Red Hat Enterprise Linux for SAP with HA and Update Services

I am using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on a document management system, services server lines, and to build these applications.

Regarding lifecycle practices in the cloud, I am using two applications on-premises and a few are on Docker containers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) saves me around 60% on time. With regard to downtime, I can lower downtime by about two to three minutes.

Regarding pain points, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) does not help me solve any specific issues.

The biggest advantage of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it is easily available and easily manageable. The support cases are more readily used and the online local support is available.

With regard to the management part, when it comes to provisioning and patching, I can do patching and management on my own. I see that there is no difference between on-premises and cloud solutions; both are similar and it depends on conditions and the way the structure is organized. This is why I have no issues with on-premises or hybrid cloud deployments.

I find that integration with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is easy, as I am using it with Oracle.

Regarding disadvantages in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), the certification cost is a concern for me. The problem with the certification is that its price is high, and it needs to be minimal for countries like Pakistan.

About the knowledge base that Red Hat offers, I feel it needs to improve session offerings more. This is especially important for junior beginners.

I have around three to four years of experience using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Regarding scalability, I am satisfied. The services are easily available and scalable as per the need.

My experience with Red Hat support is that it is very helpful. If I had to rate support from zero to ten points, I would give it a nine because everything is solved.

Regarding deployment strategy, I find it quite simple. Regarding the upgrades and migration process from on-premises to the cloud, I have to first create a setup on a test machine, then upgrade, and after that, go live.

Regarding return on investment, I see value for money with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) saves me almost 60%. The saving I speak of is on both time and money.

When choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), our security requirement was that I am using it on IBM Power servers, which offered a bundle price. That is why I opted for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Regarding the price, I think the license is a little bit expensive nowadays, but I have opted for six years in a bundle offer. That is why I am using it at a cheaper price.

In comparing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to other Linux distributions, I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to be more stable than compared to others in terms of performance, storage, and security. Although other distributors are more secure, as part of my choice, I choose Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

When I have it on the cloud, I work with a local provider rather than a native Red Hat Cloud or cloud providers like AWS, Azure, or GCP. I have not tried Image Builder of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at this time. I would give Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a rating of nine points.

I mostly use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for security purposes, conducting security testing, cyber security testing, and general administration purposes, including maintaining accounts.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers extensive customization options that I can tailor to my specific needs. I love the customizability and adaptability.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is quite comprehensive and vast. I search through it and use AI to resolve any queries I have.

The most important security feature in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the excellent administration policy regarding which user can access which file and what type of permissions I can assign. I appreciate this as a local IAM system.

The IAM feature is most valuable for us because we have around 200 to 300 users, and it can be difficult to track which people have what type of privileges. This feature provides a very neat and detailed view of the privileges that people are assigned.

I would like to see improvements in the CLI, making it somewhat easier instead of the complicated commands that are currently used. Keeping it simple and easy to remember would be beneficial.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for three years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very stable.

Regarding scalability, I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to be quite scalable and does not require much time for scaling.

The only concern is the costing when it comes to cloud instances.

I have never escalated any questions to the technical support or customer service teams regarding Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I have not used any different product for operating systems before.

The initial setup process for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was straightforward.

I completed the setup and deployment myself.

The business value of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is quite high. It provides excellent availability and never crashes. The machine performs reliably when I need it, resulting in very few downtimes.

Regarding the pricing aspect of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I mostly use free resources and have not procured any license. I prefer to use open-source options and maintain my own set of rules.

With the open-source nature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), the measurable benefits I have seen are primarily cost benefits. It is highly customizable and saves considerable time because I do not need to explain what I want to anyone; I simply conduct research and implement those features into my instances.

I chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because I am familiar with it and receive good updates and security updates.

I have not worked with LEAP or Red Hat Insights yet.

I have mostly worked with Red Hat Enterprise Linux Image Builder and System Roles. System Roles have been helpful for me as I started using them recently. I previously limited some resources in my systems by using only a specific percentage of available hardware resources and reducing bloatware, which involves resource controlling.

I have never tried Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in a hybrid environment. I mostly connect to some instances in the cloud through SSH but have never used hybrid solutions.

