We are working mostly with the DC migrations as we are partnered with IBM on migration sites mostly. Apart from that, we're also working with the cloud and the networking implementation for any new architecture someone wants to implement.
The easiest route - we'll conduct a 15 minute phone interview and write up the review for you.
Use our online form to submit your review. It's quick and you can post anonymously.
We are working mostly with the DC migrations as we are partnered with IBM on migration sites mostly. Apart from that, we're also working with the cloud and the networking implementation for any new architecture someone wants to implement.
Mostly when I compare it with Amazon, I just would appreciate AWS because there are a lot of complexities on the IBM side when we create a direct connection. In Amazon, we secure our connection with the ISP. For direct connection, it is covered by AWS. On IBM's side, we are securing all our connections. For example, we highlight the IPv6 or VPN connection for direct connection. So, Amazon avoids such situations. Hence, instead of IBM, I just appreciate the efforts by AWS when it comes to the cloud.
The solution's complexity and the need for the creation of direct connections are areas that IBM should focus on improving.
There are a couple of things that need to be improved. Like, their virtualization, like, they use virtualization on their backend. So there are a lot of things, like, they don't support the required OS, or they don't support it because of which sometimes we need to consider migration. There are also a lot of complexities in Red Hat, Ubuntu, and CentOS that need to be improved. We also had raised the case with the support team on-site, but literally, what I am just finding here is that there are a lot of improvements needed in the architecture side of IBM.
I don't think any new features are required since most of the cloud service providers are just using different terminologies to provide the same features or services. However, there is a need for more security in IBM compared to Azure and Amazon, which are the most secure ones since they put more on their security side.
I have been using IBM Public Cloud for a year and a half. My company has a partnership with IBM.
The solution is mostly stable because they have some high-potential clients. IBM provides support to companies like Toyota and some others. It is a stable solution.
The beauty of cloud service providers, especially public cloud service providers, is that they are scalable every time when you need them because their payment model is pay-as-you-go. So most of the public cloud service providers are following this model.
Recently, we also scaled FortiGate from two CPUs to four.
They do provide us with support because we have a long working relationship with them. So they give more preference while providing support, especially during our migration window or other, like, architectural designing work.
The initial setup process is easy.
Mostly, we are just on the migration side when we open a vendor with the client. On the migration side, we just first process that, and we just give them RTO and RPO if there is a loss in case though we give all the precautions along with the first call. Then, if they agree to migrate their data and resize, we take access to IBM support alongside the account at an administrator-level privilege. After that, we start the migration window, and we ask them for the downtime while also mentioning that the downtime would be needed in the meanwhile. So, this is the process.
We need people for deployment, especially since our company is in the WAN cloud. So, we created a VPC+ product, which is mostly multi-cloud migration in a DDoS product. VPC+ is our own product on which we mostly do the migration.
The solution requires maintenance. We can't say it is difficult to maintain it. But there are a lot of complications in the process. So every time we do the process, we face the complications. So then we resolve it as a team.
IBM has a lesser price compared to other cloud service providers like Azure and AWS. So that's why people are referring mostly to IBM rather than the other cloud services. Most South American countries, like Brazil and Mexico, are likely to deploy their infrastructure in IBM rather than AWS and Azure.
Recently, we just faced some issues with the operating system due to the end of life of CentOS 6. So, in my opinion, IBM doesn't have any support for CentOS 6. And likewise, we have a client that has CentOS 6 or a lower OS, and they needed to migrate it to the new data center. So they need some assistance with the migration and their infrastructure. So, then the client wanted to try it out under AWS instead of IBM. In short, it has some complexities.
Since it's not ready to date, I can't even say that it is very good as there are a lot of things that need to be improved, because of which I rate the overall solution a seven out of ten.
The most valuable feature of IBM Public Cloud is the AI integrations.
The solution’s pricing could be improved.
I rate IBM Public Cloud a nine out of ten for stability.
IBM Public Cloud is a very scalable solution.
I rate IBM Public Cloud an eight out of ten for scalability.
The solution's technical support is average.
Neutral
The solution's initial setup is pretty straightforward.
The solution's deployment takes approximately six weeks.
On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a nine out of ten.
The solution is deployed on-cloud in our organization.
Overall, I rate IBM Public Cloud a seven out of ten.