My main use cases revolve around managing my application, so I want to ensure there is an operating system on which I can keep it. Linux is one of the best options where I can keep my application, either containerized or running as a JBoss application or whatever else is needed. Therefore, I started with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 6 and have progressed to RHEL 7, RHEL 8, and RHEL 9 as of today. One of my main use cases is to ensure I run my application on an operating system, and RHEL provides the best security patches and quick fixes, and it supports a lot.
External reviews
244 reviews
from
External reviews are not included in the AWS star rating for the product.
Security and patching have protected financial workloads and support simple, compliant operations
What is our primary use case?
What is most valuable?
RHEL helps solve my pain points by providing patching. Security is one of the big pain points for me, especially as I work for a financial company, making it important that security is a critical thing, and RHEL solves that.
The features of RHEL that I appreciate the most include its various packages, which allow me to ensure that I can customize whatever I need and keep it in the operating system. I can discard the rest of the things that are not needed. It provides various ways, and whatever the package manager it provides and the connection to Satellite, it is a seamless process. I do not need to spend much time on that.
What needs improvement?
I think RHEL could improve by considering backward compatibility when making changes from version to version. For example, we were using OpenLDAP in RHEL 7, but when we went to RHEL 8, it was not available. I had to bring in some new systems because OpenLDAP is not a feature in RHEL 8, requiring a lot of re-engineering because of whatever new tools arise that are not backward compatible.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for almost ten years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
We have experienced some downtime, performance issues, or crashes with RHEL, but these are not critical impacts. Our system is designed to minimize issues. We have seen out-of-memory errors, which we monitor through kernel logs such as dmesg. We were able to tune the system effectively. Issues arise, but they are solvable. It depends on the requirements, such as what application is running on it. Fine-tuning the operating system is essential to maintain reliability, especially for containerized applications. The base image requires fine-tuning, and similarly, RHEL does.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
RHEL scales well with the growing needs of my company. We used to have three hundred virtual machines, and now we have over seven thousand five hundred virtual machines in our environment across RHEL 8, RHEL 9, and RHEL 7.
How are customer service and support?
I would rate customer service and technical support eight out of ten. It depends on the issue I raise. Good support is provided for Sev 1 issues, but for those of lesser severity, the response decreases. This rating also relates to the type of subscription I believe we have; with a premium subscription, we tend to receive a good response.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
I do not remember using another solution prior to RHEL at my company. It has been a long time, and I do not think we were using anything else before.
How was the initial setup?
The deployment process of RHEL is pretty straightforward. We have multiple strategies, including SaltStack, and we used to have Puppet; now, we utilize Ansible. We have control and manage the deployment, or we go to VMware, create the machine, and install the operating system. Everything is automated, and we have transitioned from SaltStack to Ansible, making it straightforward.
What about the implementation team?
I have not done a major version upgrade with RHEL and Ansible Automation Platform, but my team has. Recently, we migrated from RHEL 7 to RHEL 8 using Ansible.
That experience was pretty straightforward. We tested it end-to-end, and then we just migrated.
What was our ROI?
From my perspective, the biggest return on investment when using RHEL is security. As a financial company, I cannot opt for an open-source operating system. I invest effort and money in RHEL 8, expecting the system to be secure and reliable when serving my clients. RHEL is definitely helpful in that regard.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
I do not deal much with the pricing, setup costs, or licensing of RHEL. Most recently, I was involved in those conversations, and it seemed pretty reasonable. I do not think it is a significant issue for us.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
I have not evaluated other solutions while using RHEL. We recently migrated to OpenShift. If the application is containerized, we are moving to OpenShift, so it is not that we are actually looking for any RHEL alternatives.
What other advice do I have?
My thoughts on Red Hat Satellite are that it provides an easy way to pull the patches, and it has all the versions, allowing me to create the repo and just pull from Satellite to get the packages I need.
We use Amazon Web Services as our cloud provider.
I do use Red Hat Satellite.
RHEL helps solve my pain points by providing patching. Security is one of the big pain points for me, especially as I work for a financial company, making it important that security is a critical thing, and RHEL solves that.
To navigate my security risks, I use a security tool such as Wiz running on the system, which identifies if there are any CVEs associated with the systems. Whatever the CVE it had, I can get the latest. We always go back to the CVE report and see if Red Hat provided that patch or not. If it is there, we just do monthly patching.
I am not certain what role RHEL plays in my company's implementation of the zero trust model.
My company's process for managing regulatory compliance involves tying up with different companies for auditing. They ask for screenshots, versions, patching details, version numbers, and a lot of details. We take all the screenshots, document them, and send them. RHEL plays a key role in this process; without an operating system, it would not make sense to provide the audit team any compliance information.
