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.

Positive

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.

Neutral

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.

Neutral

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.

Our primary use case for Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform is to enhance our Kubernetes management by leveraging the additional features and tools it provides. We use it to deploy applications, set up pipelines with Tekton, integrate secure networking, and facilitate AI and machine learning projects through MLOps.

Red Hat OpenShift has made the development processes more manageable and secure, particularly by providing its own DNS system, a pipeline solution called Tekton, and features like source-to-image. These enhancements simplify the complex tasks seen in plain Kubernetes, making it user-friendly and improving DevOps efficiency.

The most valuable features of OpenShift include its advanced security, integrated DNS system, built-in pipeline management with Tekton, enhanced networking routes, and dedicated platforms for DataOps and MLOps. These features make it a robust choice for handling enterprise-level tasks securely and efficiently.

Setting up OpenShift locally can be challenging, particularly because it requires RHL Linux and has specific restrictions. Additionally, the documentation for local setups is lacking. Improving these aspects would make OpenShift more accessible to the community for trial and development purposes.

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

OpenShift is highly stable. Its performance is comparable to Kubernetes, with enhancements where Kubernetes lacks certain features.

Scalability is customizable and straightforward. We can deploy it on any cloud service or our server center and scale it easily. Red Hat and AWS provide excellent support, making it easier to scale quickly.

The technical support from Red Hat and AWS is reliable and friendly, aiding problem resolution effectively.

Neutral

I have experience with Kubernetes, Docker, and Sravan for container management. However, OpenShift stands out for its security and feature enhancements.

The initial setup for OpenShift on the cloud platform is straightforward and quick, taking five to ten minutes to initiate and up to one day to deploy all resources, depending on the complexity. For local setups, the process is more complicated and error-prone.

Typically, three to four people are needed for deployment. This may include configuring nodes and setting up multi-cluster or hybrid environments to ensure scalability and ease of management.

If your concerns are primarily security and feature enhancement, OpenShift offers substantial value. It is suitable for larger teams concerned about security and usability. Smaller teams with less stringent requirements might consider other solutions. Careful cost estimation is crucial to avoid unnecessary financial burdens.

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.

Positive

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.

The platform's most valuable features are its regulatory compliance and enterprise support. It does not offer significantly unique features compared to Kubernetes or Docker. The primary advantage is its extensive support and integration with Red Hat's solutions.

The product's setup process could be easier. 

We have been using Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform for approximately one year.

The product is quite stable and reliable, offering robust performance compared to other solutions.

We are currently working with a multi-cluster environment, and the product scalability and response time are impressive, with nodes performing optimally.

Compared to IBM support, Red Hat's support team is more responsive.

The setup process is considerably more complex than that of Docker or Kubernetes. Its multi-node cluster setup involves a more intricate and time-consuming method.

OpenShift's core-based licensing model provides significant benefits regarding enterprise support and scalability. Despite its high cost, it offers valuable features and support that justify the investment.

The product is expensive. 

I rate the platform an eight.