OpenShift Container Platform OverviewUNIXBusinessApplication

OpenShift Container Platform is the #1 ranked solution in Container Management software. PeerSpot users give OpenShift Container Platform an average rating of 8.4 out of 10. OpenShift Container Platform is most commonly compared to VMware Tanzu Mission Control: OpenShift Container Platform vs VMware Tanzu Mission Control. OpenShift Container Platform is popular among the large enterprise segment, accounting for 72% of users researching this solution on PeerSpot. The top industry researching this solution are professionals from a computer software company, accounting for 20% of all views.
OpenShift Container Platform Buyer's Guide

Download the OpenShift Container Platform Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: January 2023

What is OpenShift Container Platform?

Red Hat® OpenShift® offers a consistent hybrid cloud foundation for building and scaling containerized applications. Benefit from streamlined platform installation and upgrades from one of the enterprise Kubernetes leaders.

OpenShift Container Platform Customers
Edenor, BMW, Ford, Argentine Ministry of Health
OpenShift Container Platform Video

OpenShift Container Platform Pricing Advice

What users are saying about OpenShift Container Platform pricing:
  • "OpenShift with Red Hat support is pretty costly. We have done a comparison between AWS EKS (Elastic Kubernetes Services) which provides fully managed services from AWS. It's built on open-source-based Kubernetes clusters and it is much cheaper compared to Red Hat, but it is a little expensive compared to ECS provided by AWS."
  • "Its price is a bit high because it's a premium product, but as long as the business is ready to pay for that, it's okay."
  • "The pricing and licensing are handled on an upper management level, and I'm not involved in that, but I understand the solution to be somewhat pricey."
  • "It largely depends on how much money they earn from the application being deployed; you don't normally deploy an app just for the purpose of having it. You must constantly look into your revenue and how much you spend every container, minute, or hour of how much it is working."
  • "I'm an architect, so I have no involvement in the pricing and licensing of the platform."
  • OpenShift Container Platform Reviews

    Filter by:
    Filter Reviews
    Industry
    Loading...
    Filter Unavailable
    Company Size
    Loading...
    Filter Unavailable
    Job Level
    Loading...
    Filter Unavailable
    Rating
    Loading...
    Filter Unavailable
    Considered
    Loading...
    Filter Unavailable
    Order by:
    Loading...
    • Date
    • Highest Rating
    • Lowest Rating
    • Review Length
    Search:
    Showingreviews based on the current filters. Reset all filters
    Senior Architect at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
    Real User
    Completely removes overhead for our developers in terms of managing orchestration of Kubernetes clusters
    Pros and Cons
    • "Some of the primary features we leverage in the platform have to do with how we manage the cluster configurations, the properties, and the auto-scalability. These are the features that definitely provide value in terms of reducing overhead for the developers."
    • "With the recent trend of cloud-native, fully managed serverless services, I don't see much documentation about how a customer should move from on-prem to the cloud, or what is the best way to do a lift-and-shift. Even if you are on AWS OCP, which is self-managed infra services, and you want to use the ROSA managed services, what is the best way to achieve that migration? I don't see documentation for these kinds of use cases from Red Hat."

    What is our primary use case?

    As an IT service provider, we work on enterprise technologies for our customers.

    We have multiple customers with multiple domains, but the majority of our experience is in the banking and telecom sectors. In banking, they're using the OpenShift platform for their microservices-based requirements, and similarly on the telecom side, they are using it for the microservices-led solutions.

    We started with the on-prem deployment of OpenShift Container Platform, version 3.2. But currently, we are also helping our customers to migrate to 4.x and to cloud solutions. The plan is to move to a cloud version, strictly on AWS. We are exploring the OpenShift Container Platform cluster, and ROSA (Red Hat OpenShift Service on AWS) the latest one with the managed services. By mid-2022, we'll probably be on cloud with this.

    How has it helped my organization?

    OpenShift eliminates distractions so that we can focus on innovation and other things. It completely removes overhead for the developers in terms of managing the orchestration of Kubernetes container clusters. It provides all the built-in features for managing these requirements. As a result, our team is more focused on development and on innovations in the underlying services. With microservices or applications that are deployed on OpenShift, they are able to focus more with the business requirements and innovate by further optimizing efficiently, utilizing the resources at a Kubernetes level.

    What is most valuable?

    Some of the primary features we leverage in the platform have to do with how we manage the cluster configurations, the properties, and the auto-scalability. These are the features that definitely provide value in terms of reducing overhead for the developers.

    Also the Kubernetes cluster management or orchestration is provisioned through the UI and the CLI.

    We are using the Red Hat OpenStack OpenShift Platform. It is much faster in terms of deploying the cluster. As of now, our experience rolling it out is more on the on-prem, but I think with the 4.0 version there is a little bit of a change regarding the way it is deployed, either using the installer base or user-driven installations. It takes a couple of days just to roll out the entire cluster and configure it so that it is ready for the applications or the services to be deployed on the cluster.

    The robustness, the availability in terms of resilience, and the service availability with the multiple cluster nodes configured automatically, is pretty good. Even if load balancing is required across multiple clusters with the SDN network, it's pretty good. We haven't had many issues when it comes to robustness. We are happy with the performance provided.

    From our experience on the on-prem, we know that there are 10 layers of security provisioned by the OpenShift platform, starting from the kernel level, and including the clusters and the container level. That definitely helped us to achieve a lot of enterprise security requirements in terms of accessibility and managing the infra part or the cluster part.

    For running business-critical applications, the solution's security is pretty good. We are able to achieve consistent efficiency and availability for all our critical service requirements, when spanned across multiple DCs with the load balancer and DR solutions. We don't have to spend much on it, once we orchestrate the cluster with the proper configurations. At that point, everything is taken care of automatically.

    What needs improvement?

    At the service level, I don't see a very granular level of security as compared with the container-based clusters. It is at the Kubernetes level, not at the service level.

    Also, when I compare it with the other container or Kubernetes technologies, we have pretty good documentation from OpenShift, but with the recent trend of cloud-native, fully managed serverless services, I don't see much documentation about how a customer should move from on-prem to the cloud, or what is the best way to do a lift-and-shift. Even if you are on AWS OCP, which is self-managed infra services, and you want to use the ROSA managed services, what is the best way to achieve that migration? I don't see documentation for these kinds of use cases from Red Hat. There is some room for improvement there.

