Red Hat Subscriptions

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is to deploy web services like Nginx and HTTP for enterprise customers.

When deploying web services like Nginx and HTTP for enterprise customers, one specific example that stands out is a financial customer whose marketing website was deployed on the Linux RHEL server using Nginx. I optimized it using Nginx configuration best practices and Linux best practices, and it was capable of handling thousands of requests per second on the marketing website for the financial institution.

I do not have anything else to add about my main use case or any other ways I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); I think that example is the main one I would stick to.

I do not use most of the features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to navigate security risks; I primarily rely on AWS side security identification like using Amazon Inspector to find vulnerabilities, and I also use Macie and the Guardrail service to gather information about identities using services or servers incorrectly.

For auditing purposes, I keep track of vulnerabilities in documentation. I have compliances to follow, and according to those compliances, I document the remediation processes, including the dates vulnerabilities were found, when they were resolved, and how they were resolved using capabilities from Linux and AWS.

In managing CVE management, I mostly use AWS services like AWS Inspector, which scans for vulnerabilities every 24 hours and provides recommended solutions with details. While I sometimes rely on Linux services to patch packages, I primarily depend on the vulnerabilities identified through AWS services.

I use Amazon Image Builder to build the AMIs from different sources, like the golden AMIs after making changes in Linux configurations, and I utilize that AWS feature rather than the Linux native feature for image building.

I do not use Ansible automation; I rely on users created in Linux, auditing all users monthly, preparing preventive maintenance reports, and keeping data on monthly scans of the servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted my organization by replacing other servers like Nginx or Apache on other Linux distributions and IIS servers on Windows, which were very slow. I decided to go for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), which was much faster in performance, and its support and documentation were fabulous, helping me greatly.

Regarding performance improvement, I noticed both faster response times and a reduction in downtime due to improved auto-scaling policies and the use of ALB algorithms to distribute traffic evenly among servers, contributing to reducing downtimes. I observed fast responses; while it was just a microsecond difference, that is more than enough for the marketing website that handles thousands of customers per second and per minute.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps solve my pain points, mainly providing timely patches and adequate documentation to assist with installing patches and finding vulnerabilities, thus improving overall performance compared to other distributions and servers like IIS on Windows.

The best features Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers include amazing support; whenever I have any issues, I can call support at any time, and the support answers are very fast. Other than that, the documentation is excellent, and I can troubleshoot any issues with the help of the documentation available. The working experience on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is much better than using other free tier services.

Regarding the strong points of the support and documentation, I had some vulnerabilities that were resolved in some of the latest versions, and with the help of support and documentation, I was able to mitigate those vulnerabilities quickly. It was deployed in AWS, which flagged vulnerabilities in the security hub and continuously scanned the servers with the Inspector service, reporting those vulnerabilities to me.

The most important feature I am using is to have it deployed for a marketing application, and while not a feature per se, the best documentation Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) presents and the support they provide are what I love.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides some of the best security among other distributions because it is an enterprise service, a paid service, and keeps its security patches updated on time and according to technological demands. The overall governance is also good.

I agree with its output and reliability.

The documentation is one of the best available, providing ample information through searches and navigation, though I mainly rely on other scanning and automation tools.

Comparing the business value of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) with other Linux distributions, it performs exceptionally well regarding security features and management capabilities, as it operates on an enterprise scale, with excellent support and top-class security features compared to other distributions like Ubuntu or Fedora.

I think vulnerabilities are sometimes found a bit late, and as they are found, some issues are already seen on the customer side. The finding of vulnerabilities should be much faster, and its remediations should also be faster than they currently are. Additionally, the documentation could improve by including more references to different pages and adding more error pages and troubleshooting details currently missing.

I chose nine out of ten for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) due to the required improvements in documentation and vulnerability resolutions; other than that, it is perfectly fine. The performance is already the best, so it can be kept as such or maybe improved further. By maintaining excellent performance and improving things like documentation and vulnerability resolutions, it could achieve a ten in the coming months or years.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for more than four years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is stable.

The scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is achieved through AWS's scalability and the configurations of both Linux and Nginx used for scaling workers and processes based on traffic requirements, alongside AWS auto-scaling groups for the Linux servers.

Customer support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was good, providing timely responses, documentation, and assistance, making them very helpful.

I would rate the customer support as a nine out of ten.

I switched from using other servers like IIS on Windows and various distributions due to the superior security, performance, and uptime of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

As an engineer, I can say that using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helped save me time; I managed hundreds of servers with a small team using automation tools, which reduced the time and resources needed.

The pricing, setup cost, and licensing experience were straightforward; the application owner accepted pricing terms, and there was minimal setup cost due to the automation tools and scripts used to install applications. Since licensing is purchased through my provider, it is automatically adjusted accordingly.

I had already used other solutions like IIS on Windows, Linux distributions like Fedora, CentOS, and Ubuntu before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); I did not merely evaluate them.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a nine.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is deployed in my organization using AWS cloud, which is a public cloud.

I use Amazon Web Services (AWS) as my cloud provider.

I am only using AWS, not a hybrid environment.

I have not performed any major version upgrades with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Ansible Automation Platform; when an upgrade is necessary, I use the latest AMIs provided by AWS, install applications, test in the development environment, and then upgrade production in that manner.

My advice for those considering using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is to assess other distributions if they do not have specific reasons to switch to an enterprise solution; stick to alternatives like Ubuntu or Fedora, which are also high-performing, but for specific enterprise needs requiring best security and support, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the way to go.

