The primary use cases include troubleshooting issues, installation, implementation, and design.

The benefits I have seen from using Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform include that it provides a seamless application business, and the business is never going to be impacted because deployments and upgrades can be completed without impacting the real business. Seamless activity can also be performed on the cluster without impacting the application.

Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform's policy-based governance has helped my organization maintain application security at scale because ACS is also there, and Red Hat is always maintaining things with hardening methods, always coming with hardened images, and we are frequently upgrading the minor and major versions, so it will be mitigated in that way.

Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform's hybrid and multi-cloud support will help to move applications, and if in the future any other platform wants to move, it is easy for the application to move from one platform to another without major impact.

Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform's auto-scaling capabilities have helped handle workload variations majorly at the HPA level at the pod level, but at the node level, we are not using the cloud mechanism, and that is why we are not enabling the node level.

Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform's developer-first workflow has contributed to enhancing my team's productivity because we have many custom scripts that give us reports of everything, ODR, and health-related things, so based on productivity, we are taking actions on that.

Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform needs some improvements, for example, in upgrade time, as normally, an extended upgrade method should be allowed, but sometimes if anyone clicks twice, it tries to upgrade the second level and gets stuck, so that area should be enhanced.

The strictness of the SSD and HDD also should be aligned, because in some environments, we cannot strictly make some rules related to HDD, since Red Hat is strictly making a rule after 4.16 to adopt SSD instead of HDD, which in some environments will not allow, so some workaround should be done on that.

Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is the best option, but as many companies and the world are mainly looking for security purposes, the clear text format needs to be adopted instead of any third party. Red Hat has to develop its own product, as HashiCorp and CyberArk Conjur exist, but Red Hat needs to protect the clear text format because the secret should not be seen by anyone. Currently, it is a clear text method allowing anyone in the namespace to see the username and password, which should be controlled in that way.

The major improvements needed are related to upgrade time and strict rule-making.

I have been using Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform for almost eight years.

Before Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform, I also worked with OKD separately and Kubernetes.

The initial setup for Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is straightforward because I am using extra features like govc from VMware to update the parameters and these kinds of things, so it is easy on that, with no issues.

I feel that the pricing of Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform depends on the salespeople, as they can decide that, with some companies giving a cheap price and others giving a high price for the same things. I would rate this product an 8 out of 10.

In our country, our customer's main use cases for the Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform involve a journey that has begun to migrate the old legacy banking solutions towards the new containerized platform. Hence, in these cases, the Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is a de facto standard, and there are a lot of requirements regarding that.

Currently it is mainly used in banking, and in some telcos as well, but we are not exposed to telcos right now for the OpenShift. We are mainly focused on financial sectors.

In terms of features in Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform, I find the orchestration itself quite useful for my customers because it integrates with lots of tools. For the platform plus, the security layer and automation itself are quite amazing.

Regarding how Red Hat OpenShift's policy-based governance helps to maintain application security at scale for my customers, that is also another education part we have to explain a bit. We face a struggle in explaining it to our customers as well, but the feature is quite good.

Regarding the learning curve, the customers actually do not need the technical nitty-gritty details; they need to know about the containerization journey because they are not familiar with it. They know it as a theory, but they don't understand anything about its practical implications. That's the main challenge. The solution itself doesn't require a high learning curve; it is actually quite good to manage. However, application developers and managers have to understand the beauty of it, and that is the challenge. If Red Hat can execute some programs regarding that, it will help.

Regarding Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform, it is expensive according to market feedback. Notably, the platform plus is perceived as quite expensive and some features from an infrastructure perspective are lacking.

I have been working with the Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform for approximately two years from now.

Regarding the auto-scaling capabilities, in most cases, the applications are not ready to handle the auto-scaling part. The reason is that the development was not done that way.

In most cases, the software has to support that auto-scaling feature, and we face that scenario quite often. In very few cases, the applications are quite ready, but in most cases, they don't support it.

I have no complaints regarding the stability of the platform. It is always stable.

