Raju Polina - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Lead at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 10
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.

Buyer's Guide
OpenShift Container Platform
March 2024
Learn what your peers think about OpenShift Container Platform. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: March 2024.
765,386 professionals have used our research since 2012.

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
PeerSpot user
Harish Vadlamudi - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior DevOps Engineer at a tech services company with 1-10 employees
Real User
Top 10
Features good monitoring, application autoscaling, a beautiful console and an intuitive UI
Pros and Cons
  • "Autoscaling is an excellent feature that makes it very simple to scale our applications as required."
  • "One area for improvement is that we can't currently run Docker inside a container, as it clashes with security consents. It would be good if we could change that."

What is our primary use case?

We primarily use the platform to deploy microservices for all kinds of stacks and to deploy databases. Some of our databases are cached, and we can containerize them. Our entire infrastructure relies on OpenShift because we deploy all our applications to it.

How has it helped my organization?

The automatic scaling of applications has been a great feature for us. The solution also provides flexibility; we can deploy small or paid digital microservices with many features.

What is most valuable?

Autoscaling is an excellent feature that makes it very simple to scale our applications as required.

The tool's console looks fantastic, and the UI is intuitive; we can easily check port health, locks, deployments, and services.

Another great feature is monitoring, as we can integrate and monitor logs.

We use the product's CodeReady Workspaces, and they reduce project onboarding time. We have automated templates and use those scripts to create projects and clusters within OpenShift.   

What needs improvement?

One area for improvement is that we can't currently run Docker inside a container, as it clashes with security consents. It would be good if we could change that.

The stability of the console could be improved. 

For how long have I used the solution?

We've been using the solution for three years. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

We faced stability issues with the console; a problem we often see is the UI will freeze, and only the command line will work.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability is as expected because it works according to the conditions we set; we can impose limitations on the ECP to stay within the budget if necessary. We have over 100 developers using OpenShift, and 500-700 deployed microservices.

How are customer service and support?

I have yet to contact tech support; a different team in our organization deals with them.

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

We previously used Kubernetes and installed it on our Compliant Centers, but the infrastructure was complicated to manage as we had so many. So we moved to cloud-based Kubernetes and then to OpenShift because the latter provides more features like a one-console UI, user-friendly installations, and better support, security, and networking.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was not particularly complex, but it wasn't easy either. There are good guidelines available to make the deployment steps more straightforward, and setting up clusters is where it gets tricky.

As there is no on-prem infrastructure to set up, the deployment is very quick, and we can put up a cluster in minutes.

What about the implementation team?

We deployed primarily with the assistance of a consultant. 

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

I'm unfamiliar with the product's price or how it compares to the competitors.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We evaluated Kubernetes and Pivotal Cloud Foundry. Those and other platforms on the market are not up to the same standard as OpenShift; they have different installations, UIs, and limited security features.

What other advice do I have?

I rate the solution nine out of ten.

Regarding automation, we don't build up any pipelines in OpenShift; we have our own tools to automate build processes and then deploy them to the platform.

We didn't consider building our own container platform as it would be difficult. 

My advice to those considering OpenShift is that it's user-friendly, flexible, has robust security, and features are frequently updated. Red Hat provides good documentation, so the solution is easy to learn and adapt to your use cases.

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?

Microsoft Azure
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Buyer's Guide
OpenShift Container Platform
March 2024
Learn what your peers think about OpenShift Container Platform. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: March 2024.
765,386 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Digital Payments Architect at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 20
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.
PeerSpot user
Mehmet Esgin - PeerSpot reviewer
Software Architecture & Integration Development unit manager at AgeSA
Real User
Top 20
Quick scalability, flexible environment, with straightforward and quick deployment
Pros and Cons
  • "I have found the ability to scale up is most valuable."
  • "The product monitoring tool does not work for us."

What is our primary use case?