Until now, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has not helped me solve specific pain points, except for using the command line terminal and assigning many different permissions to accomplish one task.

The controlled updates and patches save a lot for me regarding Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

From a features perspective, there are no missing features that I would see included in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the future.

I obtained Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) directly from Red Hat. My overall review rating for this product is 9.

I primarily use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for network administration.

I wonder if you tried either Leapp or Red Hat Insights. I don't know exactly, but I don't think we went that deep into it because there were some specific sets of instructions we used to run every time.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks, and I would say it's above average.

Sometimes there are new rollouts or features, or if I am exploring something new in support, I basically face problems where it's difficult for me to educate newcomers, interns, or new entrants to get accustomed to these things because it's an entirely new environment and new platform compared to what we have been using here in our country and in our organizations. If I am using Microsoft for certain things, it's mostly graphic based, but in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), it's mostly very command-line specific.

I think that if sometimes there are certain solutions where the support team with some specific technical personnel could remotely assist using TeamViewer or something similar to solve specific issues, then I think it could be much faster.

I think the commercial rollout of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could improve because this is a very specific kind of product that isn't commercial in nature. If there is some kind of integration with commercial customers and it is used more frequently in everyday life, along with improved graphic interfaces, capacity building, training platforms, or webinars, then I think we can extend the market, have more users, and receive more accurate feature-based feedback from them.

I used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for almost two years or longer.

Technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was definitely good. Sometimes if we were stuck and needed troubleshooting or were trying to perform some function that wasn't happening, it was satisfactory. I can rate their technical support at least eight.

I was using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) personally for my own use. I am no longer using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I switched from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) almost one year ago.

The initial setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was initially complex.

Sometimes there are new rollouts or features, or if I am exploring something new in support, I basically face problems where it's difficult for me to educate newcomers, interns, or new entrants to get accustomed to these things because it's an entirely new environment and new platform compared to what we have been using here in our country and in our organizations.

I would like to understand what my experience was with the pricing of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and whether I find it reasonable and competitive.

I think we purchased Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from a third party, from some other vendor.

I have multiple experiences working in this field. Initially, I was a network administrator, focusing on networking, mainly in routing and switching. I worked with internet service providers, so I have experience with a NOC and service provider solutions in that regard, particularly dealing with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for network administration.

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for servers as well as workstations.

Our site has around 3,000 workstations that our developers are building our software on. For servers (~1000), we are using it for self-hosting tools required for software development and testing.

Furthermore, we are also working on implementing a process for using Image Builder to build a Standard Operating Environment image deploy that to virtual machines. Then we use RHEL System Roles and a lot of custom ansible roles to manage the state of the machines.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers enterprise security and really well-written documentation.

The most important security feature in the Red Hat ecosystem is the errata data, combined with Satellite. It tells you exactly which component is vulnerable, which versions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are affected, and overall the documentation provided with errata is easily readable for various audiences (for example a summary for management as well as more technical for engineers).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk by providing kpatch. These are kernel patches, which allow us to apply security patches to a running kernel. We can then plan a full reboot outside of office hours.

The Red Hat Offline Knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is really helpful. In a disconnected environment it allows you to search all documentation and errata up to a given date without having to reach out for the internet to check the details.

Sometimes the support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be better. Since we're in a disconnected environment, it's sometimes really hard to share explicit details about the issue we're running into and we keep getting asked for an SOS report, which we cannot supply due to security concerns.

I've been working with RHEL for seven years.

Look at the interactive labs provided by Red Hat, they give a great hands-on experience and show off the benefits would advise others looking into using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to investigate the training that is available.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) serves as the operating system for our enterprise infrastructure. We use it to host applications, Kubernetes and OpenShift clusters, and other critical services that we perform day-to-day operations on.

One project I relied heavily on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was deploying a Red Hat OpenShift cluster. I used RHEL to prepare the bastion host, configure networking, DNS, HAProxy, storage, and install the required packages. After deployment, I also performed troubleshooting and day-to-day operations such as system updates, log analysis, and resolving service issues, as RHEL provided a stable and secure platform throughout the project.

