Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for AWS

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is to use it as a server where I can host applications, specifically using it to host security products, such as a customized firewall or as a database server.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is deployed in my organization across public cloud, private cloud, hybrid cloud, and on-premises environments. I primarily use Azure as my cloud provider, and I also utilize on-premises solutions along with some AWS and GCP.

I manage regulatory compliance and upcoming mandates, such as post-quantum cryptography, by regularly testing it on RHEL servers and comparing transfer times between packets on both sides, ensuring compatibility before applying it to my IPsec tunneling.

In my Zero Trust model implementation across identity and authentication, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) serves mainly as the host for my applications, while my network layer utilizes Zero Trust principles.

I use both Red Hat Satellite and Red Hat Lightspeed to effectively manage and maintain my hybrid cloud environment.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted my organization by allowing me to deploy servers that are very stable, so I only have to worry about the hardware hosting the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) environment and the public clouds, making my operations smoother with good support to overcome critical situations.

A specific outcome I have noticed is less downtime, which is a critical parameter. The time to detect and mitigate issues becomes more manageable with the quick engagement of the Red Hat support team.

The business value of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) compares favorably with other Linux distributions I have used, primarily due to its availability of support, easier management, and timely updates and patches.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) solves the pain point of hosting applications easily, running Kubernetes or Docker container environments, and the centralized management helps alleviate the challenges of managing a large RHEL infrastructure.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s reliability, security controls, and performance influence my choice for those server roles. It is quite reliable, and from a security perspective, it performs really well, especially with the SELinux security feature which is very helpful for my organization.

The best features Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers include security, which is one of the best, along with the support I receive for any issues. The overall community availability in Linux is very important, which Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides along with a very good support team.

The stable versions that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) releases match well with the applications I try to deploy on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) servers, and the different distributions available help me deploy my applications reliably.

Regarding Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s AI capabilities, I find that its governance and security are quite stable and match various governance standards, such as European laws and US laws, allowing compliance and the application of different patches and hot fixes. The accuracy and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s AI capabilities depend on the models implemented, and I find it is efficient.

To navigate my security risks, I use SELinux and Red Hat Lightspeed. SELinux helps me with security enforcement at the kernel level. Red Hat Lightspeed fits into my security workflow by facilitating risk analysis and management.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports my approach to CVE management by providing regular updates on vulnerabilities, and I leverage the Red Hat Lightspeed Insight client to assess system exposure against published CVEs.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux Image Builder and find it helpful for creating customized golden images, complete with standard security patches required in my organization.

Features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) such as support for post-quantum cryptography help secure and protect AI workloads, enhancing my overall security posture.

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in both cloud and on-premises environments, and its availability across both versions provides flexibility for me.

Red Hat Satellite controls and manages my RHEL server through a centralized location while Lightspeed analyzes my RHEL server to identify risks and recommend necessary remediations.

I believe Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved by making more public community versions available for community contribution, such as CentOS, leading to a more stable and improved product.

Additionally, I think the cost can be more stabilized, as it currently remains a critical parameter where Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a bit more expensive.

I have been using RHEL for about seven years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s scalability allows me to scale according to my hardware needs.

I can share a time when the Red Hat support team helped me resolve a real issue. I ran into a couple of issues with updates being pushed automatically, and the Red Hat team specifically helped me roll those updates back to the previous version, getting me out of a critical situation.

I assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), both on-premises and hosted, as a 10 out of 10. The customer support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is excellent, and I rate it 10 out of 10.

Previously, I used the Ubuntu solution from Canonical for a specific application, but I switched due to issues with unattended upgrades and instability caused by poor updates.

The deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is easier, and I can deploy it on any cloud, with very good availability. I have deployed it on different public clouds, private clouds, and my on-premises environment.

I have seen a return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), saving money through centralized management that allows me to evaluate server usage and reduce underutilized servers, leading to lower licensing costs.

I have a separate licensing arrangement for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). The pricing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a bit expensive, but the setup and overall experience with it is quite good, as I set up the environment in a very short time.

Before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I evaluated other options such as Canonical Ubuntu, CentOS, and SUSE Linux, but ultimately selected Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) due to its excellent support.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine because it is a good product that ultimately provides what I need, but I believe the cost should improve along with the availability of community versions.

I have done a major version upgrade of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) but not via Ansible.

I would advise those looking into Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to consider it for a more stable environment compared to community versions. Its centralized management and tools reduce the need for human involvement and troubleshooting time, saving both time and money.