Not yet have I ever been in contact with Red Hat support for the Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform, but there may be some scenarios coming in the future.

We have experience with VMware solutions, as we are quite familiar with these infrastructure solutions.

We are quite familiar with VMware Tanzu, VMware ESXi, vSphere, vCenter, and vCloud Foundation as well.

Regarding the initial setup, it is pretty easy to set up the container platform.

Regarding return on investment, my customers have not yet seen value in money while or since implementing the Container Platform. We can only comment on that one or two years later, as the customers just began to adopt it. We need to see at least one or two cycles before commenting on that.

Regarding whether Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is expensive or if the price is reasonable for my customers, to me, the services it provides should incur some costs, but based on market feedback, it is quite expensive. Notably, the platform plus is quite expensive according to the market. While the features it provides and the benefits it adds should have some upfront license fees—this is quite okay with me—marketing it is seen as expensive.

If I summarize the main benefit of this solution for my customers, it is the management of both virtualized and containerized environments, where the containerization will be more focused in the future. The benefit is clearly visible. However, for the customers who are mainly virtualization focused, the benefits are not quite exposed to them, resulting in struggles with customers who focus only on virtualization as they want some alternative to VMware, VMware ESXi and similar solutions.

Through my experience, I do not actually have any suggestion for improvement for Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform because it is a platform as a service provider cloud. While we work with OpenStack as an infrastructure as a service provider system, OpenShift lacks some of its features from an infrastructure perspective. However, from an application point of view, the current features are quite good, and the flexibility of using the system is commendable. In the near future, there will be some upgrades according to market demands, but actually, nothing to blame at it.

Before planning to use the Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform, my advice is that each customer should have a try from a technical point of view, as businesses think in a different way. Before deciding, they should compare features side-by-side and should not ignore OpenShift. Once they have tried it, I think they will stick with it.

It is scalable for my customers, and it is easy to scale.

On a scale from one to ten, I rate Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform a nine.

We run multiple applications on Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform.

Currently, we host all our customer-facing applications on Red Hat OpenShift ROSA and a few on Azure ARO. We deploy them via pipelines using Bamboo, Jenkins, or whatever the specific development teams choose to use.

Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform handles security and compliance within our deployments effectively, so I would rate it as nine; it's quite secure with the SCC it employs and the image security features in place.

Approximately 200 users in our organization work with Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform, and we have roughly 900-1,000 applications running on the platform.

The features such as Red Hat operators, CI/CD, the monitoring stack, and the observability stack enhance our application scalability and management.

Building source to image helps us significantly here as well.

The cluster scaling features, such as the auto-scaling of cluster nodes and application replicas using horizontal and vertical pod auto-scaling, significantly impact our operations.

I would like to see advanced cluster management added in future releases, such as a single pane of glass to manage multiple clusters without needing to pay an extra subscription for it.

I have been using Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform for roughly seven years.

The deployment process was initially a bit of a challenge because of the DNS Route 53 on ROSA, but the on-prem part was simple.

The deployment process was a bit tricky four years ago, particularly when we did ROSA on the cloud, and I would say it required some improvements to be less complicated, but I haven't done any recent deployments in the cloud to gauge if improvements have been made since then.

There haven't been any issues so far; it remains stable with no downtime or crashes, and even the upgrades are handled seamlessly without issues.

In terms of stability, I rate Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform as a nine based on my experience.

The product is scalable based on my experience; however, there are some limitations preventing changes such as those allowed with Open Source solutions like EKS, which provides more cluster control.

I rate the scalability of Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform as a nine, as I haven't encountered any issues with scaling a cluster or applications.

There are some occasions when support from Red Hat is not what we expect; in instances of outages, it sometimes takes a substantial amount of time to resolve issues.

My thoughts on the technical support of Red Hat are mixed; initially, when we logged a priority call, the assigned engineers were not senior-level, which delayed our support. However, we ultimately received the help we needed, but they should prioritize skilled engineers for urgent issues.

Based on my experience with technical support, I rate it five out of ten.

