IT Central Station is now PeerSpot: Here's why

OpenShift Container Platform OverviewUNIXBusinessApplication

OpenShift Container Platform is #1 ranked solution in Container Management software. PeerSpot users give OpenShift Container Platform an average rating of 8 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 26% of all views.
OpenShift Container Platform Buyer's Guide

Download the OpenShift Container Platform Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: June 2022

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."
  • "It depends on who you're talking to. For a large corporation, it is acceptable, other than the significant infrastructure requirements. For a small organization, it is in no way suitable, and we'd go for Amazon's container solution."
  • "We paid for Cloud Pak for integration. It all depends on how many VMs or how many CPUs you are using. They do the licensing based on that."
  • 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
    Chandrashekhar NR - PeerSpot reviewer
    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
    June 2022
    Learn what your peers think about OpenShift Container Platform. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: June 2022.
    610,518 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
    Awais Afzal - PeerSpot reviewer
    Digital Solution Technical Analyst at ADIB - Abu Dhabi Islamic Bank
    Real User
    Top 10
    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
    Buyer's Guide
    OpenShift Container Platform
    June 2022
    Learn what your peers think about OpenShift Container Platform. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: June 2022.
    610,518 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    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
    Russell Nile - PeerSpot reviewer
    Solutions Architect at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
    Real User
    Top 20
    Provides centralized control of container resources, but it's prohibitively expensive to get something simple going
    Pros and Cons
    • "Centralized control of container resources is most valuable."
    • "There should be a simplification of the overall cluster environment. It should require fewer resources. Just to run a simple Hello World app, it requires about seven servers, and that's just crazy. I understand that it is fully redundant, but it's prohibitively expensive to get something simple going."

    What is our primary use case?

    We are moving as many applications as possible to a containerized environment. In terms of our environment, we have multiple data centers. One, of course, is for redundancy. Most of them are hot-warm. They're not hot-hot or hot-cold, depending on how you look at it, but pretty much everything that's important is fully redundant. That would be between our own private data centers and within Amazon across regions.

    We have an on-premises and private cloud deployment. Amazon is the cloud provider. We've got some Azure out there too, but Amazon has been the primary focus.

    What is most valuable?

    Centralized control of container resources is most valuable.

    What needs improvement?

    There should be a simplification of the overall cluster environment. It should require fewer resources. Just to run a simple Hello World app, it requires about seven servers, and that's just crazy. I understand that it is fully redundant, but it's prohibitively expensive to get something simple going.

    We've had a very difficult time going from version 3 to 4. We need to go to version 4 because of multiple network segments that may be running in a container and how we organize our applications. It's very difficult to have applications from different domains in the same container cluster. We've had a lot of problems with that. I find it to be an overcomplicated environment, and some of the other simpler containers may very well rise above this. 

    For how long have I used the solution?

    It has probably been in use in the organization for about a year and a half.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    It is fine. I've not heard anything negative about either the performance or the reliability.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    Scalability is one of the primary reasons for going with a containerized environment like this. I have not heard that we've had any restrictions there, and I would be shocked and remarkably disappointed if we did. We have not hit any scalability issues yet.

    How are customer service and support?

    I personally do not have any experience with them. I'm quite sure our low-level implementers do. 

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

    They were just different JBoss containers. It really wasn't a containerized environment. We're looking at some of the AWS solutions.

    How was the initial setup?

    I didn't do the initial setup. Some other people did that. We're all pretty uber geeks. So, I'm quite sure that we'd be able to figure it out naturally. Because it's a fully-featured and complex environment, you'd have to bone up on OpenShift to figure out how to install it properly, but I wouldn't expect it to be onerous.

    Our implementation strategy was to start moving applications to be containerized and then implement them in the OpenShift. We were moving to OpenShift running on our own ECS on Amazon, but we have a lot of on-prem as well.

