OpenShift Reviews

Our company uses it as a platform as a service. We have business units with developers who deploy their containerized applications in OpenShift. We have a team that supports the infrastructure of clusters all over the world. We run thousands of applications on it.

It's deployed on-prem and in the cloud.

One benefit is that it provides you with the flexibility and efficiency of cloud-native stacks while enabling you to meet regulatory constraints. They have a catalog of the ratings of the base images that we use to build our containers. We reference that to show our security team that an application we're building has passed the security with vulnerabilities that are acceptable. We won't deploy it if something is not unacceptable.

In terms of our organization, the business units are able to deploy changes to the code rapidly. They can test it on the test cluster and, once it's tested, they can deploy an image in seconds. It has saved us time. Our guys are continuing to move to the OpenShift platform from whatever they were on, whether it was a mainframe or a standalone machine. And they're doing that for the cost savings.

In addition, a perfect example of the solution's automated processes and their effect on development time is the source-to-image feature. The developer can use that tool to improve his code's quality and it saves him some time. He doesn't have to understand the specifics of building a container.

There is also an advantage due to the solution's CodeReady Workspaces. That definitely helps reduce project onboarding time. There are prebuilt packages that they use. We have a lot of Java and some .NET and Python and the CodeReady packages help. Conservatively, that feature has reduced onboarding time by 50 percent. It also helps reduce the time to market by about the same amount.

Overall, Red Hat is a handy tool to have, like an electric screwdriver instead of a manual one. We don't have to write things manually. We can use what they've already written to make us more productive.

The developers seem to like the source-to-image feature. That makes it easy for them to deploy an application from code into containers, so they don't have to think about things. They take it straight from their code into a containerized application. If you don't have OpenShift, you have to build the container and then deploy the container to, say, EKS or something like that. It's a little different.

In terms of the solution’s security throughout the stack and the software supply chain, it meets our needs. It's excellent as far as we're concerned. It goes right along with the Kubernetes role-based assets control. OpenShift's security features for running business-critical applications are excellent. A lot of our external-facing applications have been protected. We do use Apigee for a lot of it, but we also do security scans so we don't expose something to a known vulnerability.

The software-defined networking part of it caused us quite a bit of heartburn. We ran into a lot of problems with the difference between on-prem and cloud, where we had to make quite a number of modifications. That heartburn meant millions of dollars for us. That was a year ago and the product has matured since then. They've since resolved it, so it's not really an issue anymore.

The storage part of it was also problematic. There were quite a few things that really hampered us. But it's much better now.

I've been using OpenShift for five years.

It's extremely stable. We haven't had any outages that were caused by the software. There have been issues due to human error on our side, such as not buying enough memory for the host. 

It's also extremely scalable. On our dev cluster, we auto-scale from 50 nodes up to 130 on a weekend, when there is a need. It also scales itself down to save money over the weekend. When people start hitting it on Monday, it scales back up, seamlessly.

In terms of users, we have about 20,000 developers, all over the world. It's used 24 hours a day. We have centralized development clusters that are being used all the time because we have deployments on every continent except Antarctica.

We're moving off mainframes and monolithic apps into the containerized world. Increasing our usage is a stated management decision in our organization. OpenShift has been growing in our company in the last couple of years.

We use the tech support daily and they're pretty good. There are always going to be a few rough spots, but most of the time they're responsive.

You may get one support guy who doesn't understand the solution or the problem and they give a wrong solution, and we all know that it's the wrong solution. The problem is that we have people who have different first languages, so they don't always phrase the question well. I can see where a tech support guy might get a little confused because of the wording of an issue.

Red Hat, as a partner for helping to create the platform we need, has shared code, information, and ideas. They've been very helpful and open. We have a couple of technical account managers who meet with us once a month. One is in the UK and the other is in the US. They're very responsive when it comes to any problems we run into.

Positive

Previously, all we used were standalone Unix machines. We didn't use a different container orchestration, like Mesos. We never considered building our own. We took a look at OpenShift a long time ago and it was really the best at the time.