We chose Red Hat as our primary vendor because after working with previous vendors such as SUSE, we found Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform to be a more mature, secure, and overall better product for our needs.

When we first started out, the deployment took one or two days when we did a user provision installation for on-prem. We did UPI before, and we managed to change it as well, because later on we found out that we could do installable provision installation for VMware on-prem. Obviously, there's installable provision installation for the clouds as well.

Basically, two people from our company were involved in deployment, along with guidance provided by the service provider, Red Hat, mainly for Azure ARO and AWS ROSA.

We didn't really use third-party help, just some guidance, so we did it ourselves. Initially, we got some guidance but managed to resolve issues independently by consulting them and receiving direction when needed.

The current licensing cost for this solution is around $23,000 per year, per month.

Regarding the current licensing cost, I would rate my satisfaction around seven or seven and a half; there's always room for improvement, especially in financial institutions where budget is a concern.

I requested a document to compare EKS and ROSA because we found costs slightly increasing due to different licensing models, but for total cost of ownership and less complexity, we want to examine each product thoroughly before deciding if we'll save $1,000 a month by transitioning to EKS at the expense of hiring more engineers for maintenance.

I definitely recommend Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform to other organizations due to its high availability, security, ease of use, and all the built-in features it offers.

We do no maintenance for Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform since ROSA is fully managed, and that's why it is a bit more expensive than EKS. The fully managed service includes 24/7 support, scheduling, and upgrades; we only need to inform Red Hat support about upgrades, and they manage the process end to end.

Overall, I rate Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform as a nine; although I would say ten, I think it's important to allow room for improvement.

I am using it for my critical system, specifically for the payment system.

Especially the security side is nice. On the other hand, there is firm support in the background. This is helpful for me since I am also native to Bandit system. On OpenShift side, I can get support from Airflow. It is a good aspect. It is important for critical systems.

I have used it for approximately three or four years.

I would rate stability between seven and eight out of ten.

It is easy to expand. Scalability is rated nine out of ten.

Quality of support may be improved. I would rate it seven out of ten.

It is not too simple, however, it is not too hard either. It was a normal installation.

I know Kubernetes, however, I am not aware of other alternatives nowadays.

It is easy to expand it. I would give it a rating of eight out of ten.

I mainly use Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform for big data processing applications that require a lot of memory. On-premises solutions are not efficient for this. OpenShift, with its ready-to-deploy environment using pods and the Apache Spark Operator, allows me to deploy, process, and insert data efficiently. I also use it in my DevOps workflows. Using Tekton as a plugin, we have customized tasks integrated with GitHub, which automates pipelines whenever commits happen to branches.

Using OpenShift has allowed us to optimize our application deployment times significantly. It automates the pipeline for new features, from commit to deployment, which speeds up the process.

OpenShift also helps with stability through multi-cluster support in different regions, ensuring continuous service even if one region faces downtime. Additionally, the auto-scaling feature helps manage resources effectively, keeping operational costs lower compared to on-prem solutions.

One of the most valuable features of OpenShift is its efficient deployment process. It automates rolling out new features, packaging the code, conducting security scans, and deploying to OpenShift.

Additionally, the auto-scaling feature ensures resource optimization by provisioning new nodes when utilization thresholds are met. The support for parallel processing in big data applications and consistent region-wise replication for stability are also crucial.

There are several areas where OpenShift could improve. The interface has numerous UI bugs that need addressing.

Furthermore, the latest version has deprecated the deployment config, which has its own advantages compared to the deployment container.

Lastly, there is no built-in auto-scaling plugin at the OpenShift level; this needs to be addressed as it's available at the cloud provider level, like IBM Cloud.

I have been working with Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform for five years, from the start of my career.

We have faced scalability and stability issues at times. To manage this, we utilize multi-cluster support in different regions like US South and US East. When one region is down, we deploy to another to ensure continuous service. This setup mitigates potential downtime and improves overall stability.