Whether RHEL helps mitigate downtime and lower risk depends on how I configure it. I make sure I have high availability. I have high availability running on my systems and migrate the traffic as needed, especially to keep my application up and running and reliable. Keeping high availability is essential, and RHEL supports me with the versions or at least the keepalived or whatever packages it provides; we use them.
I am not completely certain which RHEL capabilities helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk at my company. An example would help me correlate. Satellite provides patches, and it helps with downtime. My system depends on Satellite. Ultimately, my packages depend upon Satellite, and it does assist us with high availability and downtime.
The knowledge base offered by RHEL is straightforward. It has been there for a while, and every version we go through its documentation, especially while doing upgrades. The support team is always there and helpful if needed. I can raise a Red Hat case if required, just a Sev 4 or Sev 5 ticket. I might get a response in a day or two, depending on the severity or the bug's nature. While documentation helps mostly, we reach out for additional support as necessary.
I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) nine out of ten overall. My advice to other companies considering RHEL is to definitely look at the support that Red Hat provides, especially regarding security patching, version upgrades, and how Red Hat listens to our needs. When I have an issue, I expect that while they cannot resolve it the same day, they will address it in the months to come. I always have faith that I will receive assistance; it just takes time. My suggestion to other customers is to trust Red Hat; they always listen to their users and take care of issues.
Platform has unified microservice deployment and provides strong security and responsive support
What is our primary use case?
I'm working on OpenShift in a Red Hat environment with Red Hat Linux. I'm working on a Linux platform, using the product as Linux, and the product I'm using is OpenShift.
I'm using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); that's correct.
We are working on microservices, so we are using OpenShift for the deployment of the application's microservices approach. OpenShift provides good features to create Docker files and deployment. It's a unique product where we are not very worried about the Docker file and repository configuration; everything is in one place. We only need to be worried about the source code. It is a good product. Even in the market, people are likely using all solutions from one vendor. The speed of resolution of problems is also very smooth. Sometimes, if there is any technical issue, the Red Hat team also works in parallel and provides a solution very frequently and quickly. Overall, even though there are multiple products for Kubernetes available, like AWS, GKE, and AKS, OpenShift is more user-friendly, and everything is in-house. People are very happy to use it and are adopting it. Support-wise, they are not looking at multiple vendors. Only one vendor will fix all kinds of issues.
What is most valuable?
Security requirements are useful for me in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the cloud; it has also fulfilled security-related use cases. I am very happy, and the features Red Hat provides are very useful for real-time scenarios.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very easy to use, and the support services are also very good from the Red Hat side. This is why people are moving to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Upgradation, security, and everything are upgraded from time to time. As a client and as a vendor, we are adopting and using the enhancement approach that Red Hat provides from time to time.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) makes it easier to manage my hybrid cloud environment because it is not much different from what other vendors will provide. It is very useful. From what I know and have observed, for upgradation, security, other patches, or other versions, they are enhancing and providing quick solutions and new features. It is very useful, and this is why we prefer it. They also timely provide us with documentation to upgrade the older version to a new version. The documentation part is also very good, and if we upgrade from a lower version to a higher version, it is very simple and will update the cluster within a second. I feel that OpenShift is better than other vendors.
I'm not feeling much difference with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and any other vendor because Red Hat is OpenShift. Only their security features and new functionality are managed by Red Hat. If we are not aware of something, they will document it and provide guidance and training. It is easy to understand and implement in real-time. This is the difference we are getting with other vendors: training and documentation. But as a production or any implementation, because they are also providing content and documentation, implementation-wise, for a new feature or new technology, if we are looking into it on the Linux platform, we will integrate easily and implement our application easily into Red Hat.
What needs improvement?
The AI part is coming into the picture as generative AI and agentic AI; multiple parts are there. Security might be the biggest challenge for AI right now. Red Hat needs to enhance for the AI-related applications because sometimes it is an open kind of environment, like ChatGPT. Privacy needs to be maintained. Overall, from a security perspective, whatever they have provided, I'm satisfied with. Going forward, the AI thing is increasing, and data leakage may happen later on. Red Hat needs to consider all the parameters related to AI, and if they are providing any solution, it needs to be very secure because right now, people are creating AI-related applications, but from a security perspective, there is not much. If they consider that and provide a solution, they might get more value.
Functionality-wise, I feel that Red Hat has done a tremendous job. Functionality-wise, I will not suggest anything because they have covered whatever their competitors have. Red Hat also has a similar approach, and they have a solution. The only consideration part right now is the AI security kind of application. No other company is also providing any fixed solution as of now, a generic and fixed solution for it. If people are working with a security perspective, then it is better, and Red Hat might be a leader for the others.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for around three years.
How are customer service and support?
The technical support from Red Hat is the best part, and I am totally satisfied.
