Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for AWS

Over the period of my career, I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)  initially in my first job at a research center, where we used it as a base operating system. Different variants of Red Hat, including CERN certified Linux and Red Hat, were used extensively at that time as a base OS for our organization. We have used it for running various infrastructure services. In my current office, we are using it to run an OpenShift cluster, so the base operating system is Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) .

We have performed a couple of migrations from cloud to on-prem with Red Hat Enterprise Linux  (RHEL), and they were smooth. They did not cause us much trouble.

The security requirements when deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux  (RHEL) are essential, and you have to perform certain steps to harden the core OS, which we have been following over the years. We have developed a regime on how to secure the OS when putting it into production, and for any OS, whether it be Windows or Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) or any other variant of Linux, we have a process of hardening the OS, performing some basic security checks before putting it into production. That has been the key throughout my career. There are no particular security requirements for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but as a general rule, when you put an operating system into production, you perform a set of processes to harden the OS. Obviously, patching is one of them; you patch it up to the latest level to keep clear of known vulnerabilities. Then, you harden the OS in your own environment, ensuring certain services are up and running, avoiding any extra accounts on the machine, shutting down unnecessary services, and making kernel configurations for hardening. There is a long list that is common for any Linux operating system we use in our production environment, and we harden it before we put it into production.

The most reliable function I find in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the stability of the platform. The stability of the operating system is crucial when you are running mission-critical services; you want to keep them running 24/7/365 with no downtime for the services. Unlike other operating systems, for example, with Windows, you have patches after which you need to reboot the OS. If you are not running your services in a cluster, you have to afford downtime for that service. What I really appreciate about Linux, particularly the latest versions and other variants like Oracle Enterprise Linux  (OEL), is that they have developed mechanisms where you can patch even the kernel vulnerabilities without rebooting the OS. That is a key feature for me because we have been running some mission-critical services over the years, and I have kept my servers up and running for almost four years in a row with not a single second of downtime.

The main benefit that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides for me is the stability of the environment in which I am running it. When running mission-critical services, I need a reliable operating system, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides the maximum stability of the infrastructure. It also offers scalability, which saves money when things are scalable, and there are no issues running the system without downtime, as that also costs money. Stability and scalability are key benefits.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps to mitigate downtime and lower risk because mostly, the infrastructure runs in the form of clusters. With OpenShift, I do not run a single node; we have underlying operating systems, and then we deploy clusters. When running clusters, there is very little chance of downtime. Whenever there is a problem in a node or a service, especially in today's microservices architecture, the nodes run on different hosts, and the application remains up and running in no time with no downtime for the service.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can improve the pricing a little bit, but nothing else comes to mind.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for about twenty plus years, and my overall experience with Linux is extensive.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps to mitigate downtime and lower risk because mostly, the infrastructure runs in the form of clusters. With OpenShift, I do not run a single node; we have underlying operating systems, and then we deploy clusters. When running clusters, there is very little chance of downtime. Whenever there is a problem in a node or a service, especially in today's microservices architecture, the nodes run on different hosts, and the application remains up and running in no time with no downtime for the service.

The scalability process with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is pretty much scalable. The servers support a lot of resources, and as long as you have resources at the hardware level, the operating systems are scalable. There has never been any issue regarding scalability or supporting the resources which are required for applications to run smoothly. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has never been a bottleneck in that regard.

I would rate technical support from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) somewhere between eight and nine because they have been very good in providing support. I never had any issue with the support; whenever we raised a ticket, we got a satisfactory answer and reply from the support, with a timely response. That is a key feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and it makes a significant difference compared to using a community edition of a Linux variant. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a company that supports you, and they are there with the support and all the other services they provide.

When running a community edition, you have to put in an effort and rely on the community for any issues or help needed. When you buy Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), a company sits behind your operating system, providing support. The same goes for Oracle Enterprise Linux , which is binary compatible with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); Oracle is there to support at the backend. With these kinds of operating systems, knowing that a full-fledged company is behind your operating system provides the required technical skill, manpower, and resources to support you in case you encounter any trouble.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is simple to set up; the setup process is very straightforward and not complex at all.

I would rate the price for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) quite high because in my part of the world, payments are made in dollars, and buying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) comes at a significant cost. If 1 is high and 10 is low, I would rate the price somewhere around 2.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can improve the pricing a little bit, but nothing else comes to mind.

In terms of technical aspects, I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Oracle Enterprise Linux (OEL) mostly the same as they are binary compatible. It does not matter to a service whether I am running it on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) or Oracle Enterprise Linux. The final decision point for me comes down to pricing; Oracle sometimes offers very good discounts due to their various services such as databases and Oracle Cloud . Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has similar pricing models, but cost can often be a concern for me because Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) tends to be a bit more expensive compared to Oracle Enterprise Linux, though technically they are quite similar with no issues.

I am pretty much satisfied with managing my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) system. There has never been an issue when it comes to provisioning or patching. When you are running an environment with a lot of servers, you can now use configuration manager tools to keep your cluster up and running in no time. You can manage your configurations across the clusters to be similar, down to a dot in the config file, and that is not a problem. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports these tools, and provisioning has always been a pleasant experience without any issues causing us much trouble.

I have experience with the knowledge base and it has always been very helpful. We have utilized the documentation extensively because when deploying new services, they have comprehensive and detailed documentation which is very helpful.

I can recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to other users without hesitation. My overall rating for this product is 9.5.