Version 3 is very complex but it's 1,000 times better than five years ago, and it's even much better than it was a year ago. The deployment was a pain point for our company, but it's irrelevant for someone buying it now. They have fixed a lot of stuff.

We have huge deployments, hundreds of nodes in a cluster. The deployment time is relative to the size of the cluster, but the deployment time has gone from a week to a day for a 100-node cluster. Red Hat has improved the process considerably.

It provides us with good value.

There weren't a whole lot of options. There was Mesos or home-grown or Kubernetes using Rancher. There wasn't anything that really compared to OpenShift at the time. OpenShift was a complete package. There were a lot of things you had to do manually with the other products. The Kubernetes world has changed a lot since then.

The fact that Red Hat was open source was a factor and the security was what we really liked about it. They use CRI-O, which is a secure runtime container, as opposed to using Docker, which is super-insecure running as root. Red Hat is definitely the leader in the container security world.

You have to understand what you're getting into and you have to be committed to upgrading it. There are some people in the world who say they'll never want to upgrade it again. With Kubernetes, if you're going to get into OpenShift, you have to "sign the bottom line," so to speak, that says, "I'm going to update it," because the Kubernetes world moves at a fast pace.

In terms of container orchestration, we are totally OpenShift, but we use other Red Hat products like Linux and Tower. We do have standalone Linux machines that we manage, but we'll be migrating some of the applications from those standalone machines into the OpenShift container world. That's where the cost savings are.

I'm currently engaged in developing containerized microservices applications, managing thirteen modules within an OpenShift environment. These modules collectively handle automated payment processes for various services. My role involves closely monitoring these modules on OpenShift, ensuring optimal resource allocation such as storage and CPU usage. Additionally, I'm tasked with implementing solutions for scenarios of resource overutilization, including autoscaling capabilities to accommodate high traffic periods efficiently. I also focus on scaling down resources during low-traffic periods to optimize cost and performance.

OpenShift has significantly enhanced and streamlined our organization's application development and deployment processes. It offers more than just Kubernetes clusters, providing additional features like the Dashboard, which greatly simplifies tasks for developers. Moreover, OpenShift adds an extra layer of security, ensuring that applications run securely with features like hashing upgrades.

It offers a vast repository of images and tools tailored for deployment and application development. This rich ecosystem makes deployment and performance optimization much easier compared to our previous methods. Additionally, by opting for OpenShift, we gain access to comprehensive support from their expert team.

It streamlines our development and deployment processes through automation. From development to deployment, all processes are automated, providing efficiency and productivity gains. Developers can submit their changes for approval, and once approved, the deployment to production can proceed without requiring manual intervention. This streamlined workflow not only makes the process easier but also enhances productivity across the team.

The integration capabilities of OpenShift with other platforms and services have greatly enhanced our workflow. When you opt for OpenShift, whether through a subscription or by installing it on your servers, you gain access to a comprehensive support system provided by Red Hat. OpenShift features a marketplace with a wide array of operators, facilitating seamless integration and deployment of various services. For instance, popular services like Elasticsearch can be easily integrated into the cluster directly from the user interface and dashboard, making the installation process much simpler and more user-friendly.

The broad support for multiple languages and frameworks in OpenShift has positively impacted the productivity of our development teams. We've observed significant improvements in our tools and team collaboration since adopting this platform. As we continue to enhance our processes, it's evident that most of our development team members are actively engaged and contributing, particularly our dedicated engineers and architects.

When comparing the efficiency of OpenShift Container Orchestration to other solutions we've considered, such as Kubernetes, we find that OpenShift aligns well with our existing architecture and team structure. Our approach resembles the architecture of OpenShift, with a team leader overseeing multiple workers.

One of the most valuable features of OpenShift for our operations is its auto-scaling capability. This feature is crucial for handling high loads or traffic spikes in our applications. With OpenShift, we have the flexibility to scale our applications up or down as needed, providing a significant benefit to our operations.

OpenShift offers robust tools for monitoring application traffic, allowing us to analyze client requests and other business-related metrics. This enables us to effectively manage our applications and make informed decisions to optimize performance.

