My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is using it as an operating system for all of our Linux VMs, converting all of them from 42 different operating systems and versions over to Red Hat.
External reviews
1,194 reviews
from
and
External reviews are not included in the AWS star rating for the product.
Unified our virtual servers and has simplified patch management with faster, consistent updates
What is our primary use case?
How has it helped my organization?
One pain point that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve is patch management, as we previously used a giant Ansible playbook that would run updates across our infrastructure with so many conditionals in it, but now we can simplify it down to essentially just one. It was previously one playbook, but it simplifies the workload to approximately half of what it was.
What is most valuable?
The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I like the most include the cohesion among all of our VMs, so I do not have to remember that if I am SSHing into this server, it is apt update, and this one it is DNF update, and that one it is yum update; it is all going to be the same, DNF or yum update for all of them.
For navigating security risks in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), Satellite is a big feature for us, as in the last couple of weeks, we just had two critical security vulnerabilities come out for Linux, and we use Satellite to find all of the vulnerable servers and then Ansible to patch them as soon as Red Hat releases a kernel update.
I have used System Roles quite heavily, so I want to use Image Builder, but I have not used it yet. All of our Ansible playbooks and roles focus on using System Roles first so that future iterations and updates to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 or Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 11 will work going forward.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for three years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
Regarding the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I have experienced no downtime, crashes, or performance issues; it has been flawless. We have had no issues with it, and the only waiting period we experienced was for the two recent security issues because someone jumped the gun and published the exploits too early, but that is nothing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can control.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
In terms of scalability, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales wonderfully; we have about 400 VMs, and as I mentioned, we are converting all of our existing VMs over, whether that is a straight conversion using convert to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scripts or a rebuild. I have had both five Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) VMs and also had 200 Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) VMs, and honestly, it has been no different; when running reports, it just takes maybe a minute longer to grab everything.
How are customer service and support?
My experience with customer service and technical support has been phenomenal; I have submitted multiple cases for various issues, and technical support has also been fantastic to work with. The longest I had to wait for a solution was about two days, and what they suggested fixed the issue for us long-term.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
The factors that led me to consider a change to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) included running an audit across all of our Linux servers and discovering that there were 42 different versions of operating system or operating system versions; we could maintain that with a bunch of Ansible playbooks, but we did not want to. Another product released by SUSE is similar to Satellite in that it provides an upstream RPM provider, but it did not work very well; it was adequate, but Satellite is by far the best. Standardizing everything has been a huge advantage for us.
How was the initial setup?
I would describe the deployment process of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as straightforward, as I can go into Satellite and spin up a new VM; I have a fully functional VM within 10 to 15 minutes. This is provisioning VMs from nothing essentially, as we are not cloning a template. We initially tried cloning templates, and it only took minutes to have a new VM up and running.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
We have not considered any other solutions in the time that we have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), as we just purchased Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) three years ago. However, around that time, we contemplated Ubuntu's enterprise-level agreement, which includes support and extended release for updates; these were the two contenders we really compared, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) beat them by a significant margin.
What other advice do I have?
While I have not used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in a traditional sense with AI workloads, we have a Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) VM that one of our Ames Technology Hub members logs into and runs AI workloads, though I do not know what they are using, and I doubt they are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) AI.
In our company implementation of the zero-trust model, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a role by using SE Linux and firewall D to configure everything and set it all up, although we have a different tool for managing Windows and micro-segmentation, and we have not implemented that on Linux since Linux is such a small portion of our company's business.
I have not done a major version upgrade with Ansible Automation Platform because we do not have it yet, but I have done major version upgrades from seven to eight and eight to nine with Satellite using the Leapp package provider. I have not done any nine to 10 upgrades because no applications really support it.
The transition from previous versions to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was smooth; we tried converting all of our existing VMs over to Red Hat, and that was hit or miss on whether it would work. This is through no fault of Red Hat's, as Oracle Linux does not migrate over to Red Hat smoothly, but the major version upgrades have been flawless and have worked every single time.