    Buyer's Guide
    OpenShift Container Platform
    January 2023
    Learn what your peers think about OpenShift Container Platform. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: January 2023.
    670,523 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    We have been using OpenShift Container Platform, as an organization, for the last three or four years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    The stability is pretty good. The industry has been using these enterprise solutions over the long term and we haven't heard of or seen any issues with stability. Of course, it depends on the way you configure it or manage it. But given best practices, the stability is pretty good.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    The solution gives us the flexibility to start with a small number of nodes and to scale it to the maximum number of nodes. As of now, we haven't gone beyond whatever the limitations are, in terms of the number of clusters or nodes, within OpenShift. We are well within the limits and are able to achieve our requirements. That aspect makes it more flexible.

    Scalability is definitely one of the positives with OpenShift, where you can have a distributed cluster across multiple DCs or multiple Availability Zones with AWS. The only thing we don't see is much documentation. If we want to maintain Active-Active disaster recovery or hot and warm availability requirements, even in on-prem, how do our clusters scale across different regions or different availabilities? And how do I manage the internal cluster storage being replicated across multiple clusters? How does that work, and how do we prove it? That's another use case where, when it comes to documentation, there is a little gap.

    But overall, scalability is pretty consistent and achievable with OpenShift.

    How are customer service and support?

    I'm not involved much in post-production support. Usually, it is the customer team that gets into those kinds of requirements. But what I heard from our customers is pretty good, in terms of the support provided by the Red Hat. We know that they have a very good enterprise support team and provide support fairly quickly for technical issues.

    On AWS, we have seen they have OCP-dedicated infra, which is completely managed by Red Hat. Now with ROSA, where AWS and Red Hat are both managing it, we are expecting a similar kind of support from Red Hat.

    Whether Red Hat acts as a partner with our customers depends on the customer. Most of our customers use Red Hat enterprise support for technical issues with OpenShift Cluster Platform. But they don't get deeply integrated with Red Hat in terms of exchanging ideas or innovating new solutions. But Red Hat is always providing its innovations and doing research into new products. That has definitely helped our customers.

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

    We embarked on OpenShift as our first enterprise container technology.

    There are open-source-based Kubernetes services provided by AWS and there are a number of cluster-based solutions available. But what Red Hat and OpenShift did was that they packaged all of their solutions within their platform so that it provides added features. For our finance or banking customers, adopting an open-source solution is challenging, but the enterprise-grade support from Red Hat makes it much easier for them to adopt the OpenShift cluster.

    As for building our own container platform, initially we tried with Dockers, but when we compared other Kubernetes cluster technologies to OpenShift we found that OpenShift is a much better solution in terms of the features.

    How was the initial setup?

    With the on-prem solution, with OCP, where you have control of your infra, I feel the setup is straightforward, because you know OpenShift 4.0, or other versions, and how to install it. You have the resources and the skill sets and it is easy to just start with that part.

    But ROSA is a very new approach, with the fully-managed and serverless cluster. I feel there are some gaps there because you don't have control of infra provisioning. AWS and Red Hat directly provision things once you provide the configurations. But if a customer wants to use a fully managed service with some level of customization, we don't see how we can easily achieve that.

    On average, if it's a single-cluster deployment for five nodes, it may take three days to get the infra up and running. And then, to do all the configurations and get the applications deployed, it probably takes another one or two days, including the testing and readiness of the infra. So a total of about five days is the optimum timeline to get a single cluster up and running with the services deployed in it.

    As we are exploring the cloud migration side of things, we definitely have a deployment plan where we use the templates, including Terraform templates, when it comes to infra and core provisioning. We then have a clusterized deployment as a basic migration approach or a phased approach. We leverage tools like the Migration Toolkit from Red Hat itself and some AWS tools which are relevant if there are challenges with agent installation and the like.

    What was our ROI?

    We have seen return on investment from using OpenShift. The TCO is much better, comparatively, over the course of three to five years. We have seen a reduction in infra and cluster management operational costs. These are some of the aspects where we have definitely seen a return on investment.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    OpenShift with Red Hat support is pretty costly. We have done a comparison between AWS EKS (Elastic Kubernetes Services) which provides fully managed services from AWS. It's built on open-source-based Kubernetes clusters and it is much cheaper compared to Red Hat, but it is a little expensive compared to ECS provided by AWS.

    Initially, we had this interim state where we wanted to move as a lift-and-shift, meaning we wanted to move OpenShift to OpenShift. We had three choices: OpenShift Container Platform, the OpenShift dedicated platform from Red Hat itself, and ROSA with the fully managed services. For lift-and-shift, we wanted to maintain an as-is state and made a decision to go with AWS OCP, which helps us to control our infrastructure and deployment requirements, while maintaining the as-is state. Price-wise, this option is less than ROSA. In ROSA, we would need to pay the cost for the underlying AWS resources we would be using, plus a nominal cost to Red Hat for managing every cluster and every worker node.

    There is no doubt about things, feature-wise. In terms of scalability, availability, stability, robustness, OpenShift stands out. It's the cost and support factors which make the decision a little difficult.

    What other advice do I have?

    If a customer is looking for a fully controlled or fully managed container technology, OpenShift is definitely a choice for them. But there are other services available, like AWS EKS, which come with similar kinds of services. It depends on if you need a deep-dive solution: Do you want to maintain your own infra or do you want fully managed services? And do you want to leverage other OpenShift cluster services? But OpenShift is the choice.

    We don't use the full-fledged automated services for OpenShift clusters as of now, although we do use a few of the automated services. What we are using currently is sufficient and it helps us to meet a lot of audit and telemetric requirements.

    In terms of using it for cloud native stacks and meeting regulatory constraints, we are still exploring that. We are currently looking at the AWS OCP and ROSA platforms. ROSA provides flexibility in terms of installations and managing the entire infra. ROSA is completely managed by automated serverless services, where you just provide the initial configurations for the kind of a cluster you need and it automatically provisions the infrastructure for you. Whereas with OCP you have control over the infrastructure and you can play with your cluster orchestrations, configurations, et cetera. In these ways, with the cloud services, we do have flexibility, but the cost factor may be a differentiator in terms of the on-prem and the cloud versions.

    We definitely plan to use the CodeReady Workspaces, but we are not there yet. The idea is to move on to the AWS Workspaces.

    Overall, I would rate the solution at nine out of 10. It has everything. For me, it is not a 10 because the support and the pricing costs stand out.

    Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
    PeerSpot user
    Digital Solution Technical Analyst at ADIB - Abu Dhabi Islamic Bank
    Real User
    Can be controlled at a granular level and has good auto-scaling features
    Pros and Cons
    • "The auto scalability feature, which is based on smart agendas, determined from pre-prepared rules is the most valuable feature. You can also create different routes for deployment. Deployment types can be provided with an identifier, such as an ARB deployment. This really helped in rolling out releases without disrupting services for the end-users."
    • "From a networking perspective, the routing capability can be matured further. OpenShift doesn't handle restrictions on what kind of IPs are allowed, who can access them, and who cannot access them. So it is a simple matter of just using it with adequate network access, at the network level."

    What is our primary use case?

    We are using OpenShift Container Platform to build microserivces which are financial business logics, such as payments, transfers, KYC etc. These serve as the defacto logic consumed by any channel. We are also leveraging the networking and securing capabilities of OCP which serves to secure and control on granular level.

    How has it helped my organization?

    First and foremost we have benefited vastly in cost reduction.

    The abstraction provided by OpenShift of the underlying infrastructure gives us the ability to extend the application across data centers (on-prem or cloud) that gurantees the uptime by 50%.

    The ability to push new changes without hampering the current version given us almost 100% business continuity and zero downtime deployments.

    OCP gives the ability to use the resource effectively which has helped in maximizing the use of underlying infra and it further has the intel to scale up the  the running app in case it is running out of resources thus auto-scalablility is inherent when apps are ran on OCP.

    It would be unjust to not mention the automation capability introduced by OCP makes the whole development and deployment seamless and almost eradicates the operational overhead of running this platform.

    What is most valuable?

    The auto scalability feature, which is based on smart agendas, determined from pre-prepared rules is the most valuable feature. You can also create different routes for deployment. Deployment types can be provided with an identifier, such as AB deployment. This really helped in rolling out releases without disrupting services for the end-users.

    Secondly, there is the ability to control at a granular level. For example, they can release two versions of the same service and control the traffic towards it to a specific percentage.  Other organizations don't seem to use this feature in the same way we did. Additional rules can be specified to determine individual versions of a service, and rules for governing users access to such services.

    Marketing can also make use of OpenShift by analyzing logs to provide useable data. This is one of the features that I really like about OpenShift. It is also a secure environment, with user access configurable at a very granular level. Depending on the API and the ecosystem, it is possible to completely plug and integrate. You control how the deployment works and the testing process.

    With OCP 4.x the capability of configuring and controlling your ingress controller has also introduced an immense ability to provide an experience which is pertinent to a particular app. With this we can introduce app specific compliance and security without enforcing similar requirements on all services, which was the case with earlier versions.

    What needs improvement?

    From a networking perspective, the routing capability can be matured further. OpenShift doesn't handle restrictions on what kind of IPs are allowed, who can access them, and who cannot access them. So it is a simple matter of just using it with adequate network access, at the network level.

    It should be possible to whitelist IPs so that you can allow and restrict access to the API. That would be a fantastic feature. OpenShift would then encapsulate the entire security and access. This is one improvement that I would seriously want our client to have, and for that reason, I have joined the OpenShift community, and it is a project I could probably work on myself. 

    The second thing is that deployment is more of a strategy rather than a feature in OpenShift. Although you can create different routes, and it works fine, it is not an innate feature of OpenShift that it understands that you want to run specific versions of the same service as needed. Though you can define routes to serve different versions.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have been using OpenShift Container Platform for almost four years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    It is very stable when it's running. So far, I haven't found any issues. We went through operating system upgrades. We did need to perform some patching, so there was some vulnerability and there were many tasks we had to undertake to assist with stability. In fact, we use two clusters. One of them is used for non-production purposes. It is a developer's structure and is a very stable solution.

    Further by the design OCP will keep running the cluster is left with only one node, which makes it very robust and reliable platform.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    The auto-scalability feature, which is based on smart agendas, can be determined from pre-prepared rules. You can also create different routes for deployment. Deployment types can be provided with an identifier.

    This is very flexible and saves resources when you don't need them, and scales up when you do. This is a very powerful feature.

    How are customer service and support?

    We used the Redhat TAM service. They assign a technical application manager to you, and we have used that. The support is very, very responsive. They respond very quickly. What I like about them is that they have a very precise, clear and rationale way of working they will ask guide you to take a decision towards one single solution you require. That's it. They will come back to you and provide pinpoint in-depth guidance into the problem that you have.
    Unlike most support companies, you usually obtain a workable solution in a good time frame.

    How would you rate customer service and support?

    Positive

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

    We were using 3.x and now we have swtiched to managed OCP 4.x on cloud. This has given us helped in reducing cost and given the ability to expand and configure OCP without involving infra team, what was a months process has reduced down to minutes.

    How was the initial setup?

    3.x was a complex setup but with 4.x this has been addressed drastically and now it comes with a setup engine which handles 90% of the setup itself. Though it still does gives you the ability to do it 3.x way but it still less complex than 3.x.

    What about the implementation team?

    This was an in-house implementation.

    What was our ROI?

    Costs reduced by 70%, this includes infra and operation costs.

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

    It is a costly solution but then again, it's intended for enterprise-level business, and the license has to reflect that. It is appreciated what the GPU's processing power requirements will be higher. The licensing is very flexible. The license is related to the processing power you need, and the infrastructure of any clusters which go with that. If your current application, internally, has more then 5 workflows that have significant resources requirement I will suggest to consider using OCP. Anything below would be more costly on OCP in terms of license and infra setup.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    We had a comparison between OpenShift, Azure Kubernetes Services and Elastic Kubernetes Services (AWS) but OpenShift is more mature, it has understands the corporate more especially from security and compliance perspective. We also have the leverage to be multi-tenant with OCP over IaaS that lets us leverage the best of all infra flavours out there.

    What other advice do I have?

    A common mistake is to assume that the solution can change the architecture type. e.g. some people think by using this solution they can change their application architecture into a microservices architecture. OpenShift is an orchestration platform. These types of solutions are not intended to be run as a microservices architecture. Very often, the two become synonymous which leads to decisions which incur huge costs. Especially the conventional thought process kicks in and OCP looks more like an application server rather than a platform.

    As the cost of this product is expensive it should only be considered for large enterprises. There will also be a need to hire technical people, and this may also involve a training cost.

    There has to be a cost-benefit. It can be done as a single solution, but the solution itself has to be huge. 