I confirm that I have experience with IBM Linux, and it is the same functionality with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
I have worked on IBM Linux with different other vendors, so I feel that documentation, training, and perspective, Red Hat is much better than any other Linux. That is the key. Support-wise also, if anybody is facing a challenge, the support system is very reachable, and they will support immediately.
I confirm that I have experience with IBM Linux, and it is the same functionality with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).
How was the initial setup?
The initial setup for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very simple.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
Price-wise, I feel there is a difference. Red Hat will charge a bit more. But they are providing value, so it is fine if people are using a very secure environment and an in-house solution. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very useful, but pricing-wise, there is a difference from other vendors. It might be because they are providing an all-in-house solution; that is the reason. I don't know the exact reason, but that is the thing I have considered.
What other advice do I have?
I can provide a rating of ten for the scalability part of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).
Price-wise, I feel there is a difference. Red Hat will charge a bit more. But they are providing value, so it is fine if people are using a very secure environment and an in-house solution. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very useful, but pricing-wise, there is a difference from other vendors. It might be because they are providing an all-in-house solution; that is the reason. I don't know the exact reason, but that is the thing I have considered.
Majorly, the company will provide a portal for Red Hat, and everything is managed by the market portal. The costing part is taken care of, but for estimation, calculation, and suggestion, we are suggesting which one is better and which one is not. The final call depends on the manager and discussions with multiple factors, and even the client, regarding which cloud or which Linux to use.
Majorly, I have worked on the AWS and Azure platforms for deployment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).
It is very simple to migrate from the cloud to on-prem with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Upgradation has no problem. Even with migration, we need to follow some rules and concepts. In that situation also, they are using Linux. So, we can deploy the same into Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) also. We are not seeing any major changes or differences for the migration from other Linux to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). It is the same. No problem with the migration.
It is not my part, but I participated sometimes in the Red Hat Linux Image Builder. I was not creating any images. But cloud-wise, there are also provisioners which will provide specific services for Red Hat, and in it, it will build the different applications with the Red Hat OS. It is done by the developers, but I feel that it is very simple and is done by the provisioner facility. It will also provide it with the help of Ansible, with the help of Terraform, and multiple other tools.
I don't feel any pain points with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but it will provide a good support system and whatever functionality is majorly in the market, it will also provide. It is not very far from the market. Whatever the market has, it will provide. I feel that it is a good product.
It is very good with the knowledge base offered by Red Hat; whatever product we are using, they are also well-documented, and they will provide that before using anything. It is fine. There is no need to provide unnecessary documentation. Whatever they are providing is more than sufficient for the implementation. Whenever any developer, support team, or DevOps engineer is facing any challenge, they raise a request with the support team, and they will provide an immediate solution. They will also provide a customized solution. It is better support-wise and document-wise. I feel there are no suggestions for enhancement or anything additional.
I don't see any kind of gap regarding how Red Hat helps to mitigate downtime or lower risk, but I feel some solutions with Terraform or something similar are not providing proper documentation. I have observed that one time. But when we raised a request, they immediately provided a solution. With a new technology, like AI coming into the picture, for the pros and cons and how to implement and what kind of applications it is supporting, they need to provide very crisp and simple documentation. This way, as a support team, DevOps team, or any developers, they will create their applications and deploy them seamlessly into production.
I can consider Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a rating of nine point five, and zero point five percent is an enhancement that is needed everywhere. I would rate it as nine. My overall review rating is ten.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
Hybrid Cloud
If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?
Amazon Web Services (AWS)
Standardization has reduced platforms and created a centrally managed, automated environment
What is our primary use case?
My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is as a server for our database servers, our middleware servers, and the application servers. Everything besides SAP falls into this category. SAP is currently running on SUSE Linux.
What is most valuable?
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points by being a quite integrated system. Working together with Ansible and the Ansible Automation Platform, we did a lot to have a standardized platform, including consistent hardening and everything in a very good managed way.
The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) I like the most are its central management, which is really good to have, including some connections to our CMDB to see what is in our inventory, what is used and so on. That is quite beneficial.
What needs improvement?
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved by enhancing its central tools side. We use a lot of automated discovery for CMDB topics through Satellite and the facts. It would be really interesting to have a more consistent inventory already in place that we can access to pull into a CMDB because we have a highly automated approach there, and there is some room for improvement.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been working in this field for twenty years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
Regarding the reliability and stability of the platform, I have not experienced any downtime or crashes on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) side. We are quite stable and do not have major issues with that.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
The scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is more based on our hypervisor level; we mainly use VMware, so the scalability is essentially at this level. We do not have any issues at the OS level itself.
How are customer service and support?
The customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is quite good. We also did some projects with the consulting of Red Hat directly to bring in the OpenShift features, and we are very happy with how they manage that. I would rate the customer service and technical support a nine out of ten.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
Prior to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we used AIX, which was replaced. We also used HPUX, which was replaced. We still have SUSE in place for our SAP systems, which we maintain as well.