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in my company as a hosting platform for database servers, application servers, and for building high-performance servers with Red Hat clustering and high availability server creation.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me save time in terms of design, deployment, and troubleshooting by reducing turnaround time. I can deliver in less than 24 hours, typically within two to three working days for complete installation, configuration, management, and support, which varies over different life cycles.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps solve pain points by providing enterprise customers with a high availability and secure operating system environment. Its reliable support means I can run various applications such as Oracle databases or SAP without needing to seek alternative solutions, which saves time and ensures quick deployment.

I chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for its security requirements because it is built on top of the CentOS kernel, and with Red Hat Satellite, I can identify any vulnerability and perform quick patching. Red Hat support is also strong in terms of escalation and covering any security aspect with OpenSCAP or security policies.

I value Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because with Red Hat 10 coming up, many different features are available, including hosting containers and running Red Hat OpenStack on the Red Hat side, which are generally used on RHEL as the compute OS for hosting virtual machines.

For the provisioning part of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), it depends on the scale I am implementing. If I am provisioning multiple scales, such as thousands of servers, then there is a different provisioning method, and sometimes I do standalone installation based on the scenario. The provisioning part also comes with strong features, such as Red Hat's minimized ISO, which helps me quickly build servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) makes it easier for me to manage my hybrid cloud environment with Red Hat OpenShift, allowing me to use a single RHEL in my cloud environment and on-premises. It provides great flexibility with the same licensing and allows me to customize the image based on my requirements, especially when running on AWS.

I find that virtualization, particularly with Red Hat OpenShift virtualization, provides the same kind of experience as VMware, and it is a strong feature that came after decommissioning Red Hat Virtualization.

I have worked with the Image Builder feature, which allows customization in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

The Image Builder feature is helpful for system roles as it allows for customization based on the deployment environment, such as adhering to security frameworks like HIPAA, and it helps minimize the footprint of the OS binaries for RHEL VMs.

I do not see any significant disadvantages with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but for improvement, I think they could offer a cost optimization calculator and license portability, especially for perpetual licenses when upgrading to newer versions.

Red Hat's ecosystem aligns well with the current market standards and they continually add new features and provide support for various vendors, so I cannot recall any specific requests for add-ons at this time.

I started working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) more than 12 years ago.

I see no limitations on scalability with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I rate support from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as nine out of ten.

I find the knowledge base Red Hat offers to be very strong, providing comprehensive, point-to-point mapping for issues, and it is easy to search for specific errors before raising support tickets through access.redhat.com.

I find the deployment part very straightforward and user-friendly with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

In terms of upgrades and migrations on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I find the process very straightforward with minimum downtime for upgrades and patching, as Red Hat provides all binaries and changelogs to inform me about feature upgrades or library changes, though migration depends on the architecture and tool used.

In terms of value for money with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I see a strong return on investment because Red Hat licenses based on socket basis rather than core basis, making it a simpler and more efficient cost model compared to other vendors.

I consider the pricing and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to be moderate, not too high or low, but it does depend on how partners engage with Red Hat.

When I compare Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to other Linux distributions such as Ubuntu or Oracle, I notice that Red Hat has a very strong ecosystem regarding environments and operators. While Ubuntu follows a different distribution stream, in terms of performance, scalability, and security features, Red Hat is truly a pioneer in Linux.

I work with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as both a customer and a partner, initially as a customer, then as a partner.

I have Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in a hybrid environment.

I work with all three cloud providers: AWS, Azure, and GCP.

I would give Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a perfect 10 out of 10.

I assess both the technical and commercial aspects and find them well-balanced, leading to my score of 10 out of 10.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is best for servers usage. I have multiple services running on top of RHEL, both on the cloud and on-premise environments. It is my main usage for it.

The stability of the product helps me mitigate downtime and lower risk. We do not encounter any major downtime on our services due to RHEL.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is quite good. I obtained most of my knowledge from Red Hat documentations, architects, and consultants.

I have tried Red Hat Insights. I would rate it from one to ten, about an eight or nine in terms of how helpful it was.

I mostly use Insights, as it provides me with every piece of information I would need regarding Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). For any issue that I had, I searched for it and eventually found the Red Hat Insights webpage where I retrieved my relevant data.

I had some experience with Image Builder, but it is not something I can remember well.

I mostly used versions seven and eight of RHEL, so I do not have much experience with the recent versions. However, I am confident they handled most of the bugs I encountered on the less recent versions. This is my only complaint about RHEL—some bugs I encountered before, but I do not think they exist now on the newer versions.

The documentation is perfect for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and the ease of use is good as well.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for about seven to eight years.

I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) overall stable.

I would rate the technical support from one to ten as an eight.

Every time I tried to reach the support, I received an immediate response. It was quick and good support, so there is no room for improvement when it comes to response time or first-level support quality.

Before RHEL, I worked with something similar, specifically Ubuntu by Canonical.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is more mature in my opinion, particularly regarding stability compared to Ubuntu.

I took part in the deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in my company.

It was straightforward.

I have seen return on investment.

It took me approximately a couple of months to realize ROI.

I find the pricing reasonable and competitive.

For my usage, running services and running Kubernetes, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the best option on the market so far.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight from one to ten overall.

I think Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is quite popular among corporations here in my region.

I would recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for big companies and less recommend it for small companies since small companies would probably use Ubuntu. This is because of the pricing.