    You also need to make the best use of the solution. If you are processing millions of transactions, that would describe an adequate use. You need to calculate the solution costs against the work it is designed to do, otherwise, it becomes a cost overhead. Certainly, for a single application, it would be a waste of money.

    I would rate OpenShift Container Platform a nine out of ten.

    Last but not the least, considering running multiple application on OCP to maximize the cost of licenses and it the budgeting of OCP should not reside with an application team where it will hard for them to budget and run the platform and would innately require other application teams to have a separate cluster which dissolves the whole purpose of OCP.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    Public Cloud

    If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    Flag as inappropriate
    PeerSpot user
    Buyer's Guide
    OpenShift Container Platform
    January 2023
    Learn what your peers think about OpenShift Container Platform. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: January 2023.
    670,523 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Ritesh Raj - PeerSpot reviewer
    Senior Manager at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
    Real User
    Improved time to market, good UI, and easy upgrades
    Pros and Cons
    • "The console or the GUI of OpenShift is awesome. You can do a lot of things from there. You can perform administration tasks as well as development tasks."
    • "OpenShift has certain restrictions in terms of managing the cluster when it's running on a public cloud. For example, identity and access management integration with the IM of AWS is quite difficult. It requires some open-source tools to integrate. This is one area where I always see room for improvement."

    How has it helped my organization?

    We can deploy microservices on the fly. The time to market has improved for our organization. If any issues are found or any incident is reported, fixes or hotfixes can be done within a fraction of a second. These KPIs are the improvements.

    In terms of security, it supports user management. An authentication and authorization solution is embedded in that. There is also certificate management in terms of how it rotates the certificates and the kind of TLS mechanism it uses for the end-users as well as for the communication within a cluster. It also allows our images to be scanned before deployment.

    OpenShift comes with a lot of marketplace operator-based solutions. It also allows any open-source operator-based solution. It could also be a Helm Chart-based solution for deploying any cloud-native application or workload.

    OpenShift is much better than others as an upstream project for Kubernetes. It also has certain features that are not there in any other flavor of Kubernetes. For example, Source-to-Image (S2I) is a wonderful feature in OpenShift where your code can be in the source repository. It can be built and deployed with a click of a button. That helps the developers' community to deploy their code and see the results on the fly.

    What is most valuable?

    In OpenShift, there are a lot of things that are good as compared to any other Kubernetes flavor. The console or the GUI of OpenShift is awesome. You can do a lot of things from there. You can perform administration tasks as well as development tasks. 

    The RBAC user management that comes packaged with OpenShift is not there in other Kubernetes. That's a very nice feature. 

    The upgrade mechanism is also very good. The upgrades are pushed by Red Hat, and with just the click of a button, your OpenShift cluster gets upgraded. That is another very nice feature. These are a couple of things that I like.

    What needs improvement?

    A lot of improvements are required in OpenShift when it's deployed on a public cloud such as AWS, GCP, or AKS. 

    OpenShift has certain restrictions in terms of managing the cluster when it's running on a public cloud. For example, identity and access management integration with the IM of AWS is quite difficult. It requires some open-source tools to integrate. This is one area where I always see room for improvement. 

    In addition, the RBAC access is only controlled by the OpenShift internal mechanism, whereas the authorization part can be handled by any public cloud. We are already managing and maintaining users in the cloud environment. So, a repetitive or duplicate RBAC mechanism is not required. 

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have been working with this solution since 2018. It has been more than four years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    It's a stable solution. However, most organizations are lagging in upgrading the versions because of various reasons, such as business downtime and the risk involved behind that. If you don't upgrade it on time, then there will definitely be bugs. It normally doesn't create many issues, but we have had instances where when we go to the Red Hat product support team, they always mention going for the next upgrade or the next possible upgrade so that a bug is completely removed. However, it's not always possible to do that. So, stability-wise, it's quite stable, but no product can be perfect. In the version that we are running, there are a couple of bugs, and we have to live with them, unless and until we upgrade to the next version.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    Because it's on a public cloud, it's very easy to scale up.

    In terms of its users, we have close to 100 users. There are a couple of DevOps engineers in that, and then there are administrators who manage and maintain the cluster. The rest of them are developers. These are the primary users.

    It's being used quite extensively, at least in two of our markets. I have no idea about plans to increase the usage of this product, but I also don't see any reduction in its usage in the near future.

    How are customer service and support?

    Their support is very good. We have a premium subscription for our organization, and we get support whenever we need it. It's quite good. It's the backbone of this product. I would rate them a nine out of ten. Sometimes, the support professionals work from different geographical regions, and when there is a shift change, we lose some time. It happens rarely, but it has been a cause of concern a couple of times.

    As a partner for helping us create the platform that we need, I would rate Red Hat an eight out of ten. In terms of support, they provide all the required commands, code pieces, or files required to troubleshoot the issue. They also provide support during any new installation or upgrade.

    How would you rate customer service and support?

    Positive

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

    When I started working on this project, OpenShift was already there. I don't know if and what it was migrated from. In the accounts that I'm handling, we had OpenShift, and applications were containerized and migrated to OpenShift.

    We use other Red Hat products. We use Red Hat OpenStack, and we also use GlusterFS storage from Red Hat, which comes as a part of OpenStack. Apart from that, most of the virtual machines are already using RHEL. OpenStack, for us, is on a private cloud. It's not as friendly as AWS public cloud. Integration-wise, it's seamless, but if we want auto-scaling at the OpenStack level, it's not possible for us. 

    An advantage of using multiple Red Hat products together is in terms of the support we get from them. That's very good. If we consider any Kubernetes flavor running on any public cloud, getting support on the components we have deployed is difficult, but Red Hat supports that. Whatever we have deployed, they can provide support on that. The support provided by Red Hat is really great, and that's why they're asking for a premium cost for that.

    How was the initial setup?

    It was already done before I came, but I know that it was done using Ansible stack and Ansible code. Its deployment is quite straightforward. The 4x versions of OpenShift are very easy to deploy. The older 3x versions were quite difficult to deploy, but in the latest versions, especially on a public cloud, it manages everything. It spins up your cloud virtual machines, installs OpenShift on them, and provides you the endpoint to access it.

    If the Ansible code or scripts are available and ready, on a production system, it takes about one hour to one and a half hours. It also depends on how many virtual machines you require to install OpenShift.

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

    Its price is a bit high because it's a premium product, but as long as the business is ready to pay for that, it's okay. 