    We're still working out the kinks. A part of that is our own dysfunction in terms of how we organize our apps, and then there is the problem with running apps from different domains in the same container. Some of those are our own self-imposed problems, but some of it is due to the OpenShift complexity.

    What about the implementation team?

    We definitely hired different experts, but for the most part, we went out and hired people with the expertise, and now, they're employees. So, I'm quite sure there were consultants in there, but I don't know that offhand. 

    What was our ROI?

    We have not yet seen an ROI.

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

    It depends on who you're talking to. For a large corporation, it is acceptable, other than the significant infrastructure requirements. For a small organization, it is in no way suitable, and we'd go for Amazon's container solution.

    Additional costs are difficult for me to articulate because ours is a highly-complex environment even outside of it.

    What other advice do I have?

    Ensure that you need all of the features that it has because otherwise, it's not worth the investment. Be careful what version you're getting into because that can be problematic to change after you've already invested in both the training and the infrastructure.

    I would rate it a seven out of ten. Considering some of the problems we've had, even though some of them are self-imposed, I would hope that a containerized environment would be flexible to be able to give us some options there. 

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    Flag as inappropriate
    Artemii Kropachev - PeerSpot reviewer
    CTO and Principal Architect at Li9 Technology Solutions
    Real User
    Top 10
    Developer-friendly with good functionality and delivers applications to production fast
    Pros and Cons
    • "Openshift is a very developer-friendly product."
    • "The solution needs to introduce open ID connect integration for role-based access control."

    What is our primary use case?

    The way our consultancy works is we have a number of internal products which we use, such as testing systems. We deploy our applications in scientific products and take advantage of automation. We are focusing on automation development for our customers. 

    How has it helped my organization?

    Previously we were using different automation methods. This product, however, is great. With OpenShift, you're able to achieve significantly higher deployments. There are more deployments per month on OpenShift. At the same time, it's all the tower application availability issues on offer that are great. Now, OpenShift follows us to make sure that all our applications are always highly available.

    What is most valuable?

    Openshift is a very developer-friendly product. 

    The self-service allows us to deliver applications fast to production.

    The functionality is quite good, even though we may only use 30% of it.

    What needs improvement?

    The solution has pretty good features overall. I can't recall if there are any that are lacking.

    The pricing is quite high. It would be nice if they could make it more competitive.

    The solution needs to introduce open ID connect integration for role-based access control.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I've been using the solution for maybe four years at this point.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    This is a rather new product. It's only been on the market for 1.5 years, and therefore has a lot of growing to do. While the earlier versions were not as stable, we find version four to be very good and much improved.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    You can scale the solution, however, we don't have that much money and therefore we aren't really scaling it.

    We have architects, engineers, DevOps, and developers on the solution. We're a pretty small company of about 50, and maybe 40 users are using Openshift internally.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    If anything, we would have to go to Red Hat to get technical support, however, we've been able to solve our own problems internally. Therefore, we've never really used technical support. I can't speak to their level of responsiveness or knowledge.

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

    While it's completely different, we did use Ansible as a way of automation and to deploy applications, for example, on top of just using Linux and additional layers of stuff. Openshift is just a better product and more geared towards what we need.

    How was the initial setup?

    We started to use an Openshift a long time ago. Right now, it's difficult to say if it's straightforward or complex as every version is completely different. Once we were with Openshft version three, it was pretty easy to install. As was version four.

    However, then it will be installed inside your infrastructure on the public clouds of endpoints.

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

    The solution is very costly. However, you do get good value for the price, and therefore we're willing to pay even if the cost is high.

    What other advice do I have?

    We are a Red Hat partner. We're a consultancy firm.

    We started using OpenShift version two, then we migrated to OpenShift's version three and now we are on a complete version four.

    We tend to use all deployment models - on-premises, public and private clouds, and hybrid options.

    If a company is considering the solution, I would advise that they maybe start working with some guys who have experience with the product. It will be much more work otherwise, and you can save time by avoiding POCs. 