The scalability features of OpenShift have been invaluable. We use auto-scaling plugins to configure minimum and maximum nodes and CPU utilization thresholds. This ensures that new nodes are provisioned when usage hits a specific percentage, which aids in resource management and application scaling.

The customer support from OpenShift is poor, with responses typically coming only after a few hours. The technical support, on the other hand, is more knowledgeable and helpful, although the process takes a considerable amount of time.

I have worked with Kubernetes and Azure services for container management. Over the last year, I've also used AWS EC2. Each has its pros and cons, but I've found OpenShift's built-in features to be highly efficient for my use cases.

The initial setup of OpenShift is not complex when using Terraform or Ansible scripts. These scripts automate the creation and setup of resources, making subsequent deployments straightforward and efficient.

Running OpenShift on the cloud as opposed to on-premises significantly reduces costs. Cloud services provide bundled features and scaling capabilities that would be expensive if set up on bare metal.

OpenShift pricing varies by region. For example, a simple cluster with three nodes in DAL-10 might cost around $560 to $580 per month, subject to specific configurations like memory and CPU cores.

I have experience with Kubernetes, Azure, and AWS EC2. Kubernetes and OpenShift are favored for their container management capabilities, while Azure and AWS offer frequent updates and broader feature sets.

Different companies might choose Amazon, Red Hat, or Microsoft based on their strategic goals. For startups or those needing robust container support, Red Hat OpenShift is highly recommended. For those needing frequent new features, AWS might be more suitable. Decision should be based on strategy and problem statement.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

The solution being used for application containization.

I like the Flexibility of the solution.

Metrics monitoring feature needs improvement.

I have been using Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform for five years.

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

Red Hat is acquired by IBM, there is still a separate entity, but we are more on the partner side.

I work with IBM, and most of our solutions are on the OpenShift platform. I work with our business partners to enable and help them with the technical pre-sales and setup role. So, I'm not involved in production engineering systems but rather in demos, first application implementations, and POCs.

The user experience and security are some of the key features. There are two key differentiators that you have certainly worked on from the customer's perspective.

It is actually very well laid out for a computer product. But maybe, since it has security built into it, it is sometimes very difficult for people to grasp.

It is much easier to work with Kubernetes than OpenShift. On the inside, all the security and other aspects are very much required by the container.

It has a difficult learning curve. Those are the areas where, from a customer perspective, OpenShift is a little challenging compared to other Kubernetes solutions.

I have been using it for five years.

I would rate the stability of this solution a ten out of ten. It is very stable.

I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. It is a scalable solution. Our customers are mostly enterprise businesses for Red Hat OpenShift.

The technical support is good. One challenge is that sometimes it may be difficult to find the answers to your questions if you are not a Red Hat customer. Many of the answers require you to log in to the Red Hat portal. Unless you are a customer, you cannot ask for a solution. On those lines, it is a little difficult. Otherwise, technical support is good.

I would rate my experience with the initial setup an eight out of ten, with ten being easy and one being difficult.

The initial setup is a little difficult because installing and configuring it is very involved. I don't see it as easy yet.

It's deployed on both the cloud or on-premises. On the cloud, it's much easier where it is managed OpenShift. If we go to managed offerings like Red Hat OpenShift on AWS, Azure OpenShift, or IBM Cloud, it is much easier to provision. But if it is self-managed, where you have to do everything yourself, it is difficult.

Red Hat OpenShift is self-managed, not from a cloud provider. If you are doing it on the cloud, then it is just a couple of hours. But if it is self-managed, then it will depend on the infrastructure, networking, and all that. It is still a team, but not yet a resource to have all that correctly set up.

It has been a good solution to deploy all containerized applications, like our AI and ML applications. We're not missing out on that capability.

The ROI is definitely much better because once it is set up and done, it is very easy to manage and have applications deployed. The user experience is very good. So once you have it in place, it's easy to do the day-to-day operations, and eventually, scalability and all those things become clear.

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten. It is a very good solution overall.

I would definitely recommend it to others.