    What other advice do I have?

    I would recommend evaluating the product thoroughly for your requirements. That's because OpenShift comes with a lot of bells and whistles, and most organizations don't need that. It also comes with auto-managed components. If you are looking for less-managed components on a Kubernetes cluster, then Red Hat OpenShift is the only answer.

    We didn't consider building our own container platform. There are different flavors available for Kubernetes. We use OpenShift, EKS, AKS, and GKE. Even OKE is coming up. It depends on what different markets of our organization prefer and what is cost-effective for them.

    Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten because we are quite happy with it. There are a couple of restrictions in terms of managing clusters on a public cloud, but other than that, it has a lot of inbuilt components, which are helpful for managing the cluster better.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    Public Cloud

    If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

    Amazon Web Services (AWS)
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    Flag as inappropriate
    PeerSpot user
    Solution Architect at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
    Real User
    Provides significant time savings and robust security with excellent scalability
    Pros and Cons
    • "The solution's security throughout the stack and the software supply chain is very reliable. When it was on-prem, it was by default secured by our company firewalls and security tools, and now it's in the cloud, which has its security and systems in place. This provides stability to our infrastructure."
    • "Whenever we onboard or deploy services that talk to Oracle Database, they take a lot of time to become active and serve the incoming request, so it would be good to see some improvement here. This could be an OpenShift issue or an internal network problem within our organization."

    What is our primary use case?

    We primarily work on middleware applications to communicate between front and backend services and use the solution to deploy our platform as a container. Our entire application goes into OpenShift containers.

    We initially started with OpenShift 2.0 and 3.0, which were on-prem platform versions. Then we moved on to OCP 4.0, a hybrid platform in the Red Hat cloud.

    We don't use the solution on the vendor's OpenStack Platform; we integrate with vendors, but they have their own capabilities and manage their services and infrastructure. We build our services and then deploy them on the OpenShift platform, and if the vendor deployed their services or APIs on a different system, then we integrate with them, but we don't control vendor platforms.

    How has it helped my organization?

    When we first came to the microservice platform, we deployed our applications on a VM service, and it became tough to manage the VMs, as we added endpoints to endpoints. Then, we learned about OpenShift, Docker, and containers and were given OpenShift to deploy our microservices as a container to make our server management easier. Having a CI/CD pipeline with the container and Dockers means we don't have to spend time on deployment, pipelines, etc. The product increased our productivity and sped up our process, which helped us a lot.

    When we had the VM infrastructure, the developers' building services had to spend significant time doing the deployments. Many of our developers didn't know how to use Linux commands, so we had to train them. As a result, the time spent on training, building, and deploying the packages was very high. OCS reduced that significantly, and containers are slightly quicker than VM servers, which positively affected our productivity.

    Our developers can now focus on the development code, and as we moved away from a VM model, our system downtime was significantly reduced. Even when first deploying an application, the container is already running because we always have an active instance there. So, the rollover, service startups, deployments, and productivity saw significant boosts, and we were able to deliver more value to our business as an application team.

    What is most valuable?

    The solution's security throughout the stack and the software supply chain is very reliable. When it was on-prem, it was by default secured by our company firewalls and security tools, and now it's in the cloud, which has its security and systems in place. This provides stability to our infrastructure.  

    We communicate on OpenShift under STDPS and TLS 1.2-based protocols, so whenever we contact our front and backend systems, we have certificates, handshakes, and the TLS protocols in place. These prevent any unauthorized access to our services, which makes out job easier and allows us to prioritize security.  

    OpenShift provides the flexibility and efficiency of cloud-native stacks while enabling us to meet regulatory constraints. When we first onboarded the solution, we evaluated that it would not cause any regulatory limitations, and it's the only platform that was introduced to the application teams as a result. The main regulatory concern for a container that's being consumed by any service is security, and the solution provides this.  

    The product's automated processes affected our development time, which is our most significant time saving, and when development time is reduced, so is the time required for production deployment. If the developers consume less sprint time, we minimize deployment time and increase overall productivity. This way, OpenShift provides our teams with a lot of flexibility and capability.  

    What needs improvement?

    Whenever we onboard or deploy services that talk to Oracle Database, they take a lot of time to become active and serve the incoming request, so it would be good to see some improvement here. This could be an OpenShift issue or an internal network problem within our organization.

    OpenShift is an excellent platform, but AWS is fighting a tough fight, so Red Hat must continually improve its product.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I've been using the solution for about four years, first in a developer role and now as an architect.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    The tool is very stable; we haven't seen any downtime since moving to OpenShift architecture. We had some minor issues here and there, but these were nominal. The VMs are also highly stable; we didn't see any problems with those.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    The scalability is excellent, and it's one of the aspects we love most about OpenShift. We can drastically improve our output if throughput increases and we have the CPU resources and memory.

    Our company has over 10,000 members of staff, and 60-70% of our APIs and teams are on OpenShift. 

    How are customer service and support?

    When we encounter issues, we reach out to our DevOps team, and they can help us. They may reach out to the Red Hat team, but 90% of the time, they can assist us themselves.

    How would you rate customer service and support?

    Positive

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

    We previously deployed our code to a VM platform and switched for several reasons: scalability, time reduction of the development cycle, and building and deploying. We don't have to manage the infrastructure or pay for all the hardware required, and VMs are a heavy solution. OpenShift has lightweight components, which helped us transition from a VM environment.

    How was the initial setup?

    I wasn't involved in the deployment but in migrating my team's project to OpenShift. I was new to Docker-based platforms, so it was initially difficult for me to understand, but with some knowledge transfer, it was straightforward to pick up.

    The migration from our legacy service to OpenShift was rapid; it took us a couple of days to write a Docker file and set up the environments, and we were good to go.

    In the case of a single service, the deployment takes two to three minutes if the Docker image is ready beforehand.

    Regarding deployment, our application team consists of 15-20 developers continually working and deploying their services on the platform.

    What about the implementation team?

    We carried out the deployment internally; we had good documentation, and an occasional Google search helped us through the process.

    What was our ROI?

    From my perspective as a technical individual, I've gained much knowledge from using the solution. Still, regarding an ROI from a financial perspective, I'm not privy to those discussions.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    It's possible that we evaluated other options, but I was not part of that team. 

    What other advice do I have?

    I rate OpenShift a ten out of ten. 