We also use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as the standard operating system across our servers because of its reliability and enterprise support. It integrates well with tools such as OpenShift, Ansible, and VMware, making it easier to manage and maintain our infrastructure consistently.

The features that stand out the most in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are its stability, security, and long-term support. I also value SELinux for built-in security, DNF or Yum for package management, systemd for service management, and the performance and reliability it provides for enterprise workloads. Another strong point is the seamless integration with Red Hat tools such as OpenShift, Ansible, and Satellite, which makes infrastructure management much easier.

The feature I rely on the most in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is its stability. Since we manage production servers and OpenShift environments, having an operating system that runs reliably with minimal downtime is very important. It allows us to focus on deployments and troubleshooting without worrying about OS-level issues, making day-to-day administration much more efficient.

I would also mention the excellent documentation and large enterprise community around Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). It makes troubleshooting and learning much easier, and because it is widely used in enterprise environments, finding best practices and support resources is straightforward.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has improved the stability and reliability of our infrastructure. Since adopting it as our standard operating system, we have experienced fewer system-related issues, better uptime, and a consistent environment for deploying applications and OpenShift clusters. It has also simplified server administration and troubleshooting, helping the team resolve issues more quickly and maintain a secure, stable platform.

We did not track formal KPIs, but we did notice practical improvements since adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). For example, server provisioning that used to take a few hours became much faster because of standardized RHEL configurations and automation. Troubleshooting time also reduced since the environment was consistent across servers, and we have experienced very few OS-related outages. Overall, it has helped improve operational efficiency and system reliability.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a very mature platform, but I think it could improve in a few areas. The subscription and licensing model can be a bit complex for new users, and some enterprise features have a steep learning curve. Simplifying subscription management and providing more built-in automation and monitoring tools would make the overall experience even better.

While the documentation is very comprehensive, it can sometimes be overwhelming for beginners. More practical, real-world examples and troubleshooting guides would be helpful. Apart from that, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a very reliable and well-supported enterprise operating system.

I have been working in this field for the last 1.8 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been very stable in my experience. We use it to run production servers and support OpenShift environments, and it has consistently provided reliable performance with minimal operating system issues. With regular updates and proper maintenance, we have experienced very few unexpected outages, making it a dependable platform for enterprise workflows.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales well for enterprise environments. In my experience, it has supported everything from individual servers to larger infrastructure running OpenShift clusters without any issues. It handles increasing workloads reliably, and its integration with enterprise management and automation tools makes it easier to manage systems as the environment grows.

Since I did not interact directly with Red Hat support very often because most issues were handled internally by our team, I can say that whenever we referred to Red Hat's knowledge base and official documentation, they were comprehensive and very helpful for troubleshooting.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been the standard operating system for our enterprise infrastructure since I joined my organization. I have not worked with a different enterprise Linux distribution in this environment, so there was not a migration or switch during my time there.

We manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems using standard Red Hat tools such as DNF or Yum for package management and system updates, along with automation where needed. For provisioning, we follow standardized server configurations to ensure consistency across environments. Overall, I am very satisfied with the management experience because patching is straightforward, the tools are reliable, and maintaining multiple servers is efficient.

I have not used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Image Builder extensively in production. However, I have used Red Hat system roles along with Ansible to standardize servers, configurations, and automate common administration tasks. They were helpful in maintaining consistency across multiple RHEL servers, reducing manual configuration, and saving time during deployments.

We have seen a return on investment mainly through improved operational efficiency rather than reducing headcount. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) stability and standardized management have reduced the time spent on troubleshooting and routine maintenance. For example, server provisioning and patching are more streamlined, and we have experienced fewer OS-related issues. Overall, it has helped save time, improve uptime, and allow the team to focus on higher-value tasks instead of resolving operating system issues.

From my perspective, the licensing of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is well-suited for enterprise environments because it includes access to updates, security patches, and Red Hat support. The initial subscription cost is higher than community Linux distributions, but the stability, long-term support, and enterprise features provide good value overall. I think the pricing is justified for organizations that require a reliable production-grade operating system.