Our company's process for managing regulatory compliance does not involve Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) playing a role, as we are not a publicly traded company, and we also do not house any PII or credit card information, so we are not under any regulatory compliance. However, our auditing team checks what users have root access to these servers or super user privileges, and at the moment, we just run an active directory audit since they are all joined to our active directory. In the future, I am hoping to set up Red Hat Identity Manager to manage SSH keys and user access into Linux servers.
Overall, I have loved the experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), as I have used Ansible for six years of the seven years I have been doing this professionally. We just hired a new Linux admin, and one of the first questions I asked was about their experience with Ansible. They had worked with it, so I asked about their experience in writing playbooks or roles, and they have written them extensively. I would rate this product a 9.5 out of 10.
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)
Consistent desktops have supported scientific collaboration while slower updates have needed tradeoffs
What is our primary use case?
My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are desktops for scientists and for development.
What is most valuable?
The main reason that we use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the fact that it is stable and thoroughly tested, so we do not experience a lot of bugs and lockups. This enables our developers to work on a more consistent basis.
The feature I appreciate the most in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is using NFS for network file shares, as it makes collaboration easier. This feature improves my company because we can create data shares where multiple scientists and users can collaborate and share data in one space without having to retrieve something separately, as it is already available for us.
What needs improvement?
Everything can be improved in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). The only thing that comes to mind is perhaps the speed in which newer packages are deployed. However, that is because everything has to be thoroughly tested to maintain uptime. That is a tradeoff that you must accept. Otherwise, I have truly enjoyed using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Even before I used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I used CentOS, and I have always enjoyed it.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for 23 years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped us mitigate downtime and lower risks because we do use Satellite.
Satellite has helped us mitigate downtime absolutely. Even with people who are using Fedora, which is more advanced and more buggy, being able to patch at will has helped us tremendously.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
I have worked with everything from desktops and local desktop computers to clustered servers in terms of the scalability of the platform, and I have not had any issues. I have even run the workstation versions on server-level hardware and it has worked flawlessly.
How are customer service and support?
The customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) have been phenomenal. We had one dedicated person, and he has retired, and I miss him. His name was Rick Ring, and he worked with us consistently, so he was on-site all the time. That was very helpful.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
I considered Ubuntu while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because we had some scientists who wanted Ubuntu because of the newer packages. However, the support for it is not as strong. Red Hat's biggest strength is their support. With Ubuntu, it is open-source community support, and you do not have someone dedicated to help you fix something. That has been the significant differentiator for us.
How was the initial setup?
My experience has been that building images for us has been more of a base image then using Ansible Playbooks to configure it. Being able to build a completely configured image with the Image Builder would save us some time. That is not my decision, but I will be able to go back and tell people about it.
What was our ROI?
The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), from my point of view, is the stability and uptime. You are not having to spend man-hours troubleshooting or configuring something as much because the work has been put in on the back end before it was released to make sure everything is working. This has always helped us.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
I have just a very little bit of experience with the pricing, the setup cost, and the licensing. A few years ago when they went to a multi-core processing model, it threw us off a little bit. However, we as a site have site licenses, so the amount of systems we have is not really an issue. The government comes up with a bunch of money up front and pays for it.
What other advice do I have?
Since I am in government, we do not use any features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to navigate our security risks. We have independent security standards called STIGs, which we use OpenSCAP to harden our services based on what the Department of Energy wants.
I have not tried using either Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Image Builder or System Roles, but I was recently in the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 lab and got to experiment with it. It is very interesting.
I have not implemented Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for AI workloads, but there are other people in my lab who are working with it. We have an entire AI department that is working on that kind of project right now. From what I have heard, the outcome of using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for our AI service is that it works, though I do not know much about the internals of it.
The role that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays in my company's implementation of the Zero Trust model is that we actually use Active Directory, so we use SSSD in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We do not really use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s internal identification system.