The difference between those products and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that I think Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is one of the biggest players. I am trying to find a reliable player in the market for the future. We obviously tried to pull out these niche products. AIX is now a niche product. HPUX is dying, and all those products are from the past. We had to maintain them to a certain point as the applications were there, but now we have migrated most of them to the modern platforms, which helps with reducing costs as we do not have to maintain many platforms.
How was the initial setup?
The deployment process for us is straightforward; we now have a fully automated process, so that is quite easy for us.
What was our ROI?
The biggest return on investment for me when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), from my point of view, relates to standardization, allowing us to have fewer operating systems. We are currently using just two OS providers on Linux, which makes maintainability easier.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
My experience with the pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that the pricing is acceptable for us. As a big company, I would say it is fair pricing right now. We have to observe that a lot of companies are increasing their prices significantly over the last decades, like VMware and so on. We keep a close look at that, but currently, it is acceptable pricing.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
I have not considered switching from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at any time since purchasing it.
What other advice do I have?
We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on-premises.
We also use Lightspeed.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has not yet helped our AI workloads. We do not have many AI workloads right now. We are having a couple of pilot projects in AWS on AWS native workloads, but it is just in a starting phase. Therefore, there is not a high demand right now in our company.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a role in our company's implementation of the zero-trust model mainly on the workload side since we have a couple of other products around regarding network and other areas. We are using mainly server functionality from Red Hat in our current setup and not the on-top products.
We have done a major version upgrade with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and the Ansible Automation Platform. We have a quite good life cycle, so we are running through the life cycles each year to the new versions.
The experience has been good. We have not had any major issues. This year, we are also doing in-place upgrades. Before that, we did replacements with new machines and migrations, but since this year we are running in-place upgrades, which is quite good and causes less trouble than expected.
Our company's process for managing regulatory compliance is more related to the auditing we obviously have with NIS2 and all this in the EU. Each year, we have a couple of audits ongoing. However, the audits themselves do not really look into the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) implementation; it is more on a higher level. We are obviously pulling reports for the audit of the hardening compliance and so on of our systems to prove that the things are implemented.
My overall experience using the Ansible Automation Platform has been quite good. We come from an infrastructure where we had a lot of managed service providers using their own automations. About five years ago, we decided to stop that and build our own automation platform. All our managed service providers have to use that. We developed that, set it up, and it is a really good success story as we now have all our automations internal. We have full responsibility for it, which works out quite well, allowing us not to change anything if we have to change a provider in the backend.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks at my company mainly through controlling planned downtime. This means if we are doing patching and so on, we have a good setup with our CMDB to maintain controlled patching cycles and reboot cycles over our whole environment in the agreed timeframes and windows. It does not really help to mitigate downtimes, but it makes the planning of downtimes better.
The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is quite good and has improved a lot. We can quickly find what we need. My team uses it a lot.
My advice to other companies considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is to focus from the start on having automation in place. Do not wait too long, as it makes things much easier if we implement everything through automation from the beginning rather than doing it manually. My overall rating for this review is nine out of ten.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
On-premises
If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?
Amazon Web Services (AWS)
Secure automation has improved compliance and supports a zero trust model for hybrid workloads
What is our primary use case?
My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) today include developing applications and managing server environments efficiently. I use Red Hat Satellite and Red Hat Lightspeed overall, which streamline our operations significantly.
What is most valuable?
RHEL helps me solve various pain points, such as ensuring system stability and security across our infrastructure. I particularly appreciate the advanced security features of RHEL the most, as they enhance our overall protection.
RHEL plays a crucial role in my company's implementation of the zero trust model by ensuring secure identity and authentication measures. Using Ansible Automation Platform has been a smooth experience overall, enabling better automation in our workflows.
I use features in RHEL such as identity management and Satellite, which help my company maintain compliance and security. The stability and scalability of the platform are commendable, ensuring our systems can handle growth efficiently.
What needs improvement?
Regarding improvements, I think RHEL could benefit from better user interface enhancements for future releases.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been working in my current field for several years now and have gained valuable experience during this time.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
RHEL helps mitigate downtime and lower risks thanks to its robust design.
How are customer service and support?
On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the customer service and technical support as an eight, as they are responsive, but there is always room for improvement.
How was the initial setup?
I would describe the deployment process of RHEL as mostly straightforward, although some challenges may arise.
What was our ROI?
From my perspective, I have seen a return on investment using RHEL, primarily through improved efficiency and system reliability.
What other advice do I have?
My company is still working on artificial intelligence workloads, as we are in the early stages of exploring this technology. I would not say that RHEL has directly helped those customers yet, as we are still gathering data on effectiveness.