I have used other enterprise Linux distributions extensively in a production environment, so I cannot make a direct comparison based on hands-on experience. However, from my experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), its enterprise support, long-term stability, SELinux, and integration tools such as OpenShift and Red Hat Insights provide strong business value.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine out of ten. It is a highly stable, secure, and enterprise-grade operating system with excellent long-term support and seamless integration with tools such as OpenShift and Ansible.

The only reason I would not give Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a ten is that the subscription model can be a bit complex, and the learning curve is steeper for beginners. Overall, it is one of the best enterprise Linux platforms.

From my experience, the AI capabilities around Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are more focused on assisting system administration rather than replacing it. Features such as Red Hat Insights use predictive analytics to identify security risks, configuration issues, and potential vulnerabilities before they become a problem. This helps improve governance by keeping systems compliant and makes security management more proactive while still allowing administrators to review and control any recommended actions.

In my experience, the recommendations from Red Hat Insights are generally accurate and reliable. They help identify configuration issues, security vulnerabilities, and performance recommendations based on Red Hat's knowledge base. We still review the recommendations before applying them in production, but overall, they have been useful for proactive maintenance and reducing potential issues.

I would recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to organizations that need a secure, stable, and enterprise-grade operating system for production workloads. It is especially valuable if you are using technologies such as OpenShift, Ansible, or other Red Hat products because of the strong integration. My advice is to plan your subscription and licensing requirements in advance, follow Red Hat best practices, and make good use of the official documentation and knowledge base to get the most out of the platform. I rate this product nine out of ten overall.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are for applications, primarily. We provide Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to other teams because we are from the operations team and have infrastructure responsibilities. We provide Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) VMs for developers and other teams to run their applications on.

Before adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), my company used many Windows VMs. From the time I have been working in the company, we have been a Linux shop with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) VMs, along with a few Windows VMs.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points because Linux in general is easy to work with. The automation is straightforward. Because we have an ecosystem of Red Hat OpenShift, Ansible, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), the integration flows naturally.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I prefer most are the security features, which are very useful. The domain join realm and SELinux are also excellent.

For navigating our security risks with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we currently use SELinux for security. We do not use Lightspeed at this time. We have FirewallD and other services for security. For identity management, we have our own Kerberos agents that we use for identity purposes.

Satellite helps maintain our environment overall because we have integration with Ansible and the Ansible Automation Platform. When we need to create a new VM, we start with Satellite and have all the bootstrap processes integrated with Ansible. The VM then comes up automatically, and we provide it to customers or whoever wants to use it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me mitigate downtime and lower risks.

The capabilities of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that have assisted me with this are mainly the integration aspects, such as Satellite and the Ansible Automation Platform. Everything has helped us reduce downtime for customers and accelerate VM deployment.

The security portions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved and made easier to work with. SELinux in general is not intuitive because customers and developers do not know how to work with the VM. This part could be more user-friendly.

In my company's implementation of the Zero Trust model, we have not yet implemented this with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Because we are from the operations team, there is another team that handles other responsibilities. We do not necessarily handle that aspect.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for three years.

We have occasionally experienced downtime, crashes, or performance issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but not frequently. Overall, it has been reliable.

Scalability-wise, the scaling process for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is smooth. We have scaled many applications and have not encountered any issues. The performance has been solid.

I evaluate the customer service and technical support from Red Hat as very good. I have never had any issues with the technical support. I have created multiple tickets with the Red Hat team and they have been quick and effective at responding and fixing the issues. I would rate the customer service and technical support a nine out of ten.

The advantages of having Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) instead of Windows servers are that the development process is easier. I think Windows is limiting. Linux in general provides more opportunity to try different approaches, work on different projects, and avoid being restricted to certain functionalities that are imposed on clients who use the operating system. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has done an excellent job overall.

I would describe the experience of deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as straightforward. It is not complicated. We use Satellite to deploy the VMs and the process is very straightforward with minimal complexity.

We have used the Ansible Automation Platform through a dedicated automation team who handles all the automation for us.