    Project onboarding time is a major pain area for us, but OpenShift isn't the issue; it's a company problem. When we want to onboard a new project to the platform, it takes some time due to internal processes which aren't dependent on OpenShift. If we manage to streamline our company processes, there's no reason for problems to occur while onboarding.

    We didn't consider building our own container platform. As the application team, we weren't asked to do that; we were provided with OpenShift and started using it.

    Red Hat is very supportive and an old organization, so it's easy to trust them.   

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    Hybrid Cloud

    If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

    Other
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    Flag as inappropriate
    PeerSpot user
    Raju Polina - PeerSpot reviewer
    Technical Lead at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
    Real User
    A user-friendly solution with a well-designed UI that allows us to create flexible and robust infrastructure rapidly
    Pros and Cons
    • "The software is user-friendly and straightforward to use, which is favorable to a developer."
    • "I want to see more incorporation of native automation features; then, we could write a code, deploy it directly to OpenShift, and allow it to take care of the automated process. Using this method, we could write one application and have elements copy/pasted to other applications in the development process."

    What is our primary use case?

    We have a monolithic application, and our primary use case is to implement microservices. We needed Kubernetes, but instead of going with plain Kubernetes, we chose OpenShift because it has a well-designed UI, more advanced features, and better security.

    How has it helped my organization?

    The product provides great visibility in the form of metrics over our systems. The infrastructure team monitors the platform with their personal tools and dashboards and can see how it deals with loads, security threats, if bugs are present, etc. Then they can send reports to the rest of us in the organization.

    The solution's CodeReady Workspaces reduce project onboarding time in the region of 10-15%.  

    The CodeReady Workspaces also reduce the time to market; a rival vendor released an offering we had to counter, so we used the platform to implement and deploy our counter in three to four days.   

    What is most valuable?

    One of the best features is monitoring; we can see metrics via visual aids when the load increases, for example.

    The software is user-friendly and straightforward to use, which is favorable to a developer.

    The system also takes care of itself regarding scaling; the platform can up and downscale automatically depending on demand.  

    With OpenShift, there is no need to learn new technology, as the skills required for Kubernetes carry over; the commands are interchangeable. Therefore, OpenShift is a developer-friendly tool.

    We use the solution on the vendor's OpenStack Platform, and in terms of the ease and speed with which it enables us to create infrastructure, it's very straightforward. We can set up an environment within a day or two, and it's a very convenient way to develop.  

    The infrastructure created by the solution on the OpenStack Platform is very robust; we created communication metrics: a shield where all VMs, master, and worker nodes communicate from subnet to subnet. We designed these and gave them to Red Hat, where they developed the ISO clients for deployment from day one. After gaining hands-on experience, we could create our own and implement a cluster.   

    OpenShift is highly effective at creating infrastructure that can be flexibly sized to meet specific needs on the OpenStack Platform. The minimum basic configuration is three masters, three infra, and two worker nodes. When a load starts passing through this setup, and we reach a certain threshold, say the worker machines are running at 60%, we can add another node, another VM. We have added eight to ten VMs in this way before. After experimenting with different configurations, we get a feel of which one to implement for a specific use case within the production environment. If we want to scale up, we add worker nodes; nothing else is required.  

    OpenShift provides solid security throughout the stack and the software supply chain; the solution has an inbuilt image registry and doesn't allow outside images, making the system more secure. The platform also features a Compliance Operator, which assesses the compliance of API resources and the nodes running the cluster.  

    What needs improvement?

    I want to see more incorporation of native automation features; then, we could write a code, deploy it directly to OpenShift, and allow it to take care of the automated process. Using this method, we could write one application and have elements copied or pasted to other applications in the development process.

    There are some gaps in the solution's security, so there is room for improvement in the security and compliance features. Protection against ransomware attacks would be welcome, much like in Google Apigee.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    We've been using the solution for two years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    OpenShift's current stability as of 4.10 is excellent; I don't see any issues. From 4.0 to 4.6, the product wasn't stable, and in many cases, nodes went down, taking down other nodes, and we had to follow up on clusters a lot. After 4.8, the stability issues were fixed, and we haven't had a problem in a year.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    The platform is highly scalable; we simply need to add VMs to accommodate the amount of traffic we have, which is a straightforward task. Eight to ten VMs is sufficient for millions of users, and we can easily implement them in a cloud-based or on-prem environment. There are around 50 total users across our Dev Teams, and the solution was able to support one million users of our applications per second without an issue. 

    How are customer service and support?

    Overall, the customer support is good. There's a ticket process with a priority level from one to three, indicating the highest and lowest priority, respectively, with two in the middle. Level one means production is impacted, and support responds rapidly to help with a client team. There are some delays with the lower-priority tickets, but they are there when we need them most. They could have better internal communication so they are all on the same page, as we are sometimes asked the same questions by different people and have to re-explain the issue.

    How would you rate customer service and support?

    Neutral

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

    We previously used Kubernetes and switched because it's more complex from the developer, management, and maintenance perspectives. It doesn't have a proper UI, so knowledge of Linux is required to operate the CLI. However, with OpenShift, a newcomer can log in and run the solution using the UI, which is an excellent capability for a development company. OpenShift isn't restrictive; anyone can use it, making it a good choice.

    In addition to the UI, OpenShift has more advanced features, such as the Internal Image Registry, which can restrict malware images. The product is also straightforward to deploy and has good integrations with other tools like Jenkins.

    How was the initial setup?

    The initial deployment was straightforward and took two days. At most, two staff members are required to deploy and maintain the solution.

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

    The pricing and licensing are handled on an upper management level, and I'm not involved in that, but I understand the solution to be somewhat pricey.

    What other advice do I have?

    I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

    We recently experienced a Log4j vulnerability issue, and the OpenShift team released a patch to which we upgraded, but they could have done a better job.

    Regarding the platform helping us meet regulatory constraints, I have yet to deal with this area.

    In terms of automation, most people I know use Github, Jenkins, or some other third-party platform and integrate with OpenShift.

    We didn't consider building our own container platform because Kubernetes is an excellent platform, and OpenShift is built on top of it. We're satisfied with what we have and see no need to start from the beginning.  

    Red Hat is an excellent partner; we never shared code, but we used to have review meetings where we shared room for improvement with the product and gave some suggestions. For example, we would like a backup process or system implemented, and we have communicated this to Red Hat.  

    Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
    Flag as inappropriate
    PeerSpot user
    Iwona Z - PeerSpot reviewer
    Senior IT DevOps Engineer at a transportation company with 10,001+ employees
    Real User
    Top 20
    Built-in resiliency, with caring and helpful technical support, but the initial setup could be simplified
    Pros and Cons
    • "The most valuable feature of this solution is its scalability on demand, which allows for potentially lower costs, and Built-in resiliency."
    • "In my experience, the issues are not always simply technical. They do stem from technical challenges, but they struggle with the topic of adoption. When you encounter all of the customer pull, there are normally several tiers of your client pop that can adopt either the fundamental features or a little more advanced ones. The majority of the time, the challenge is determining how to drive adoption, how to sell the product to the customer, and how much time they can spend to really utilize those advanced features. If we get into much more detail, but this is from my perspective as the platform engineer and not the end customer, the ability of the end user to be able to debug potential issues with their application That is arguably the most important, let's say, work throughput in my area."

    What is our primary use case?

    I am the platform engineer, and the platform serves a function for end users by allowing them to deploy their apps based on their application use cases.

    What is most valuable?

    The most valuable feature of this solution is its scalability on demand, which allows for potentially lower costs, and Built-in resiliency. Those are the three most important ones that spring to mind.

    What needs improvement?

    In my experience, the issues are not always simply technical. They do stem from technical challenges, but they struggle with the topic of adoption. When you encounter all of the customer pull, there are normally several tiers of your client pop that can adopt either the fundamental features or a little more advanced ones.

    The majority of the time, the challenge is determining how to drive adoption, how to sell the product to the customer, and how much time they can spend to really utilize those advanced features. If we get into much more detail, but this is from my perspective as the platform engineer and not the end customer, the ability of the end user to be able to debug potential issues with their application That is arguably the most important, let's say, work throughput in my area.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have been working with the OpenShift Container Platform for two months.

    We use version 4.9, and our legacy version is 3.9.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    OpenShift Container Platform is quite stable.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    OpenShift Container Platform is highly scalable.

    I have more data regarding the number of net spaces and the number of apps that are tied to it, rather than how many individuals are on the receiving end of such applications which would be considerably more difficult. I would say more than three persons for each application, which is definitely driving the number near 500. This would be an approximate number.

    How are customer service and support?

    I would rate the technical support a 10 or 11 because, in my personal experience, they are always going above and beyond to deliver the solution.

    They are very caring about their customers.

    How was the initial setup?

    Because the platform I'm working with was inherited, I wouldn't know how that procedure works here. I have, however, performed a few deployments in a considerably smaller context. 

    You have at least three distinct techniques to perform that deployment using OpenShift, as well as a few of IPIs and UPIs. 

    When I approached that scenario, I was thinking in terms of UPI, which stands for user-provided infrastructure in a non-homogenous, domestic cloud environment, a tiny simulated cloud environment. 

    It wasn't simple, and it took a few tries to get a functional cluster structure with various control planes and many worker nodes. 

    It's a difficult response to a hard subject, in my opinion, but, it is not an extremely simple or out-of-the-box solution.

    The deployment took about two hours if we count the successful attempt once I had my preexisting issue sorted out. 

    The upgrade would depend on the scale of the cluster. It can take a couple of minutes per node, so it would depend on the number of nodes.

    In terms of the cluster that has workloads that are on production, you need to make sure that the workloads are not experiencing any issues.

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

    I have a vague understanding of it but keep in mind that enterprise pricing differs from, I don't know, people or smaller businesses approaching them.

    It largely depends on how much money they earn from the application being deployed; you don't normally deploy an app just for the purpose of having it. 

    You must constantly look into your revenue and how much you spend every container, minute, or hour of how much it is working.

    I wouldn't have access to that information within my company, therefore I'd assume it's in plus.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    As far as I understand the situation, while this solution was inherited, the outstanding technical support is one of the main reasons it was chosen over other solutions.

    What other advice do I have?

    I would definitely recommend having the vanilla experience because, contrary to popular belief, OpenShift is not Kubernetes; it's actually written on top of Kubernetes and adds an extra value of authentication, auditing, and logging on top of that, but it does require a familiarity with Kubernetes to properly utilize its capabilities. 

    After being acquainted with Kubernetes, I believe it is worthwhile to dip their fingers and brains into the distinctions that OpenShift provides in contrast to other basic Kubernetes implementations.

    I would rate OpenShift Container Platform a seven out of ten.

    It is really expensive. That is not something you would employ unless you had a strong business case for your application. That is, not in terms of the enterprise version.

    You may use our OKD, which is a community version we provide, which is less expensive. However, it is not a supported version of OpenShift; it is only supported within the community. However, because the OKD community is small, there is a low likelihood that someone would respond to your inquiry if you run into problems and need to locate answers elsewhere.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    Hybrid Cloud

    If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

    Amazon Web Services (AWS)
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    Flag as inappropriate
    PeerSpot user
    Xavier J - PeerSpot reviewer
    BPM Architect at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
    Real User
    Easy to expand, uses resources efficiently, and user-friendly
    Pros and Cons
    • "On OpenShift, it's easy to scale applications. We can easily scale up or scale down."
    • "The initial setup can be hard."

    What is our primary use case?

    The product is used to deploy applications. We provide the base image that has the fundamentals for the BPM product. Then, it's in our docker farm and another image is created that extends the base image. The second image adds application-specific requirements on it. Basically, it's layering the application on top of the base image and a new image is created and that is deployed onto OpenShift.

    What is most valuable?

    The OpenShift platform is built on the Docker Ecosystem. The image we create is easily portable. OpenShift is built on top of the Docker Ecosystem which is one advantage.

    It has run time. It has all the binders required. Once built and once tested that it is working, it'll work wherever it's deployed. 

    On OpenShift, it's easy to scale applications. We can easily scale up or scale down.

    It's a container platform. It uses resources efficiently - specifically on the CPU RAM limit. We can create as many containers as needed. The underlying resources are utilized well.

    It's intuitive and user-friendly. They have a very good UI, through which we can add all the artifacts required for OpenShift. Also, they are providing API through which also we can work on the projects. Apart from that, they also provide the CLI, a command-line interface. In my view, I think it's very good. I don't see anything more that is needed.

    What needs improvement?

    Everything is good. I don't see any need or any improvement that can be done. They cover CI/CD and I have not seen something which is missed in this product.

    The initial setup can be hard.

    It takes some time to learn everything. There's a learning curve. 

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I've used the solution for four or five years. 

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    It's very stable. We've never had any failures. It was always up and running. It's very reliable. 