Regarding the knowledge base offered by RHEL, I find it very useful and assess it highly due to its comprehensive information. I do not specifically handle insights on pricing, setup costs, or licensing, as that is managed by another department in my company.
On a scale of one to ten, I would rate RHEL overall as a nine. I advise other companies to thoroughly assess their needs before implementation.
Hybrid cloud automation has accelerated deployments and improved security and support quality
What is our primary use case?
We are a service provider and support provider for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is used for OpenShift management; Linux is the base for many IT companies, providing them with the management of their applications using the Linux operating system. In the Linux space, Red Hat is the leading company, so we utilize it.
Cloud provisioning becomes easy with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because they offer satellite automation and image builder, which simplifies the process. They also provide DHCP servers for IP allocation.
In managing hybrid cloud environments, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a crucial role; the OS is a core feature for managing solutions across AWS, Azure, and on-premise setups. It provides unified management and supports the Ansible automation platform. With customized image builders, you can build OS images based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), making it beneficial for hybrid cloud deployments, whether on AWS, Azure, GCP, or physical servers.
What is most valuable?
There are a lot of capabilities in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I find valuable, as it is provided by the leading company, Red Hat, which is a top Linux operating system provider. Their support, documentation, and overall offerings are significantly better compared to others, such as Ubuntu and other open-source Linux operating systems that lack proper support and documentation.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) support is among the most valuable aspects. Linux is similar everywhere, such as Ubuntu, but Red Hat's Linux offers substantial benefits, including strong support, proper documentation, training, and labs. This capability is more beneficial than what other options provide.
What needs improvement?
I believe improvements in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are required. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) should explore integrating AI, as many systems are currently incorporating AI. I believe that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) should implement some AI-driven command systems for enhanced functionality.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the past one and a half years. I am still working with it.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides a lot of scalability; its architecture depends on NUMA optimization, thread support, and it has a TuneD daemon for performance adjustment, allowing us to manage kernel parameters and handle high-demand workloads, such as SQL and NoSQL databases. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 9 also offers good network efficiency.
I would rate the scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) between 8 and 9. I would say it is closer to 8.
How are customer service and support?
I often communicate with the technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I would rate the support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a 10 because it is significantly better than any other options.
I have had multiple interactions with Red Hat support, and usually, when you submit a request or ticket on their support platform, they reply immediately due to their strong and large team of experienced professionals. Any issue will get resolved, and if it is not solvable by the lower-level team, they quickly escalate it to higher-level support.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
I did not use a different solution before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for these use cases. When I joined and during my college studies, I simply learned about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I have a basic understanding of other options but did not try them.
How was the initial setup?
I participated in the deployment and initial setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). For the initial setup process of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we first need their ISO. Then we create a bootable media using that ISO; depending on whether deploying to the cloud, on-premise, or bare metal servers, we create one VM for the deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Numerous internal configurations follow in the Anaconda setup, including language, time setup, NTP servers, IP, hostname setup, and the main task is to register it using the Red Hat Enterprise Linux subscription manager or satellite.
I do not have any challenges during the initial setup because I have completed two Red Hat certifications in college, making me familiar with the process.
What was our ROI?
Regarding return on investment, since I am the technical person, I do not know much from a business perspective.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
I am happy with the pricing that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers. I come from a technical background, so I do not have much insight into the business side, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers many advantages with its support, official documentation, training, and various sessions. I think it is user-friendly and its cost will be beneficial compared to other operating systems within similar budgets.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
I have not used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Image Builder yet; I have basic knowledge about it but have not utilized it.
What other advice do I have?
The management experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is good; as newer versions are released frequently, such as currently Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10, updating and patching is quite easier and not a complex task.
With the provisioning of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I think it depends on the environment, whether physical, virtual, or cloud.
Security requirements were a consideration in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the cloud for me, as Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides enhanced security. It comes with Red Hat's internal security features, making it more secure than alternative solutions. Additionally, since Linux is open source, anyone can create their own operating system using Linux base code, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) stands out for its security.
The upgrade was straightforward, moving from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 8 to 9, moving from 8.6 to 9.
I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) System Roles. System Roles were very helpful during my use of Ansible. The help from System Roles was particularly significant when using Ansible automation, as specific permissions are granted to specific roles assigned to users or groups, which can then be utilized for folder management, automatic deployments, or task performance.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) saves time effectively. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me save time, especially through automation features with Ansible, which streamlines management tasks. It also provides a ready-to-run environment with a pre-built ISO, allowing direct deployment after making some role changes and setting IP and networking configurations. By using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), if another Linux distribution takes one week, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) accomplishes the same tasks in three days.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps reduce downtime and risk. I do not think the OS significantly impacts downtime, as that is primarily dependent on application usage, such as CPU and RAM consumption. However, it does support increasing CPU thresholds and creating resource pools within the OS, allowing for alarms that help mitigate downtime. I do not believe it helps much in reducing risk.