An enhancement to consider for the future might involve incorporating a comprehensive solution for CI/CD tailored specifically for OpenShift.

I have been working with it for three years.

I would rate its stability abilities eight out of ten.

I would rate its scalability capabilities seven out of ten. More than three thousand users use it daily.

We are experiencing dissatisfaction with the technical support as we often receive delayed responses when raising questions. I would rate it five out of ten.

Neutral

We previously worked with Kubernetes cluster, but we switched to using OpenShift, as advised by our architect. This change is aimed at achieving greater scalability and stability for our product, as we've encountered challenges with our setup at the time.

The initial setup was relatively straightforward.

We manually installed the deployment three months ago, utilizing grid protection systems. I have been handling both development and production environments. In the development phase, I build deployments from scratch, while for production, I collaborate with another vendor. I manage all steps of installation and ensure smooth migration to the production environment.

The cost is quite high. I would rate it eight out of ten.

Overall, I would rate it seven out of ten.

We use it for container management. It's our container management platform for our financial systems.

It provides flexibility and efficiency. It helps us to design and deliver applications efficiently. We can modify our application in a smaller scope. We don't need to change the whole application.

It makes development fast because we can separate applications into different parts. We can deliver applications in different phases. 

It has helped to improve the quality of our end products. It has reduced the project onboarding time by 20% to 25%.

I like OCP, and the management UI is better than the open-source ones.

The integration with 3scale is very good. We use that too.

The monitoring part could be better to monitor the performance. The automation part could also be better because we had a hard time integrating our application with OCP.

I've been using this solution for about two years.

It's stable.

It's scalable for one cluster. When it comes to multiple clusters, it could be better. 

We have about 100 users who use this solution.

Their enterprise support is okay, but sometimes, their response is slow. Their response is also not accurate sometimes. It's not right.

Neutral

I didn't use it, but my company used the PKS solution.

It's straightforward. The setup took two to three days.

Red Hat is quite okay as a partner for helping us create the platform that we need. They do help you. They also provide training.

We use Red Hat AMQ streams and 3scale, and its integration with other Red Hat solutions is okay. The advantage of using multiple products from the same vendor is that you can get help from one company. You don't have to go to multiple companies.

It gives me the security that I need, but I didn't evaluate the security much. There is another department that's responsible for that.

I would recommend this solution to others, and overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten.

Usually, we use it as a test environment and to quickly develop the proof of concept for various projects. So, it's mainly for quick deployment and testing.

It's deployed on the cloud and on-premises.

The biggest benefit is the speed. When developing a new PoC, if we don't have a container-based environment, we would have to set up virtual machines. We would have to install different software to make sure that there are secure ways to do that, which would most likely need a couple of days, whereas, with a container-based platform, such as Kubernetes or OpenShift, we can do that in a matter of minutes or hours.

The security throughout the stack and the software supply chain is very good. It's a step-by-step procedure to obtain new software. It's very secure. We cannot have access without a safe, provisioned way. For troubleshooting a fault, I like the new oc debug feature where you spin up a new pod for debugging. You can spin up a new test pod for a complete copy of the problematic one. We are very happy with it security-wise. I would rate it a nine out of ten in terms of security features for running business-critical applications. That's only because I never give a ten.

It provides us with the flexibility and efficiency of cloud-native stacks while enabling us to meet regulatory constraints. We can automate these checks. For example, in the hybrid cloud model, we can check for different things, such as the accessibility of many different classes not only in the cloud but also on-premises. We can use the hybrid view to check many things very quickly. If someone comes into the company from a regulatory body whose job is to run a couple of scripts and check if certain rules apply to all servers, without having this kind of interface, we would have to give him a week to be able to connect to everything and check everything one by one, and of course, we would have to pay him for that. With OpenShift, from one panel, we can automatically run a script across several different servers or even connect manually to each of them, which is a big benefit. It saves a lot of time and money.

It can speed up the development time. There's only Jenkins, but I'm not so sure about that. Because the development and testing phases are sped up, the time to market can also be very good. However, it also depends on other factors, such as any back-and-forth changes, because we can have a lot of feedback. Overall, there is about a 10% improvement in the time to market.

