I have been using Red Hat OpenShift for more than six years.

I implement Red Hat OpenShift for our customers as we are a service provider, and we implement it in our cloud. We provide it as a service for our customers, and we deploy some of the applications that we have implemented in our company and for my personal use.

I deployed and developed an audit application which runs all the compliance requirements for a company, including multiple platforms and multiple standards such as ISO and others, and NCA for Saudi Arabia, and any other standard can work on it. This is one example. I also created a personal application for a t-shirt integrated with AI where we can create an image and print it on a shirt and ship it to the customer. I implemented another application for waste management, which was totally developed and deployed by myself for my personal use and the waste management for one of our customers. Additionally, I had another application deployed for one of our customers, where my role was to deploy Red Hat OpenShift and to make sure their application is deployed and available. This is for bill invoicing and financial operations. For one of the hospitals, our customer, I deployed the application for monitoring diabetes patients. My role there was to deploy it and to make the application available, providing all the requirements, ingress, configuration, storage, and other things. These are examples of what I have done.

Red Hat OpenShift by default is secure, more than native Kubernetes, as it has a limitation for the run as. The container by default does not run as root; this is one of the examples. The integration with ACS allows centralized policy deployment and enforcement, alongside great observability and monitoring. Red Hat OpenShift is actually enterprise-grade Kubernetes with all the accessories and main features.

One of the best features of Red Hat OpenShift is that it has the catalog, the application catalog, and the operator hub, which allows us to deploy things easily and straightforward without going into a lot of hassles. This is one of the main things, in addition to having integration with ACM and ACS, where we can have the ability to manage multiple clusters and to secure them, deploy them, manage them, run GitOps and day-two operations, as well as upgrades and other functionality which is made easy using these tools. Red Hat OpenShift also provides virtualization capabilities, and I am currently working with Zain to make a project where we will convert F5 appliances to virtual machines and to manage them through Red Hat virtualization, OVE. Red Hat OpenShift is a unique platform because it provides the features for both worlds, containerization, and VMs at the same time, requiring you to learn one skillset in order to manage all of this at the same time.

In the beginning, our cloud depended only on virtual machines, so I introduced this to our management to start to work with microservices and with containerization. This was adapted in our cloud, providing us the capability to sell more of these features and to reduce the hardware requirement by about thirty percent, following the trends of using containerization for all modern applications. In addition, it reduced the time to develop and to deploy a new application; all we need is using Jenkins for CI/CD. Once we commit any code, it gets triggered, and it will implement the new container in a very flexible and easy way, within seconds. This decreased the time to market and increased agility, allowing us to capture new opportunities very fast.

There is perhaps one thing about the deployment of Red Hat OpenShift. Currently, there are two new ways to deploy Red Hat OpenShift, which are easier with assisted deployment and agent-based deployment. However, previously it needed a lot of requirements on the infrastructure side if we are using UPI, user-provided infrastructure. If the deployment of Red Hat OpenShift itself can be easier and more flexible, it would be great.

I have been using Red Hat OpenShift for more than six years.

Red Hat OpenShift is stable.

It is great. Red Hat OpenShift can scale to thousands of nodes, allowing multiple clusters to be managed in different geolocations and managed by centralized advanced cluster management, ACM.

Regarding scalability, Red Hat OpenShift has a lot of scalability capability, including about two thousand machines in one cluster and multiple cluster management, centralized management through ACM and ACS, which provides a very secure way to manage centrally all the features and to enforce policies.

In the beginning, our cloud depended only on virtual machines, so I introduced this to our management to start to work with microservices and with containerization. This was adapted in our cloud, providing us the capability to sell more of these features and to reduce the hardware requirement by about thirty percent, following the trends of using containerization for all modern applications.

The response time for customer support is excellent, and they go deep and can resolve things easily.

The documentation and support that we get from Red Hat are very sufficient, and this differentiates between enterprise-grade Kubernetes and native Kubernetes or perhaps Kubernetes from other vendors.