We have working nodes in the OpenShift Container Platform, we have six working nodes and we have a master working node. We have a Jenkins pipeline to operate our deployment and, CI/CD operations. We create some pipelines to deploy the code to the containers and those containers activate on OpenShift Container Platform ports or working node ports.

How has it helped my organization?

We had old-fashioned programs before switching. We started to create a new architecture for our developers. After generating our Java framework, we were looking for a new platform to run our systems. For our business clients, we need flexibility, and scalability, while we are searching the environment, because of the regulations. We need some private cloud options, and cloud vendors did not have private options.

What is most valuable?

I have found the ability to scale up is most valuable. If you do not have any hardware limitations, you can scale up during your busy timelines. It is an excellent tool so you can deploy these products to any of the public clouds. If the regulations allow you, it is straightforward to deploy your codes to another public cloud or another platform. OpenShift Container Platform gives you an opportunity to be flexible.

What needs improvement?

The monitoring is problematic. The product monitoring tool does not work for us. We had to purchase the Dynatrace solution to monitor our product and our applications, and this is a weakness of OpenShift Container Platform. If there was some orchestration with mini services because microservices can be complex.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using OpenShift Container Platform for the past four years now.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability is excellent. Last year we had some hardware limitations, we reached the limit of our hardware platform. After we enhanced our hardware we have not received any additional alarms.

How are customer service and support?

Technical support from my experience is the middle of the road.

How would you rate customer service and support?

Neutral

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup can take twenty-five minutes if it is a large stand-alone monolith. We have six steps in our pipeline. It changed to application certification, for little microservices, it takes approximately two to four minutes. We have six administration users who arranged the pipelines and port visualization for port monitoring.

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

We currently have an annual license renewal.

What other advice do I have?

I would recommend using OpenShift Container Platform, giving it a rating of eight out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Private 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.
PeerSpot user
Open source manager at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Provides advanced features and enhanced security, but might pose a challenge in integration with Kubernetes
Pros and Cons
  • "The most valuable are security features, particularly when operating in the cloud."
  • "We've encountered challenges when transitioning applications between these environments."

What is our primary use case?

We have been developing telco cloud-native applications that need to run on Kubernetes. In our deployments, we've used both, Kubernetes and Red Hat OpenShift.

How has it helped my organization?

The primary benefits we've observed primarily revolve around the security aspects.

In comparison to Kubernetes, OpenShift offers additional features, essentially making it an extended version with enhanced capabilities. It performs better, offering approximately thirty percent more than Kubernetes.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable are security features, particularly when operating in the cloud. It is considered a necessity, especially in our industry, given the critical nature of the infrastructure.

What needs improvement?

We've encountered challenges when transitioning applications between these environments. For example, an application that runs smoothly on standard Kubernetes might face compatibility issues when ported to OpenShift. This variation has posed some challenges for us, and it's something we're actively addressing. I think it's important to create a plan to ensure seamless compatibility between applications running on vanilla Kubernetes and those on OpenShift. This involves delineating features unique to each platform, such as those specific to vanilla Kubernetes and the additional capabilities offered by OpenShift. The goal is to make it feasible for an application designed for a more basic Kubernetes environment to run smoothly, providing valuable flexibility.

The introduction of OpenShift slowed down our development life cycle due to compatibility issues.


For how long have I used the solution?

I have been working with it for four years.

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

We transitioned from Kubernetes to OpenShift because our customers specifically requested it.

What other advice do I have?

Overall, I would rate it seven out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Flag as inappropriate
PeerSpot user
Senior Member Of Technical Staff at NEC
Real User
A stable and scalable solution with great monitoring and logging functionalities
Pros and Cons
  • "The most valuable features are the monitoring and logging functionalities."
  • "It is difficult to deploy the OpenShift cluster in a bare-metal environment."

What is our primary use case?

Our customers value the monitoring and logging functionalities which are also our most valuable features. 

What is most valuable?

Our customers like the service mesh, so we integrated these to improve customer satisfaction.