I have not done a major version upgrade with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Ansible, but I have used Leapp to go from 7 to 8 and 8 to 9. That has worked very well.
My company's process for managing regulatory compliance involves getting our security stipulations down from the Feds, and Red Hat works closely with us. They have a government sector dedicated to the Department of Energy strictly to work with us and are on-site constantly. If we come up with a bug or find something new, we use something called FIPS, which is very important. When FIPS has broken something, they have put in new packages and we get a hold of them, and they come up with a fix for it, usually the next day. That has been really beneficial.
I feel that the knowledge base offered by Red Hat is helpful because I have gone on their support website for questions, such as how to resubscribe to a Satellite dish, and it is usually fairly easy to find answers on the website.
The deployment experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been better. From version 7, which I started with way back at version 3, to versions 8 and 9 has been much easier with our Ansible Playbooks. Hopefully, I will be able to get on version 10 soon and I will try the images with that. The experience has been very positive.
Platform has supported critical operations securely and simplifies identity and access control
What is our primary use case?
My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include day-to-day operations and a lot of production systems. That is mainly what we do.
What is most valuable?
When it comes to pain points, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve various issues. A lot of our systems are proprietary, so we develop on the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) system, making it hard to answer what Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) does that we couldn't do without it, because we build on top of it, and if we can't find a solution, we reach out to support for help.
I do appreciate the OpenShift product in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and I am interested in the new feature, the MCP, which I found fascinating after seeing it yesterday.
We definitely use the Identity Management features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a lot, especially the rollback features and primarily the RBAC features, which are the brains of the system right now, even though the projects I work on are locked down significantly, so we cannot use all the tools in the toolbox.
In my company's implementation of the zero-trust model, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a role mainly in the identification process, along with other tools we embed with it, focusing on identification and scaling, including a lot of tokens.
I love the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), which I use all the time because there is always something in there that can serve as a reference, guiding me or providing solutions to solve my problems. I often encounter the same solutions for issues I have seen before.
What needs improvement?
I have not tried either Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Image Builder or System Roles, but I plan on working with Image Builder as I think I signed up for it, though I am not certain if that is today or tomorrow.
I have not tried to work with AI workloads using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but I recently attended a talk about that with the Agent AI, which was new to me, and I took snapshots and pictures, planning to introduce it to the team sometime this week.
Mitigating downtime with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is tough to assess because of patching, which is inconsistent sometimes. Other systems installed on top can sometimes break systems, but we resolve those issues as they arise.
I do not know how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved because I have not played with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 yet. I am still learning as I go, having downloaded it and staged it, but I have not really tinkered with it yet.
I do not want any improvements in my workflow because new features are always coming out, which I appreciate. Each new release brings along something new that we work on implementing into our current pipeline.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for at least 15 years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
I have not experienced downtime, crashes, or performance issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). If there were any, they would likely be due to some type of tool installed on top that was not compatible with updated patches, but overall, out of the box, there are no problems.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales well with the growing needs of my company. We have upgraded from version 7 to 9 without problems, and the migration has been straightforward, although I think version 10 might have some features that are not compatible, but I am not completely certain.
How are customer service and support?
My experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s customer service and technical support has been excellent. I love them and have no complaints.
From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the support. I love the support because when I put in a ticket or reach out, it is always excellent, and they never leave me waiting for days, providing feedback promptly.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
Before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I think my company was using another solution, possibly something like AIX or another Unix flavor, but I am not entirely certain what it was.
I do not know why they migrated to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), as that was before I started. I just know there are still some legacy systems out there.
How was the initial setup?
The deployment experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) depends on your knowledge or experience. We do a lot of kickstarts, making deployment easy, but if something needs to be done manually, it might take a while. However, so far, it has been pretty much streamlined, so we are happy.
What was our ROI?