We used native Kubernetes before Red Hat OpenShift, actually, deploying it through kubeadm. The issue with Kubernetes is that it is just the engine; Red Hat has all the requirements to give you a complete solution. Red Hat OpenShift provides the complete ecosystem, all the integrations, and the tools which I mentioned before, which are already integrated and easy to be used. You do not need to grab open-source solutions for storage or other things, and you do not have to do a lot of customization, needing to comply with each version. Red Hat OpenShift is tested and vetted, making things easier to be deployed, supported, and managed, and it is more trustworthy.

There is perhaps one thing about the deployment of Red Hat OpenShift. Currently, there are two new ways to deploy Red Hat OpenShift, which are easier with assisted deployment and agent-based deployment.

We are a partner with Red Hat; we sell their services and licenses, and we do the implementation ourselves.

We did not measure our return on investment in a very accurate way, but as I mentioned, we could decrease the time needed to deploy any application, enabling us to capture new opportunities faster, go to market faster, and maintain the availability and security of all our applications.

We work with Red Hat or our distributor in Saudi Arabia. We send our requirements as part of the RFP describing what we need, and we get the pricing from our distributor. There is an easy way to price the subscription of the support per CPU, per VM, so it is easy to be priced, but we depend on an official quote usually from our distributor.

Red Hat OpenShift by default is secure, more than native Kubernetes, as it has a limitation for the run as. The container by default does not run as root; this is one of the examples. The integration with ACS allows centralized policy deployment and enforcement, alongside great observability and monitoring. Red Hat OpenShift is actually enterprise-grade Kubernetes with all the accessories and main features.

Our go-to-market and our deployment for any application, the time is reduced perhaps by eight times. It is very fast because you have consistency for all deployed containers; it is not like a virtual machine where you have to deploy individually for each virtual machine or you have to copy code here and there. It takes seconds because the containers spin out very fast; they are very lightweight. The things that we used to do in days, now take a couple of minutes to be done. So, that is approximately the number—mostly it is reduced by eight.

We are providing our cloud to our customers, so we are a service provider. We deploy Red Hat OpenShift in our cloud and host customers' applications through it. Some of our customers prefer Red Hat OpenShift on Azure or on AWS, so we deploy it there when needed, but our main deliverable is through our cloud.

We have our own cloud provided by our company, making us a local cloud provider. We are not a hyper integrator, nor a hyper-scaler. We provide it through our cloud and deployed a couple of customers on Azure; this is what I recall.

I would advise others looking into using Red Hat OpenShift to take the step and to go fast into it because it will save them a lot of money and provide them with all the features, flexibility, security, and others. I give this product a rating of ten out of ten.

We use it for container orchestration. Some customers don't need to go with the coordinated open source as they need a more enterprise solution, so we use OpenShift. We mainly use it to host IBM CloudSec. We are working with CloudSec for integration, CloudSec for automation, and as a prerequisite for them, they need an OpenShift.

With OpenShift, it gives me the ability and capability to monitor all my microservices and all my containers using its integrated monitoring. Its horizontal pod scaling is more efficient than the one used in Kubernetes.

Most benefit from it, however, I work with Kubernetes, and installing Vanilla Kubernetes is easy. That said, it introduces many tools that need to be set up individually. OpenShift comes ready out of the box, with all tools installed and configured. Red Hat certifies and confirms that all the components are compatible with each other.

OpenShift's superior dashboard is a notable strength, especially when compared to Kubernetes. The integrated DevOps capabilities, such as pipelines and the container registry, are extremely beneficial.

Additionally, its capability to monitor microservices and containers with integrated tools like Prometheus is a major advantage. The horizontal pod scaling exceeds the scalability features I found in Kubernetes.

OpenShift requires a very expensive and complex infrastructure. If I have a Kubernetes cluster with one master and three workers, to apply the same configuration in OpenShift, I need about three masters, three infra, and three workers.

It uses around double the resources of vanilla Kubernetes. Also, learning OpenShift requires complex infrastructure, needing vCenter integration, more advanced answers, active directory, and more expensive hardware. These demands can deter people from learning OpenShift.

I have been working with Red Hat OpenShift for about four years now.