Red Hat's knowledge base is excellent, providing labs, manuals, and constantly updated documentation. They also have a community that offers a wealth of information, along with releasing books and PDFs regularly. In addition to using the official documentation, I also engage in the Red Hat community. In the Red Hat community, people communicate with each other about the problems they encounter, and there is a wealth of official documents available for everything.
I do not face a lack of information when I encounter issues or seek to learn about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I can contribute to the community, where others may have experienced similar issues and already found solutions. Pain points that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) addresses include security, reducing time, and providing automation. I have given this product a review rating of 9 out of 10.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
Hybrid Cloud
If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?
Amazon Web Services (AWS)
Strong security and automation have supported reliable hybrid deployments and growth
What is our primary use case?
I work with both the cloud version and the on-premises version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I have worked with Red Hat Cloud and Red Hat Enterprise on-premises.
For the cloud-based products, the main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include deploying websites and complex software for customers, such as SaaS software on the cloud, specifically Red Hat Cloud.
What is most valuable?
When choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the cloud, security requirements were not a consideration for me because Red Hat provides us with the SLA regarding security compliance. I am more than satisfied to use Red Hat Cloud for security purposes, while I manage some other forms of security, such as my own keys and access in Red Hat Linux systems.
I really appreciate the zero trust networking that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has, and it also provides the WAF, along with certified images from Red Hat. For my current work on containers, Red Hat provides certified images that minimize vulnerabilities of CVEs, improving security significantly.
Although I do not have much knowledge about virtualization technology, I can say that for the hybrid cloud on OpenShift with the operators provided by Red Hat, the ready-to-use operators take care of underlying security, patching, and updates, so I do not have to handle monitoring or security myself.
Security is highlighted as an advantage across various aspects, such as the zero trust networking feature and the availability of certified images, which are instrumental in minimizing vulnerabilities and enhancing security.
What needs improvement?
While there are good aspects, I would appreciate improvements in the command-line interface (CLI). Red Hat could do more on the CLI side instead of focusing so much on UI development.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for around five years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
Regarding stability, I have not experienced performance issues, crashes, or downtimes with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); any problems usually arise from my applications, not from the Linux system.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely scalable.
Whether I have expanded the usage of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) depends on the business requirements, as RHEL comes with a cost that my company can afford because IBM owns Red Hat, so everything scales on RHEL.
How are customer service and support?
Regarding my experience with Red Hat's technical support team, I find that they come very quickly with answers. However, sometimes the first person who responds might be a technical support agent without in-depth knowledge, so for more complex issues, a specialized engineer comes to the rescue, depending on the criticality of the subject, especially if it is production or a staging environment. They answer according to the SLA and support terms.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
Determining whether Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is cost-effective depends entirely on the business. If your business faces compromises leading to significant losses, then investing in Red Hat Enterprise is truly necessary. However, if your business is small or medium-sized, you can manage with the free versions.
How was the initial setup?
Regarding the deployment aspect, my experience has been straightforward because it is all automated with Ansible; all I need to do is provide an IP address, and it takes care of all the variables and boots up automatically.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
Regarding the pricing, setup costs, and licensing costs of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I have heard that the licensing cost is significant compared to free alternatives such as CentOS or AlmaLinux, which are managed by Red Hat. I previously used CentOS, which is free, but I had to manage everything, including security, patching, reboots, and storage.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
The key differences between Red Hat and other Linux technologies I have used include the advantages of excellent technical support, good documentation, and a large community for problem-solving. A disadvantage is that it is not open source, meaning limited flexibility, and the high cost associated with Red Hat compared to others.
What other advice do I have?
I would advise other organizations considering Red Hat to start using it as their applications grow larger, rather than waiting for their business to become huge, as delays can lead to complications.
Currently, I am working on bare-metal services where I install Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Using AWS for Red Hat is indeed a good option, as you can get the image directly from AWS with a subscription cost per hour for Red Hat licensing.
Red Hat helps keep applications operational because it provides built-in monitoring tools that offer a good overview of all running services, including built-in agents that come with the Red Hat subscription to identify potential breakouts. Regarding reducing risks, Red Hat also provides secure images that indicate the latest security patches available worldwide.
The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is excellent; the documentation is fantastic and is supported by a large community that answers questions effectively.
When comparing the business value of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to other Linux distributions, I find that RHEL is more stringent with its security, requiring users to be careful not to trespass, whereas other Linux systems do not enforce such strict security measures, and users must manage security themselves.
On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) overall as a product and solution at eight, possibly eight and a half.
Automation with hybrid deployments has improved security and reduced downtime in daily banking work
What is our primary use case?
I work with the on-premises deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).