    Overall, I would rate the solution ten out of ten. Even though the pricing is high, I knew what I was getting into, and for me, for the value we get from the product, it's worth the cost.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    Hybrid Cloud
    Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
    Prasun-Nesu - PeerSpot reviewer
    General Manager/Data Lead at Maersk
    Real User
    Provides good architecture that allowed us to configure DataPower and move from appliances to software-based solutions
    Pros and Cons
    • "The architecture is the best. The solution is scalable if you are on a container-based solution."
    • "Getting the solution quickly and troubleshooting quickly are both areas where I think it needs some work."

    What is our primary use case?

    Our use case is primarily to do with DataPower. We wanted to configure DataPower and move away from appliances to a software-based solution, which is CP4I. DataPower is an IBM product, and we were using their firmware machine. We wanted to move from hardware or firmware to software, and CP4I is a software-based solution for DataPower, and that works primarily for any Kubernetes, but IBM had both. So we moved to Kubernetes, and on top of that, we had CP4I.

    We did the implementation for one organization. It was widely used, and there was a huge customer base. It was primarily in the telecom domain. Those APIs were used, and we were getting a lot of incoming traffic and outgoing traffic through DataPower.

    This solution is deployed on our private cloud.

    What is most valuable?

    The architecture is the best. The solution is scalable if you are on a container-based solution. I can easily spin a new container or create another image, so that was the benefit. It was scalable, and I could easily ramp up and ramp down the services based on the need.

    What needs improvement?

    OpenShift is not very old. They have built an entire layer on top of Kubernetes. Getting the solution quickly and troubleshooting quickly are both areas where I think it needs some work. 

    It wasn't very problematic for us because we were getting the solution. They also needed to do some experiments in their own lab, because our use case was a little different, and we were one of the few who were implementing it for the first time with Cloud Pak.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have been using this solution for about two and a half years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    It wasn't stable while we were testing it, but now it's really stable.

    How are customer service and support?

    I would rate technical support 4 out of 5. 

    How was the initial setup?

    The deployment was very easy, which is another benefit. The orchestration and management were also very user-friendly and easy.

    What about the implementation team?

    We used our own technical team for deployment. The team, including support and everything, was around five to six people. They were working on services also, like creating and deploying the APIs. We had the infrastructure team who were managing the clusters.

    It also depends on the size and how many master nodes there are, how many worker nodes you have, and the mechanism you're using for logging. I was using Prometheus and Grafana. It all depends on how huge your architecture, how huge your infrastructure is.

    What was our ROI?

    We definitely did the ROI on this new implementation, and we found that in the long run, it was going to save a lot.

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

    We paid for Cloud Pak for integration. It all depends on how many VMs or how many CPUs you are using. They do the licensing based on that.

    It was not very cheap, but it was affordable for the organization. They had the enterprise ELA, which means they had the enterprise licensing agreement with IBM. So it worked for them, and it wasn't very expensive.

    What other advice do I have?

    I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    Private Cloud
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    Flag as inappropriate
    Computer Specialist at a government with 1,001-5,000 employees
    Real User
    Top 10
    Provides good security throughout the stack and software supply chain because you can update the entire environment with security patches
    Pros and Cons
    • "Red Hat's security throughout the stack and software supply chain is good. It is a lightweight operating system. You don't have to worry about the security patches on the system. You can update the entire environment with security patches, which is a nice feature."
    • "It has an option to install OpenShift without connecting it to the Internet. We tried this, but it was very hard. We couldn't manage to use that option. We wanted to use it offline for installations, updates, upgrades, etc., but we didn't find the offline installation and updates easy. This could be better."

    What is our primary use case?

    We are using it for a payment system.

    How has it helped my organization?

    We run business-critical applications on OpenShift. It is very good.

    Since we had limited time for our project, this solution was very helpful in getting us into production within a short time frame.