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    Our company is quite large. I'm not sure how many people are actually using the solution. We have a small team, and, of us, about four are using it. However, that's not indicative of the company as a whole. 

    So far, the scalability is good. 

    We're using it regularly, on a daily basis. 

    How are customer service and support?

    I haven't reached out to support. For this product, we are focused more on the application side. We use the platform, however, our focus is on the application side. Whatever happens, the team that maintains and does the upgrade of the platform, interacts with the vendor. We never interacted with the vendor for OpenShift.

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

    I tried AWS. It's also a cloud product, however, not exactly the same as OpenShift. They offer a different set of services. It's not a past product platform, it is a service product. I have used AWS, which offers cloud services. We cannot really compare both of them.

    How was the initial setup?

    At the outset, the initial setup was not easy. The learning curve is always there. The lack of materials at that point in time also made learning a little bit hard. However, after some point, we had very good documentation and we could easily handle the product. We could easily start working on it. It's gotten better over time. For the first three or four months, it was hard, however, after that, it was easy.

    The first deployment took around four to five months as we had to develop an agent data rate. It took some time. However, the changes, usually, could be done in a week or so. It was not a long time. Every week we can easily make the changes.

    There's no maintenance. We don't do it. We use the platform and some other team will automatically do the upgrade. We don't have to do it ourselves. It's done by a separate team.

    I'd rate the solution four out of ten in terms of ease of setup.

    What about the implementation team?

    We handled the implementation ourselves. The solution does not offer any consultants or integrators. We managed everything through the UI.

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

    I cannot speak about the pricing. We never interact with the vendor for that. There is a separate team who takes care of the platform and they work with the vendor for pricing.

    What other advice do I have?

    While my company has some sort of partnership with eh solution, I am just an end-user.

    It's my understanding I'm using the latest version of the solution. 

    I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

    I would recommend this product. It's easy to develop applications and it gives you the option to manage your cloud on a private platform. We don't have to rely on public infrastructure. In the private infrastructure, we can have our server and use this product and make the application secure.

    Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
    Flag as inappropriate
    PeerSpot user
    Digital Payments Architect at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
    Real User
    Reduced time to market in a stable, reliable solution that's easy to use and deploy
    Pros and Cons
    • "The product is stable, reliable, and easy to use, from a well-known company, has a large volume handling capacity, and more and more organizations are moving to OpenShift."
    • "The UI could be more user-friendly to drive tasks more effectively through the interface."

    What is our primary use case?

    Our primary use case is to deploy Java and Angler UI codes into the platform's containers. We will soon migrate our product infrastructure to OpenShift. 

    How has it helped my organization?

    The most significant improvement has been in the microservices area, as the solution simplifies the deployment of microservices. We don't have to spend much time on the infrastructure and CI/CD pipeline, so OpenShift saves us a lot of time.

    OpenShift eliminates distractions, allowing our teams to focus on innovation, features, and functionality. For example, the elementary deployment and the platform makes dealing with infrastructure very straightforward, allowing us to focus on other tasks. OpenShift taking care of infrastructure-related issues, in particular, takes a weight off us, and it feels good to focus on innovation, discovery, etc.   

    The solution's CodeReady Workspaces reduce project onboarding time, and Red Hat can create a Workspace for us within two weeks. We place a request, and they start working on it; it's pretty fast because we're migrating most of the bank's processes over to OpenShift.  

    The CodeReady Workspaces reduce our time to market by around 20%.   

    What is most valuable?

    The product is stable, reliable, and easy to use, from a well-known company, has a large volume handling capacity, and more and more organizations are moving to OpenShift.

    The scale-up and scale-down functions of the product's UI are excellent.

    The deployment is elementary and seamless.

    We use the product on the vendor's OpenStack Platform, and in terms of speed and ease with which it enables us to create infrastructure on the OpenStack Platform, it's the best and most straightforward approach. OpenShift is excellent compared to other vendors like Google Kubernetes Engine and Azure Kubernetes Service; it's easier to use, more reliable and handles volume better. 

    The solution is very good at creating infrastructure that can be flexibly sized to meet specific needs on the OpenStack Platform; there are options to increase and reduce the size to meet volume demands. 

    The tool's security throughout the stack and the software supply chain is excellent; we are a large bank, so security is a top priority.  

    OpenShift's security features are highly capable of running business-critical applications. The solution is exciting, and I'm looking forward to getting more hands-on experience. 

    The solution's automated processes are excellent, and OpenShift has good integration potential with GitHub and Tangible, allowing a lot of code deployment automation. Plugins are also available for other CI/CD pipeline tools like Jenkins Pipeline, reducing our development time.  

    What needs improvement?

    The UI could be more user-friendly to drive tasks more effectively through the interface.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    We used the trial version of the solution for one to two months to get hands-on experience in preparation for IBM Industry 4.0. 

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    OpenShift is a stable product.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    The scalability is excellent; it allows for a very high transaction volume. 

    How are customer service and support?

    OpenShift's technical support is outstanding, and I rate them highly.

    How would you rate customer service and support?

    Positive

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

    I previously used Google Kubernetes Engine, and many of the bank's teams started switching to the OpenShift Container Platform. Once I got my hands on the product, I saw it was very good. The general trend in our organization is one of migrating to OCP.

    How was the initial setup?

    I wasn't involved in the initial setup of the product, but it took around 30 minutes and I know it to be elementary. 

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

    I'm an architect, so I have no involvement in the pricing and licensing of the platform.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    We evaluated GKE and found OCP much more lightweight and easier to use. I tried with GKE but was never successful with it. However, with no background in OCP, I watched some YouTube tutorials and successfully deployed a sample project. This ease of use is essential for us, as we don't need to spend time dealing with infrastructure and can focus on the development and functional aspects.

    What other advice do I have?

    I rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

    We didn't consider building our own container platform because it's too big a job. We're a bank, and most banks focus more on developing functionality than building a container platform and instead look for the best available tool.

    We also use Red Hat Linux and chose it because it's very stable and reliable.  

    The biggest lesson I've learned from using the solution is how easy and simple it is to deploy, how little we need to focus on infrastructure, and how it allows us to prioritize functionality.  

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    Flag as inappropriate
    PeerSpot user
    Buyer's Guide
    Download our free OpenShift Container Platform Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.
    Updated: January 2023
    Product Categories
    Container Management
    Buyer's Guide
    Download our free OpenShift Container Platform Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.