From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the support. I love the support because when I put in a ticket or reach out, it is always excellent, and they never leave me waiting for days, providing feedback promptly.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
We have considered other solutions like Ubuntu, but right now, we are still using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) wins because currently, everybody is familiar with it and they are happy with it. We prefer not to fix what is not broken, so we are content and happy with what we have.
What other advice do I have?
I have not done a major version upgrade with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Ansible Automation Platform, but that is in the pipeline, likely next quarter.
My experience using Ansible overall is good so far. I am used to doing it the old way, but now that we finally have an Ansible platform, it is better than when I was running playbooks manually from my workstation.
I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since version 4, having used it for a long time with my current baseline systems ranging from version 7 to 9, as we try to migrate over to version 10.
I have used Ansible as well.
I know OpenShift is expensive and while I just put in requests, if they fill their budget, I am happy because that is above me.
My overall review rating for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is 9 out of 10.
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.
Security and Stability for Financial Systems
What do you like best about the product?
I appreciate Red Hat Enterprise Linux for its security features, including security patches and SELinux access controls, which are crucial in the financial sector to prevent data exposure. I also find its stability for long-term use very reassuring, especially for critical financial systems, and it helps ensure compliance with standard regulations. The predictable updates and scheduled maintenance contribute to its reliability, preventing downtime in essential services like online banking and payment processing. Additionally, Ansible Automation is a valuable tool for ensuring server configurations are correct, minimizing operational risks.
What do you dislike about the product?
Troubleshooting sometimes becomes very complex because of its strong security software. Providing more on-point error messages or including more troubleshooting tools could help solve this.
What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?
I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for its security features, ensuring vendor certification and providing consistent OS across environments. It solves security concerns with SELinux access controls, enabling automation, and reducing operational risk, while offering stability with predictable updates and avoiding downtime in critical systems.
Reliable and Stable, Perfect for Production
What do you like best about the product?
I appreciate how stable and predictable Red Hat Enterprise Linux is. Once everything is set up, it just runs without surprises, which is exactly what we want. I also like the long-term support and structured updates they provide. Consistency across different environments, whether production or testing, is almost identical. The system fits smoothly into a production-focused ecosystem, and package management with yum/dnf is straightforward. I love the documentation provided as well. The installation process is smooth and well-documented, making it quick to get a system up and running.
What do you dislike about the product?
There are a few things that could be improved with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It's conservative with the packages, so sometimes the default repositories don't have the latest versions of tools and libraries. Also, the subscription management and licensing can feel heavy occasionally. The main friction comes when installing any dependency because the system needs to be properly registered and attached to a subscription, which becomes a bit of overhead when provisioning new servers or spinning up short-lived environments.
What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?
Red Hat Enterprise Linux solves stability and reliability problems in production, providing consistency across environments and reducing operational headaches, allowing my team to focus on building and scaling our system.
Stable, Secure, and Excellent Support
What do you like best about the product?
I really like the stability, security, and technical support that Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers. It provides strong technical support and comprehensive technical documentation, which helps simplify troubleshooting. The stability and security are crucial for the success of any product, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux does these aspects well. Additionally, the initial setup process was nice and fairly easy. Overall, it seems to be a well-rounded and reliable solution for hosting my company's chatbot solutions.
What do you dislike about the product?
Nothing much.
What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?
Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides strong technical support, detailed documentation, and ensures stability and security. Troubleshooting issues is simplified, making my work as a DevOps Engineer easier.
Robust, Secure, and Efficient for Research Labs
What do you like best about the product?
I like Red Hat Enterprise Linux because its package manager is great. I also have seen that most of the time it is robust and doesn't fail easily. Additionally, setting it up was fairly easy.
What do you dislike about the product?
Maybe some user-friendly tools like in Ubuntu. Like Ubuntu generally updates its package manager source quickly, the updates are quickly available.
What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?
It helps to securely and efficiently maintain an OS environment for different users of our lab.
showing 21 - 30