    What is most valuable?

    The management console is easy to use. You can easily install some components with OpenShift Operator. 

    Red Hat's security throughout the stack and software supply chain is good. It is a lightweight operating system. You don't have to worry about the security patches on the system. You can update the entire environment with security patches, which is a nice feature.

    What needs improvement?

    It has an option to install OpenShift without connecting it to the Internet. We tried this, but it was very hard. We couldn't manage to use that option. We wanted to use it offline for installations, updates, upgrades, etc., but we didn't find the offline installation and updates easy. This could be better.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    We have been using it for two months, since December, with an important project.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    I find the platform stable.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    It is scalable. The problem is the license.

    It is used not only with our company, but with some banks.

    New banks or another organization may come to use the product going forward. 

    How are customer service and technical support?

    We use the technical support, but not much. Some of my friends use it more in-depth. I think it is not so great, but useful. By starting at Level 1 to Level 2 to Level 3, accessing the right person sometimes takes us time.

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

    We were previously using a container platform with Onsite, but we were using it for different applications, like servers.

    We went with OpenShift because we knew that we already had Linux systems running on Red Hat and were getting support from Red Hat, e.g., we are using the Red Hat Enterprise Linux system.

    How was the initial setup?

    The initial setup was not complicated. It has many documents. Since we bought in a company, they had some predefined documents, which was helpful for us. 

    It took two to three weeks to do the initial five online installations, then we installed three different clusters in one week.

    We had a step-by-step plan that we followed to implement this solution. We installed the machine, then the images on the machine. We ran them after the cluster was up, then we installed the Operators.

    What about the implementation team?

    We worked with a local company during installation. Those guys did the installation. They did not have in-depth product knowledge, but they were helpful. I think the company was a partner of Red Hat.

    What other advice do I have?

    Take some time to understand and learn the product before starting it.

    Our Red Hat products integrate well in our company. 

    My company has a background with Red Hat. The people from our company had established relationships with Red Hat.

    I would rate this product as an eight out of 10.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    On-premises
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PaulSorelli - PeerSpot reviewer
    IBM Data & IA Technology Consultant at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
    Real User
    Top 5Leaderboard
    The user-friendly GUI gives you a good overview of your containers
    Pros and Cons
    • "OpenShift is a user-friendly container platform with a solid GUI that helps you follow what is going on and gives you an overview of all your clusters. It's more user-friendly than the Kubernetes itself. The interface helps you learn the platform and provides access to some features or specific comments."
    • "Another thing that bugs me is that they removed the software in NFS storage. I don't understand why because this is a common type of storage. I am having problems with that, so I wish they would put it back."

    What is most valuable?

    OpenShift is a user-friendly container platform with a solid GUI that helps you follow what is going on and gives you an overview of all your clusters. It's more user-friendly than the Kubernetes itself. The interface helps you learn the platform and provides access to some features or specific comments.

    What needs improvement?

    OpenShift's documentation could be better. It's difficult to document everything you need in a specific use case. You have to seek some support or spend a few minutes trying to figure out what's going on.

    Another thing that bugs me is that they removed the software in NFS storage. I don't understand why because this is a common type of storage. I am having problems with that, so I wish they would put it back. 

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I've been dealing with the OpenShift Container Platform for about two years. I am not an end-user, but I develop solutions with it. I test, make proofs of concept, and design solutions that run on top of it, like Cloud Pak.

    How are customer service and support?

    OpenShift has great technicians who work with developers. It's nice to have access to real product developers when you contact tech support.

    What other advice do I have?

    I rate OpenShift Container Platform eight out of 10. It's an excellent solution. It might be a bit more difficult to maintain than some solutions, but it brings you a lot of value. 

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    Hybrid Cloud
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    Flag as inappropriate
    Buyer's Guide
    Download our free OpenShift Container Platform Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.
    Updated: June 2022
    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.