and Red Hat experts.

I have been using OpenShift for more than three years.

In general, customers are very happy with the stability of the solution. In Argentina, the main three operators are using OpenShift and find the stability to be quite good.

All customers are very happy with the scalability of OpenShift. The main three operators in Argentina use OpenShift, and they find the stability quite good, contributing to its scalability.

Customer service is effective, particularly with the TAM (Technical Account Manager) service, which includes highly experienced personnel. Operators are very happy with the TAM services.

The initial setup is moderately complex. While it is not extremely difficult, operators typically require assistance from Red Hat experts.

Operators usually need the help of Red Hat experts during the setup phase.

I don't have detailed knowledge about the setup costs or ROI. However, I know it is cheaper than some other platforms.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

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.