In our organization, we are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for deployment, scheduling tasks, and automation tasks as part of our day-to-day activities. We find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to be a very flexible operating system, meaning we can utilize this machine for years without concerns about it hanging or any issues.
Currently, we have started using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in a hybrid environment, specifically with AWS cloud along with on-premises deployments. We are in the phase of deployment and are just beginning to utilize it on the cloud.
One specific pain point that Red Hat helped us solve is automation, particularly through Ansible. It is a powerful tool that enables us to effectively automate tasks, which is incredibly helpful in our operations.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) does help me save time, especially with automation tools like Ansible. We can execute tasks and then focus on other activities, which significantly enhances our productivity.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped mitigate downtime and lower risks in the banking sector. We previously were not using cloud but have begun transitioning to a hybrid environment to enhance security and productivity, especially given our experiences with on-premises products.
What is most valuable?
I have previously used Ubuntu and CentOS as different solutions. However, since Ubuntu is not much familiar in our organization, we moved to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). CentOS has already been decommissioned and merged into Red Hat, so for the past seven years, we have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Before that, we were using Ubuntu, both in college and school days, and I have worked with different flavors and also on Oracle.
The key difference I see between Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Ubuntu is mainly in the support offered. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides 24x7 support for any critical issues we face. As we are working in the banking sector, having that support is crucial. In contrast, with Ubuntu or CentOS, we do not have timely support; we need to raise tickets and face delays in deployment and production, which is a significant drawback.
I assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as very good. The training sessions are beneficial and it is totally open source, allowing us to access official sites for learning and documentation. I continuously learn with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and find plenty of free documents available for study. Compared to other operating systems like Ubuntu, there is not as much documentation, making it easier to learn using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) official resources.
The most important security features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) stem from its open-source nature, which allows us to easily understand what happens within the system and identify potential loopholes. Additionally, SELinux is a powerful security module we use to block external threats. It also features a firewall, encryption, and uses advanced algorithms like SALT and SH5, making it difficult for malicious entities to crack the system. In essence, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has robust security features.
I have used the Image Builder of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) but not the system roles. Image Builder has proven useful for creating images.
The Image Builder is very easy and simplifies tasks, significantly reducing our workload. It saves us a lot of time compared to what we used to do previously, thereby boosting our productivity.
What needs improvement?
I have not identified any specific improvements needed in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but I would recommend reducing the cost of certification training. This would allow more people, including students, to access global certifications and deepen their interaction with the systems. Overall, I am satisfied with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and find it smooth, even as I start using newer versions like Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10, which features AI functions.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the last seven years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
I find the stability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to be very good. Over the years, we have not encountered any significant issues, which is a key reason we have transitioned to using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to be scalable. Since much of it is open-source, we do not incur costs for various functionalities, reducing expenses while still being scalable.
How are customer service and support?
The customer service and technical support provided by Red Hat are very good. They respond promptly, even in off-hours, such as at 3:00 AM. We have no regrets about our decision to shift to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).
I would rate the technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as eight out of ten.
How was the initial setup?
The initial setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very straightforward due to my prior experience. I did not face any issues, and the support from the Red Hat subscription plan has been helpful throughout the process.
What other advice do I have?
I understand the pricing aspect. We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a free-of-cost OS, but we do require a subscription for support. While I am not involved at the management level, I know there is a cost for the subscription plan that provides 24x7 support, though I do not know the exact amount.
The business value of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is significant in comparison to other Linux distributions I have used, particularly because we work with banking clients that operate around the clock. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides instant response for support, allowing us to resolve issues quickly, which is crucial for maintaining productivity and operations without downtime.
I definitely recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to other organizations considering it for their environment. I also suggest students download Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to learn Linux instead of opting for Ubuntu or CentOS.
Apart from Ansible, I have previously worked with OpenShift from Red Hat. While we are not currently using it, I have found it to be flexible and beneficial. However, we are mainly focused on AWS for now.
I would give Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a product or solution a rating of 9.5 out of 10.
Hybrid cloud platform has simplified internal banking apps while supporting regulated environments
What is our primary use case?
The main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at the bank involve internal applications, as we do a lot of internal applications not exposed to clients.
What is most valuable?
From my perspective, the best features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) lie in its ease of use, especially compared to AIX, which has a lot of functionalities requiring extensive learning. It was easy for me to shift from AIX to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps manage our hybrid cloud environment, but being a bank, we are highly regulated internally, so there is limited direct involvement with the cloud environment in Royal Bank cloud, which is Azure.
What needs improvement?
One area I see for improvement in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is in the documentation. I encountered some scarcity when looking for information regarding structure, commands, and administrative tasks.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have dealt with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for around 10 years, even when it was not part of IBM.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
My opinion of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s scalability is that it was very easy.