From a technical point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the integration aspect. Working with OpenShift and having VMs on it is very smooth. Even though some features are not intuitive, the integration is seamless.

My company has not considered switching to another solution that does the same thing as Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We are committed to continuing with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I would assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as very good. I believe there could be more information available. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in general is excellent, but counterparts such as OpenShift could improve with respect to documentation and the knowledge base.

We performed a major version upgrade of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) using the Leapp upgrade tool manually. Although the process has been automated, we have not used automation to upgrade many VMs. We successfully upgraded forty to fifty VMs from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) version seven to eight and from eight to nine using the Leapp upgrade.

The advice I would give to other companies is that from the time of deployment until the customer uses the system, having a pipeline ready and integration prepared for every component makes it much easier to deploy and use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I would rate this product an eight out of ten overall.

My use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at my company include application servers, infrastructure servers, web servers, and virtually every server type.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate most are ease of automation and ease of deployment, particularly because we also use Satellite for deployment management. It scales well.

These features benefit my company by resulting in less time spent working on servers and issues and more uptime.

I have not identified any immediate areas for improvement in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), as I cannot think of anything that there is not already a product for.

We have encountered some issues with the high availability clustering lately, and it seems that could use some refinement.

The deployment process for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been somewhat rough around the edges to get it up and running with Kickstart, but once I have it dialed in, it is fantastic. The documentation for Kickstart can leave something to be desired sometimes, so that may be an area of improvement.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for almost ten years.

I have not experienced any downtime, crashes, or performance issues with the platform that were not caused by some kind of misconfiguration. The platform itself is solid.

I have been able to scale and expand usage as my needs have grown.

I assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as outstanding. The Red Hat Learning Subscription is great, and usually when we enter a ticket with Red Hat support, we can get a subject matter expert to help us resolve our issues.

I would rate the customer service and technical support as probably an eight out of ten. Sometimes when we enter a ticket, it takes some time to get to the level of technical resource we need, but once we get that resource, they almost always help us get a problem solved.

When I came in, our department was already heavily using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

The deployment process for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been somewhat rough around the edges to get it up and running with Kickstart.

From a technical point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the stability and uptime.

I have worked with Ubuntu and CentOS in the past while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but I do not particularly care for Ubuntu. I prefer Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) wins over Ubuntu for me by being a more stable enterprise platform and more mature.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points by being more reliable and easier to work on than Windows. It is simply good at what it does.

The features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I use to navigate my security risks include Satellite, which helps us keep everything patched and up to date and keep package-related CVEs down. We are looking at doing OpenSCAP scanning with Satellite, and we use Ansible for automation, deploying configurations and packages. We are also looking at implementing OpenShift, as our department has OpenShift.

I have worked with System Roles and have used Image Builder before, finding it useful for tightening a gold image and standardizing deployments.

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) only on-premises in my department. Some other departments might use it in the cloud. I do not know that my department has a cloud strategy yet, but I know we are exploring alternatives to VMware, so that could happen in the near future.

My department does not have a hybrid cloud yet, but as far as on-premises is concerned, Satellite helps us with patch management and controlling what packages we present through content views. We build systems through Kickstart, so it helps with deploying systems.

I have worked a little with Lightspeed for AI workloads with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) but have not really scratched the surface too much yet.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a critical role in my company's implementation of zero trust by tightening down configurations when we join a system to Active Directory through SSSD, locking down what users and groups can touch a given system.

We have used Leapp to do a major version upgrade using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but we have not coupled that with Ansible Automation Platform yet.

I have been using Ansible Automation Platform almost as long as I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); I used Tower before it was Ansible Automation Platform, and it is incredibly useful. It is invaluable for deploying systems, standardizing server builds, deploying compliance, and hardening. I have not found a use case it is not useful for.

We are working toward using or building Ansible jobs to help with our regulatory audits and evidence collection, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a significant role in our compliance and auditing workflows.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk with capabilities such as its stability. If you standardize and deploy a system and have it tightened, you tend not to have unexpected issues, or the issues you do have are ones that you would have seen many times and can easily remediate.

I rate my overall experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a nine out of ten.