My main use case for Red Hat OpenShift is that we had several security tools that we deployed to Red Hat OpenShift platform, specifically when we were migrating our applications from monolithic architecture to microservices, and our OpenShift platform was using some of the AWS VMs as master and worker nodes, so it was completely on AWS, and we actually set it up from scratch, setting up those projects to be used for our applications and then deploying them with Red Hat OpenShift version 4, which we started using five years back, as it was the latest at that point in time, and then we continued to operate and run our applications there.

A quick, specific example of an application I deployed on Red Hat OpenShift is a banking-based application which we moved from a monolithic architecture to a microservices architecture, and we completely deployed it end-to-end, split into 10 plus microservices, and then it was deployed to Red Hat OpenShift platform 4.

The best features that Red Hat OpenShift offers in my experience include being a pre-assembled product where Red Hat actually makes choices for you, which for example, as a CloudOps Engineer, means I don't have to explicitly go into CLI because the web-based UI is simple and helpful for debugging, and they've integrated the logging of the application within Red Hat OpenShift. I really appreciate the automated updates, built-in observability comes with pre-configured Prometheus and Grafana stack for monitoring our cluster health, and the native tooling it has such as Red Hat OpenShift GitOps, which is a Red Hat supported Argo CD, and the integration into clusters are based on role-based access control with security by default, where Red Hat OpenShift is quite secure out of the box, having those strict permissions and using Security Context Constraints, and especially the immutable OS and Red Hat OpenShift virtualization, which is something that is really helpful.

Red Hat OpenShift has positively impacted my organization primarily through observability, as for us, application uptime matters a lot when providing public-facing products consumed by customers, and hence, we're using that to keep refining our application and products through observability metrics and keeping pace with market trends, as we promised 99.99% uptime to our customers, and the observability in Red Hat OpenShift is really helping us a lot with that.

Areas where Red Hat OpenShift can be improved include the licensing being a bit complex and maybe expensive, as that is something in the hands of the organization's higher management, especially when those licensing agreements are done, and I think Red Hat OpenShift is quite resource-heavy because the control plane and default monitoring stack consume significant resources, meaning for small clusters, a large percentage of compute goes just to running Red Hat OpenShift itself, not our apps.

I have been using Red Hat OpenShift for close to six years across those different organizations.

Red Hat OpenShift is stable in my experience.

Red Hat OpenShift's scalability is really good.

Customer support is really good because so far in our case, we have always received a prompt response, and they have been really helpful to us. I would rate the customer support a 10 out of 10.

We did not use any other solution before Red Hat OpenShift.

Red Hat OpenShift is deployed in my organization on AWS.

We have saved a lot of time with Red Hat OpenShift.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing would suggest that it was more into a high cost, but then again, I'm an engineer, so this is taken care of by the higher management, and I don't have any definitive answer.

We did not evaluate any other solution before choosing Red Hat OpenShift because we wanted to use a licensed product for Kubernetes that has enterprise support.

I would rate Red Hat OpenShift a 9 out of 10 overall. I choose a nine for Red Hat OpenShift because for such kind of tools, there is always room for improvement, as I already mentioned the things that can be improved in my previous answer. I would suggest that it's quite better if you're using Red Hat OpenShift for an enterprise solution, as it's really better to have the enterprise support which Red Hat OpenShift offers, and it's easy to use for Kubernetes-based applications.

I used OpenShift for the enterprise service cost system of a bank. We completed the migration of the bank's core banking system using OpenShift as the infrastructure. OpenShift acts as an orchestration platform and is used as our private cloud.

OpenShift is a spin-off of Kubernetes, built on top of Kubernetes. It has features that enhance security, ease of deployment, and service exposure compared to Kubernetes. It also provides good integration with GitOps and ArgoCD.

Additionally, OpenShift offers an easy-to-use graphical user interface for cluster management, making it more accessible for administrators.

I had to frequently upgrade my cluster due to OpenShift's rolling updates every six months, which I found to be excessive. Making updates a yearly occurrence could be beneficial. In terms of self-service for developers, there is room for improvement. The removal of Grafana and HPA from monitoring caused some issues. Observability could be more robust.

I've been working with OpenShift for four years.

OpenShift is very stable. I've had my cluster running for over four years, with issues caused more by poor monitoring or user error rather than the product itself.

OpenShift is highly scalable, allowing us to manage thousands of pods effectively. We've implemented features like Horizontal Pod Autoscaling to adapt based on demand and integrated with F5 for high availability.

Red Hat's technical support is responsive and effective. I had 50 to 59 support cases, many of which were resolved quickly depending on the urgency and expertise needed.

We moved from a legacy system to OpenShift due to its stability and capabilities provided by being backed by Red Hat.

The initial setup was straightforward, especially on the cloud where it was set up quickly. The on-premises setup was more challenging due to additional configurations required.

We handled the implementation internally with our team, which consisted of three engineers managing the analytics environment.

Moving to OpenShift resulted in increased system stability and reduced downtime, which contributed to operational efficiency. Although it increased costs, it helped modernize our infrastructure.

The pricing for OpenShift includes support and licensing, which costs approximately $400.

We did not evaluate any other options aside from our legacy system before choosing OpenShift.

If you have the skill and experience, Kubernetes can be used in production. OpenShift provides extra coverage in terms of security and management. Have a disaster recovery plan due to frequent updates.

I rate OpenShift at nine out of ten.

I have not used it on IBM Cloud. It is basically used on AWS and Azure. I am using a standard OpenShift.

OpenShift is a container orchestration tool. We have been using it for hosting products on container-based applications.

Actually, what happens is that the solution gives or provides that kind of stability and much more. It gives a good production environment that is much more stable and error-free. That's how the solution contributes to the productivity of my whole organization.

If we compare OpenShift and Kubernetes Harbor, OpenShift is derived from Kubernetes. However, some of the most prominent features of OpenShift are its security services and some of the policies, especially security policies that are some of the add-ons and the best things I like in OpenShift.

Some things need to be improved in the solution. Some of the storage services and integrations with third-party tools should be made possible.

I think some more things will come in, like the projects of CNCFs. I think that verified CNCF projects will be integrated into OpenShift.

I have been using OpenShift for eighteen months.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I think the support is fine. It depends upon some of the SLAs and how things or how the SLAs have been maintained. Overall, it is fine, so I will rate the support a seven out of ten.

Initially, the setup seemed to be complex, but the recommendations from Red Hat, and especially on the CoreOS systems, for quality, stability, and security purposes, it seems to be complex. However, once we get hands-on experience, it is very, very useful and easily maintainable as well.

I have seen a return on investment, and it depends upon the types and the nature of some of the most critical applications that have been hosted on the OpenShift infrastructure. Considering in terms of stability, performance-wise, and security-wise, if everything goes fine, I think its return on investment is justified.

The price depends on the type and the nature of the organizations, along with the types of projects that are of considerable range. I don't think the price is very much of an issue for any organization against the services being delivered over the cloud and the services of OpenSuite.

If any organization is just working on open-source technologies and wants to have enterprise support and enterprise-grade solutions, then we must go with OpenShift.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.