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is as a database server. I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as the operating system to run my database.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has a positive impact on my organization precisely because of the stability and the package updates that the operating system has, which support my operations very positively.

The stability of the operating system greatly reduces downtime, optimizing my operation precisely because I experience fewer recurring failures and fewer recurring problems that prevent the operating system from being used.

In my opinion, the best features that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers are stability and frequent updates.

The stability and frequent updates of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) impact my day-to-day work by allowing me to have longer uptime for the applications that are running on my database server and enabling me to always use the most current versions of the packages and systems I need.

I use SELinux to manage security risks in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and it helps my organization in that regard.

In the regulatory compliance process and new requirements such as post-quantum, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a role in my company's compliance and audit workflows with validation of access logs.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) fully meets my needs, so I do not think there is any point that could be adjusted or improved.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for more than 10 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is stable.

I cannot say exactly about the scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but it is installed and meeting my current needs.

I do not use the knowledge base, but I think Red Hat's knowledge base itself is very good and very complete.

The customer support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is one of the company's strong points. I would rate customer support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 10.

I did not have another solution before using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing is that I believe it is within the market range, tied to what it actually delivers.

No other options were evaluated before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 10. I choose this rating because of the stability that the operating system offers me and the ease of use.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) does not play any role in implementing the Zero Trust model in my organization. No feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me protect or develop innovative technology regarding AI workloads.

I believe Red Hat's great value lies in the reliability of the company behind the solution compared to other Linux distributions I have used. My recommendation to others reading reviews on PeerSpot is that if Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is to be used together with an Oracle database, it is the best option.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is used for our core systems.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) brings measurable benefits to our financial institution by enabling us to quickly provision and manage our critical core systems. The ease of management and uptime are key requirements for us, and it helps me save time.

For example, with one of our key systems, such as mobile banking, we are able to set it up and configure it easily, bringing it up within an hour in a new environment. In contrast, with Windows, we have to find various APIs to connect to the application for it to work, which takes considerably longer.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve integration challenges, particularly in terms of compatibility with applications and APIs available for our key systems with other vendors or players in the market.

It has helped me mitigate downtime and lower risks. The ease of manageability and ease of resource management, specifically CPU and memory, within Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) make that quite straightforward.

I appreciate the ease of use and management since we recently implemented Ansible and Satellite to manage the servers. The stability is also a significant factor in comparison to Windows servers.

From my perspective, the most important security feature in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the ease of management, particularly how we can easily integrate it into our core security systems, such as the SIEM tool or any firewalls we have internally. The ease of use is crucial.

I would appreciate seeing a single portal for both Ansible and Satellite, rather than having different environments to manage the servers. Beyond that, I believe in continuous enhancement, which people are actively pursuing because it is an open-source application. The knowledge base is adequate.

At the moment, I do not find any missing features that I would want included in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Once you pay for the enterprise features such as Ansible, it comes down to financial availability. If you do not have the budget, then you cannot have Ansible or Satellite within your environment, but otherwise, everything is available.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the last two years.

I have not experienced any crashes, downtimes, or performance issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is quite scalable. In terms of our needs, we are able to provision and scale up or down depending on how we need to provision within our environment.

I assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as good. Since we have the enterprise version, we have people who are able to research for us and provide guidance. In case we have a problem, we can access the knowledge base portal or what is available online based on what others have already experienced. The offering is quite extensive.

I evaluate the technical support team as good. We are able to receive technical support for issues we might raise, whether through the vendor or directly. I would give the technical support a rating of eight on a scale of one to ten.

I only have experience with Windows.

I did not entirely decide to switch from Windows to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because we still have some workloads on Windows and some on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

The key differences of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in comparison to Windows technologies include better uptime for Linux. In terms of resource management, the servers are able to run for longer periods compared to Windows servers. Additionally, Linux does a better job in managing resources, allowing us to run a server close to ninety percent of resource usage without affecting some of the critical services we run, which is not the case for Windows.

I find the initial setup process for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) quite straightforward and easy to use.

We set up Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) ourselves. The only thing we have with the partner is technical support for things we may not be able to resolve. The vendor is able to assist us.

I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) cost-effective. In terms of ROI, we are able to manage the costs well.

We purchased Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) through a partner rather than going directly to the vendor.

Currently, we are working on the Image Builder to help us manage setting up our infrastructure. I do not have much experience with it yet and we are currently reviewing it.