In my current role as an Enterprise Systems Engineer, my daily responsibilities involve provisioning Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)  servers, dealing with all the assets, users, storage, troubleshooting whenever there is an issue, and everything in between.

The business value of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) , especially in a production environment, is highlighted by response time when I encounter an issue. When my production is down, every additional minute of unplanned downtime means a fine from the regulator. In situations like that, if I have major downtime and support responds to my emergency in fifteen minutes, that is much better than a response in thirty or forty-five minutes. Beyond support, I appreciate Red Hat's commitment to security; my servers require third-party packages for my applications. The fact that Red Hat tests every package before adding it to their repositories gives me peace of mind regarding security. If any problems arise with Red Hat Enterprise Linux  (RHEL) packages, I am eligible for support, and they often provide analysis and patches. Therefore, the three biggest selling points for me are patching, security, and support.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate the technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux  (RHEL) at nine out of ten.

My major appreciation is how quickly they respond to calls; in my experience, it is much faster than all of the other major OEMs we have, such as Microsoft, Oracle, and IBM. Their response time is roughly the same as IBM, which is far better than the other OEMs I have. Especially if you raise a severity one case, they will respond in less than an hour, and you can always get an engineer on a Teams or Zoom call to actually see the problem you are having, rather than just sending commands to collect log files, uploading them to the portal, and waiting for their analysis. It is much easier, especially when you are in a crisis, to have someone on call with you.

In terms of provisioning and patching Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems, I utilize Red Hat Satellite  servers that essentially collect all of the patches advertised by Red Hat. We store these on-premises on a distribution server, the same server as the Satellite server, but for automation, we currently use Ansible  to trigger the updates we want applied to the servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) makes it easier to manage my hybrid cloud environment in some aspects, especially in terms of patching. Around Red Hat Satellite , I can onboard any server I have as long as I maintain a direct line of sight in terms of network. However, for comprehensive management of both private and public clouds, I honestly have not interacted with a solution from Red Hat that allows for that. I might not be aware of such a solution, but I have not experienced it.

My initial setup with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is straightforward; it is not substantially more difficult to deploy any Red Hat-based systems than it is for other Linux or open-source systems. The process is essentially the same, but with the backup of support, if something goes wrong, having enterprise support allows for quick assistance. Overall, I find it somewhat easier to deploy on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

The upgrades and migration on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are also straightforward; Red Hat provides a step-by-step guide with instructions and commands for upgrading servers from Red Hat seven to eight, and from eight to nine. They even include potential issues you might face and how to resolve them, which is very helpful.

I have not interacted with either Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Image Builder or Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) System Roles.

I do not have an answer ready for how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved; I need to give it some thought.

Regarding deploying clusters on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I do not have experience with that either.

I agree that deploying clusters was quite complex in the past, but I have not interacted with that particular product.

Overall, I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for approximately four years.

I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scalable, though it is not necessarily with regard to Red Hat-specific tools; it is more about open source and Linux tooling in general. For instance, whether creating a cluster or using Pacemaker, it is the same package I run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as on Oracle or SUSE. It is not really Red Hat-specific.

Recently, I had a significant incident on one of my servers; although I spent an entire day troubleshooting it, Red Hat support helped us bring it up within three hours of the call. Considering that I experienced financial loss during the downtime, I would say the ROI is definitely there, though it might depend on the industry.

My initial setup with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is straightforward; it is not substantially more difficult to deploy any Red Hat-based systems than it is for other Linux or open-source systems. The process is essentially the same, but with the backup of support, if something goes wrong, having enterprise support allows for quick assistance. Overall, I find it somewhat easier to deploy on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Regarding return on investment, I think it would be difficult for me to justify, but I would say it exists. In the finance industry, support is key. Recently, I had a significant incident on one of my servers; although I spent an entire day troubleshooting it, Red Hat support helped us bring it up within three hours of the call. Considering that I experienced financial loss during the downtime, I would say the ROI is definitely there, though it might depend on the industry.

The pricing for Red Hat's Premier support is on the higher side.

I do not really see advantages that Red Hat's competitors have over them; for most of the products I interact with in the Red Hat ecosystem, they are mostly available on almost all other distributions. While Red Hat does offer security and support advantages, most other items are similar across different distributions.

My company uses Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on a private cloud, but I have a mixture of both; I have some of my servers on VMware and others on Azure .

Approximately, us admins and application support teams consist of a team of thirty people. Others normally access through whatever application is running there, meaning that if it is a web application running on Apache, end users will access it through the web portal but not directly to the server.

My system lifecycle practices in the cloud are similar to my on-premises or virtualization practices; it is the same template in terms of how often we patch and perform vulnerability analysis. The lifecycle is pretty much the same, only that I have only test environments on the public cloud and production on my private cloud.

In East Africa, I see that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is popular among financial institutions, but non-financial institutions tend to prefer more open distributions due to cost. For financial institutions, security and support are key selling points, which makes Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) quite popular.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat features documentation that is quite easy to digest and organized well, allowing users to find articles based on topic. They provide descriptions of what you are dealing with and any commands necessary to get particular functionalities working; overall, they are doing a good job with documentation.

There is no exact limitation when integrating Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) with other products or third-party solutions; they do not discourage running other applications on their systems. Essentially, the same capability available on a supported version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can also run on an unsupported version and on any other distribution besides Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Therefore, I do not see either an advantage or disadvantage there.

My overall review rating for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is nine out of ten.