What needs improvement?

It is difficult to deploy the OpenShift cluster in a bare-metal environment. For example, when there are errors during the cluster deployment, it is hard to find the error on any documentation. So, from the cluster deployment perspective, there could be improvements.

Also, the machine config and machine config tools need improvement. The machine config tool implements changes related to files over the worker and master nodes in OpenShift. However, sometimes it starts without warning, and it is unclear how the error can be fixed.

In terms of additional features, it will be good to have the support of the CNI or OVN for the Multus CNI. Currently, in OpenShift, the additional networks added by the Multus and the pods do not support the OVN CNI plugin. OVN is supported in OpenShift, but only for the non-Multus interface, which is the primary interface of pods.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have used OpenShift Container Platform for the past four years. We are using version 4.10, and it is deployed on-premises.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It is a stable solution. We have not had any issues or found any big bugs. However, even though it is stable, we observed that the latest versions of this solution are usually less stable than the previous versions.

Therefore, if I were to rate the stability, I would give it a six out of ten because there are a few minor issues in the latest version.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

OpenShift Container Platform is great from a scalability perspective. To my knowledge, there is no limitation when adding many compute nodes in OpenShift. It just requires a lot of hardware since we use on-premises at my company. You will need to increase the capability of master nodes if you want to add worker nodes.

I will rate the scalability a six out of ten.

How are customer service and support?

Technical support from Red Hat is very good. They are proactive and always reply accordingly, depending on the tickets' priority. We never have any issues with the support. I will rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

How would you rate customer service and support?

Positive

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was very complicated. It took us about a week to deploy a basic three-master and a two-worker node cluster. I was also not aware of the OpenShift documentation at the time.

What about the implementation team?

From an administrative perspective, it is difficult for new people to understand. A few coworkers from different backgrounds who moved to use OpenShift found it challenging. However, it was not as difficult for me because I am familiar with OpenShift.

I rate the implementation experience a five out of ten.

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

I don't know the exact licensing costs as I never purchase licenses for my organization.

What other advice do I have?

I rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Regarding advice, it depends on the use case and what kind of platform a company wants. For example, if they want something on Kubernetes with at least basic amenities, like logging and monitoring and similar things out of the box, then OpenShift is good for them. But, if they want to modify the Kubernetes how they want, it is not a good solution because it is not flexible. OpenShift Container Platform gives you a lot of features out of the box, but you cannot modify it. So, if they want to use Kubernetes how they want, then the open-source Vanilla Kubernetes is better for them than OpenShift.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Implementer
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
PeerSpot user
Visarut Asvaraksh - PeerSpot reviewer
Executive Architect Manager at IBM
Real User
Top 10
Allows us to build APIs for both the enterprise API and OpenAPI and do integrations for the backend
Pros and Cons
  • "The banking transactions, inquiries, and account opening have been the most valuable."
  • "The monitoring and logging could be improved."

What is our primary use case?

For the majority of use cases, we're actually building APIs for both the enterprise API and also OpenAPI. It's mainly for integrations for the backend. We implement the system for the customer.

It's deployed on a private cloud and on-prem. We are using version 5.8.

What is most valuable?

The banking transactions, inquiries, and account opening have been the most valuable.

What needs improvement?

The monitoring and logging could be improved. I think it would help developers in terms of provisioning the database and the whole development lifecycle.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using this solution for two years.

How are customer service and support?

Technical support is standard.

How was the initial setup?

Initial setup was fine. If it's set up on-premise, it takes longer, maybe about four or five days. We actually deployed it on the cloud once using IBM. That takes a shorter amount of time because it's a managed service.

What about the implementation team?

We used a consultant. 

What other advice do I have?

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

If you care about your performance and the support, I would recommend it for enterprise mission critical applications.

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: Implementer
PeerSpot user
Buyer's Guide
Download our free OpenShift Container Platform Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.
Updated: March 2024
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.