How are customer service and support?
I would rate Red Hat's customer service or technical support as a 10, as my experience with all IBM products, including Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), has been very satisfactory all the time.
How was the initial setup?
The initial setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is straightforward compared to AIX, which is more convoluted.
What other advice do I have?
I have experience with platforms like Linux, and I am also working deeply with MongoDB and Node.js, tools that I use constantly every single day.
I am familiar with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and here in RBC, we are a big IBM shop, currently using JBoss and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as part of our environment.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is used for both cloud-based solutions and on-premises.
From a business value perspective, the business folks do not notice much difference between Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and other distributions, as long as their application functions well, they are satisfied.
We utilize two cloud providers for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) solutions, mainly Azure and also Amazon. I cannot answer how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was purchased, but I know we have it on both Amazon and Azure.
I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine, as I find it satisfactory in various aspects.
Enterprise platform has supported secure consulting services and complex data center operations
What is our primary use case?
My principal focus in using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) currently is as an integrator in Linux, where I have many services in consulting, deployment, installation, and troubleshooting in Linux. I have a recovery system, deployment clusters, databases, and work in any environment in data centers. At this moment, I am a senior consultant in the data center in open source.
What is most valuable?
The best features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) depend on the client because the client can decide to use RHEL, not me. The principal thing is the support for the clients because many clients are corporate and have a need for enterprise support. It's the principal focus and is different from using Ubuntu or Debian or any other Linux.
Other good things about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include the focus on system patching, upgrades, and security. The security advisories and authorization are very strong in Red Hat, and that is the principal focus—security.
I manage Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) by provisioning patching, new deployments, automation, and anything else needed.
I am satisfied with the management experience of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and find it satisfactory for this purpose.
What needs improvement?
I would rate customer service or tech support with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a seven, no more.
I give it a seven because of the time it takes for responding to problems; it takes too long.
For management, it is medium; it is not easy, it is a medium level.
I see a medium ROI with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because it has a high price. OpenShift may provide better ROI, but OpenShift is very high.
The initial setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is complex.
On a scale of one to ten, I rate it a five—medium complex.
A very expensive time is needed for deploying clouds with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).
It takes a lot of time.
In many cases, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) does not help me save time because the principal problem is that in AWS, Red Hat Linux is not the natural Linux for deployment; the default deployment in Amazon is Amazon Linux, not Red Hat Linux.
In many cases, it does not depend on direct Red Hat support for saving time.
My thoughts on the knowledge base with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are that it is good but it does not have it all because I have the medium and plus; it needs more knowledge base.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using this for 20 years.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has high scalability; it is high for horizontal scalability in any environment, and there are many solutions for scalability.
How are customer service and support?
I would rate customer service or tech support with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a seven, no more.
I give it a seven because of the time it takes for responding to problems; it takes too long.
How was the initial setup?
The initial setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is complex.
On a scale of one to ten, I rate it a five—medium complex.
What was our ROI?
I see a medium ROI with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because it has a high price. OpenShift may provide better ROI, but OpenShift is very high.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is less expensive than OpenShift, which is very expensive.
What other advice do I have?
I am a reseller and a partner with Red Hat.
I am involved with Red Hat.
I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for my labs, so I am a reseller, partner, and user. I would rate this review overall as an eight.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
Hybrid Cloud
If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?
Amazon Web Services (AWS)
Has improved deployment processes and streamlined workload management without disruption
What is our primary use case?
The primary use case for our company is for deploying applications.
What is most valuable?
The most valuable aspect is for deploying applications.
The ease of use works well and is what I appreciate the most about the solution's most valuable features.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me to automate my process to mitigate downtime and workloads.
The solution has improved my organization, especially with the ease of deployment, as it's mostly just a better user experience for our users.
What needs improvement?
The challenges that we've had with different servers that don't have access to the internet require an installation, and keeping track of all the different versions on the different deployments is a challenge. I would love a feature that could manage the agent versions.
On the Ansible side, from what I've seen, there are certain templates and playbooks that can be used for specific use cases that I'd like to see in the next release.
For how long have I used the solution?
I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for a couple of years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
The stability and reliability of this solution is very good.
In the environments that I work in, I've had no downtime, crashes, or performance issues.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
It scales well with our growing needs and organization, and it's been pretty easy to spin up new servers as we require them.
What other advice do I have?
The other users of the solution in my company are probably more on the operation side.
I think it would be suitable for a couple more roles.
I've been made aware of some of the latest announcements that were made today; for a large organization, it takes a while to get there, so we might not be able to realize those for another couple of years, but it seems there are new features that are coming out.
I'm not sure if there was one specific feature that stood out to me today; I'd have to look back at my notes, but it seems there's more functionality that's being offered.
I would rate this review a 9.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
Public Cloud
If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?
showing 1 - 10