OpenShift is stable but comes at the cost of a very expensive infrastructure. It provides better performance yet requires more resources compared to vanilla Kubernetes.

OpenShift's horizontal pod scaling is more effective and efficient than that used in Kubernetes, making it a superior choice for scalability.

We have dealt with many cases with Red Hat support, and while they eventually solve issues, it sometimes takes them a long time to reach a resolution, particularly with complex matters related to IBM Cloud. We have rated their support a seven out of ten.

I have used Vanilla Kubernetes, VMware Kubernetes, etc., before. OpenShift is the more powerful and supported solution between them.

The setup involves creating a configuration file called 'install-config.' After providing necessary parameters such as vCenter's URL, username, and password, an Ignition file is generated. A virtual machine is then created from an OVA file with attached parameters.

Although the process is still somewhat complex due to user-provisioned infrastructure, OpenShift offers a simpler installer-provided infrastructure. We chose user-provided because it offers more control over our environment.

With OpenShift combined with IBM Cloud App integration, I can spin an integration server in a second as compared to traditional methods, which could take days or weeks.

The cost of OpenShift is very high, particularly with the OpenShift Plus package, which includes many products and services. While I know it's expensive, I do not have the specific numbers.

I have used Vanilla Kubernetes, VMware Kubernetes, etc., before. OpenShift has proven to be better.

I recommend having a solid understanding of Kubernetes before transitioning to OpenShift as it is based on Kubernetes. Without this knowledge, managing and maintaining OpenShift can be a nightmare.

I rate OpenShift as a nine point nine out of ten. I suggest considering the necessary infrastructure and related costs before adopting OpenShift.

We use Red Hat OpenShift for runtime or application migration, transitioning from classic application servers and configuration restore machines.

The solution offers ease with which we can define how to run applications and configure them. It's much more convenient than creating a virtual machine and configuring application servers, making the process faster and simpler.

There are some features regarding English and communication. This refers to external communication points to and from the OpenShift cluster. However, there are limitations due to the cluster's setup.

There are configuration problem, but we managed to find a workaround. Now, we're waiting for Red Hat to address it as a patch. In the meantime, we're using the workaround and are somewhat satisfied. Dealing with just one issue was unexpected, but it did take longer.

The solution is highly scalable. This is a key feature that led us to transition from classic legacy applications to OpenShift because adding more nodes and scaling applications is straightforward. However, it's important to note that applications need to be designed to support this scalability.

From an external perspective, it's accessible via the OpenShift Internet. Some services require authentication for users, while others are available to non-authenticated users. t can handle anywhere from ten thousand to one hundred thousand users. I rate it a ten out of ten.

We don't have a huge number of ticket.

The initial setup is complex as you need to know the steps. You can design the configuration of the cluster because it comprises various nodes, including infrastructure nodes, control points, and workers. You need to understand how to set up these basic components of the cluster and address persistent volume challenges to ensure they function properly.

The product comes with annual subscription. I rate the solution’s pricing an eight out of ten.

The automation capabilities are straightforward. The tools are designed from the ground up to facilitate automation processes, making it increasingly comfortable to create CI/CD automation processes

One piece of advice is not to be stuck in old ways of thinking because you may need to transition to different types of work. Once you make this shift, you'll find that it's easier than it was in the past.

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

I use the solution for deployments with Java applications in the environment.

The solution has helped us in faster deployments of the applications.

The solution's most valuable feature is its ability to integrate with multiple applications, including inference tutor and container platforms. It helps us enhance the deployment process and make it faster.

The solution encounters lengthier downtime issues for virtual upgrades. In this case, we have to opt for alternative upgrade strategies. This area needs improvement. Also, they should release its serverless version.

I have been using the solution since 2018.

The solution is very stable.

The solution is easy to scale. Our organization plans to increase its usage for the next five years.

The solution's technical support is excellent.

The solution is easy to configure and run.

The solution generates a return on investment.

The solution is expensive but cost-effective.

The solution is an excellent platform with a fast return on investment. I rate it a ten out of ten.