Share your experience using Konfigure

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.

Your review helps others learn about this solution
The PeerSpot community is built upon trust and sharing with peers.
It's good for your career
In today's digital world, your review shows you have valuable expertise.
You can influence the market
Vendors read their reviews and make improvements based on your feedback.
Examples of the 83,000+ reviews on PeerSpot:

Murtaza Anwar - PeerSpot reviewer
Cloud Solution Engineer at Wanclouds
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
A scalable product useful for DC migrations that need to improve on reducing its overall complex nature
Pros and Cons
  • "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."
  • "Recently, we just faced some issues with the operating system due to the end of life of CentOS 6...So, then the client wanted to try it out under AWS instead of IBM. In short, it has some complexities."

What is our primary use case?

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.


What needs improvement?

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using IBM Public Cloud for a year and a half. My company has a partnership with IBM.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

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.

What do I think about the scalability of the 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.

How are customer service and support?

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.

How was the initial setup?

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.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

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.

What other advice do I have?

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.

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
AANKITGUPTAA - PeerSpot reviewer
Consultant at Pi DATACENTERS
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
A stable platform for container workload deployment with great GUI functionality
Pros and Cons
  • "There is a quick deployment of the application, and we can scale out efficiently."
  • "There is no orchestration platform in OpenShift."

What is our primary use case?

We are modernizing our data staging environment and moving from traditional virtualization. A year ago, we started deployment with the container. We moved to OpenShift because we wanted to modernize the application with quick deployment and portability and explore the users of that particular containerization feature.

How has it helped my organization?

There is a quick deployment of the application, and we can scale out efficiently with the help of OpenShift. We can run containers quickly.

What is most valuable?

The GUI functionality in the black command is great because, in Docker, we get only CLI. In the OpenShift, we get the GUI interface, and we can manage the GUI itself.

What needs improvement?

There is no orchestration platform in OpenShift, but we do in Kubernetes. So, it'll be great to get an orchestration platform like Rancher or Kubernetes.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using this solution for one year. We were using version 4.6, and we upgraded to 4.10. It is deployed on-premises.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

OpenShift is more stable than the Docker Platform. As a result, it is a stable platform for container workload deployment.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It is very scalable. We have deployed approximately 30 plus apps with the help of OpenShift. We require one senior system engineer for maintenance. We plan to increase the workload on OpenShift once we get a staging environment.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We evaluated Docker before moving to OpenShift.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was a bit complex because we needed to configure the work upload and the master mode. We also need to run many containers inside to run the OpenShift Platform, which is complex. The deployment was done in-house with the help of Red Hat as an OEM.

What was our ROI?

It helps us utilize our resources conservatively and minimize our footprint. We can reduce the virtual machine and move it to the container, so it saves the computer, memory, and network resources.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

We get a bundled cost with one of our product suites, but I am unsure of the exact costs.

What other advice do I have?

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. Regarding advice, I would suggest working on your application to migrate it. For example, if you go with OpenShift, you need to convert your application virtual machine to the container version. I would also recommend networking inside the load balancer and the routing capability.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.