Currently, the only thing that is on the cloud is our DNS; everything else is on-premises.

My recommendation for others looking into implementing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it is something they can consider. I believe it is quite easy to learn, so learning Red Hat itself is not a very difficult endeavor, and I would recommend it.

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) only for educational purposes and for deployment of Apache server.

This is a support role I have been providing with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), not on the development part.

I work purely on-premises, and I have not had projects with hybrid environments.

On the business aspect, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been around for a longer period. A lot of updates have been made and many changes to the operating system. They have updated many things, which are the major business aspects of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me to save time.

For downtime, it's a very minimal part. With automated scripting on the command side, we managed to have lesser downtime on the Linux part.

Security-wise, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is more secure than other operating systems.

The most important security feature in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the file system.

The file system is an important security feature because it uses the typical ext2 file system where only the Linux operating system will support those file systems.

I have tried System Roles.

I find System Roles helpful because with our client, we are just installing on the system side, not pushing images. It will be on a case-by-case basis on the project, so in that way, we use it on the system side.

Application-wise, development should be improved on the Linux platform.

I would like to see enhancements to the driver side and driver updates on the hardware part included or enhanced in the future.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in a partial way on a project basis, not in a continuous way.

I have been working with it for 15 years.

I have not experienced any crashes, downtimes, or performance issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is scalable.

In a few cases we have contacted the technical support or customer service teams for support. On the vendor side, they have also supported us to resolve the issues.

I would rate the technical support an eight on a scale of one to ten.

There were not any big challenges. It is easier to install.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is cost-effective.

I explain that it's cost-effective because the license cost is a one-time cost, rather than other operating systems which are on a subscription basis.

For the licensing part, as of now, we have been using the open source only. We have installed advanced versions in a few cases on a project basis.

In comparison to Ubuntu technologies, Ubuntu is open source. You can develop things on that. On the advanced version of Ubuntu, there is an open source where you can customize things and automate the operating system.

Apart from the security aspect we discussed, Ubuntu is an open-source, free resource for educational purposes and also on the customizing side, rather than Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Knowledge-wise, I have gotten hands-on experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), not from any course. I have been working with hands-on experience and gained the knowledge from Linux.

I can suggest the Linux operating system as a secure operating system. Things can also be customized on it.

I use Chef for application development and tool software upgrades. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a role in my organization's implementation of adhering to the Zero Trust model because I mainly use it for production workloads.

I currently use Ansible Automation Platform with RHEL. With Ansible, I also use it for package upgrades and to configure client servers to efficiently manage production servers.

Chef has helped streamline my application delivery process because I can simultaneously upgrade many applications using Chef by installing Chef Master and Chef Client servers. On the servers, I need to install Chef Client, then I can simultaneously upgrade and apply configuration for each server.

The business value of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) compares favorably to other Linux distributions I have used. It is mainly a stable operating system, and they provide the best end-to-end support, which is why I use it over other operating systems.

The most valuable features I have found in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are the Package Manager and Ansible, which can be used for automation. Red Hat is more stable for production workloads, which is why I use it.

It is easy to configure security with SELinux, which I use mainly for security purposes, along with the inbuilt firewall.

I have tried Red Hat Enterprise Linux Image Builder. It is very helpful because I can easily install images. I have built an image with Podman inbuilt tools and container tools in Red Hat. It is very easy to handle and compile an image.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides clear documentation, making it easy to configure and manage the operating system in production and also in the public cloud.

I have done a major version update with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Ansible Automation Platform. With Ansible, I can do updates step-by-step, and it is easy to handle errors. According to the errors, I can configure the next steps.

In my opinion, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved because the subscription cost is very expensive. I think additional features such as the integration of AI features in the future with the operating system and log management would help make it closer to a ten out of ten rating.

I have been working with Chef SaaS for around one year. I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for around four years.

I have not faced issues with consistency regarding how Chef Habitat has aided in maintaining consistent application behavior. It is very efficient and very easy to configure and use in Chef cookbook, and there is extensive documentation available.

I would rate the technical support by Red Hat around nine out of ten. There is no room for improvement when it comes to response time and first-level support quality. They provide good support when required and they provide clear documentation.

The initial setup was straightforward.

I have seen a return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) around six months.

I am the user and I am working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I use Red Hat Linux 9 and 8 in my company. Overall, I would rate my experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) around nine out of ten. I am a customer of Red Hat.