The CodeReady Workspaces reduce project onboarding time. There is about a 20% reduction.

Its security is most valuable. It's by default secure, which is very important.

It's very easy to manage deployment across different environments. It doesn't matter if it's a private or a hybrid cloud. It's very well-suited for the type of work that we do, which is the deployment for our PoCs. It's very easy to start with small ideas and then gradually scale up. 

It's very easy to integrate with different systems and products, which is another plus point. 

It also has a very nice user interface. It's very self-explanatory, and that saves a lot of time from training new users. You can cut a lot of time to quickly familiarize yourself with the base.

OperatorHub is another big plus. It's very easy to use and very useful.

One thing that can be improved but is surely difficult to improve is the cost. We have a lot of customers who would prefer a Vanilla Kubernetes solution or another solution that combines Kubernetes with some cloud provider, especially if they are already using a specific cloud provider. When we try to work with them, some customers complain about it.

Another thing is that the installation and setup process is a little bit complex, but I must admit that it has improved a lot as compared to the older version. 

Autoscaling is a very unique feature, but it could be useful to have more options based on traffic statistics, for example, via Prometheus. So, there should be more ready solutions to autoscale based on specific applications.

I've been using this solution for about one and a half years.

It's a very stable solution. Usually, problems occur when there's an application error or someone does something wrong and there is a human factor. For example, once there was an application creating a lot of automatic snapshots. There were volumes of snapshots, which couldn't be deleted easily. So, occasionally, there may be some bugs, but generally, it's very stable.

Scalability is a big plus. There is scalability from nodes to machines and so on. However, I would prefer more options on scalability based on statistics. That would be very interesting and very nice to see in the future.

Currently, we have less than 100 users who use this solution. They are mostly developers. There are also some end-users, assessors, architects, administrators, and project managers. The end-user experience is quite self-explanatory, and it's very important.

Once I'm able to talk to a technician, the support is very good. They are very knowledgeable and polite. I'm very impressed, and I've only good things to say about their technical support even though there's a lot of bureaucracy until you reach the right department, which can take some time, but I understand that. All big organizations have a bit of a challenge. I would rate them an eight out of ten.

As a partner for helping us create the platform that we need, I would rate Red Hat a nine out of ten. They're helpful. Whenever I'm in contact with the technical team, they're knowledgeable and helpful.

Positive

I'm not sure because I wasn't involved in the installation. 

We never considered building our own container platform. I've only seen customers using Vanilla Kubernetes because OpenShift is a little bit expensive, and some specific organizations have chosen to invest in a strong team because they would need a strong team to build Vanilla Kubernetes. They are succeeding in maintaining that way of working. I have seen this a couple of times.

I wasn't involved in its initial setup, but I talked to a lot of the people who were involved. Compared to a simple or Vanilla Kubernetes, it requires lots more work and has a lot of default processes constantly running, but, in my opinion, it's something where OpenShift is getting better and better. It's getting quicker. It's going in the right direction.

The deployment took a few days.

I believe there is an ROI for organizations where security is very important, and because of privacy requirements, the public cloud cannot be an option. Especially in the banking sector, there's almost no competition. There is about 15% ROI.

It's expensive. It may be cheaper to invest in building Vanilla Kubernetes, especially if security is not the number one motivation or requirement. Of course, that's difficult, and in some business areas, such as banking, that's not something you can put as a second priority. In other situations, a Vanilla Kubernetes with a sufficiently strong team can be cheaper and almost as effective. In addition, people who are already working with a specific cloud provider tend to find cheaper solutions by combining Kubernetes on the specific cloud and choosing that over OpenShift.

It's important to build a team around this. So, invest in getting the correct training. There are a lot of options that Red Hat provides. Start small, scale up gradually, and involve people from different areas. In addition to the infrastructure team, also involve someone from development and the architecture team to be able to see its value from different perspectives.

I would rate it a nine out of ten. I'm very happy with the interface, security, and support.

OpenShift as a solution is quite broad depending on the industry you are applying it to. For example, telco companies use the entire breadth of applications that the client wants from the web to their middle tier up to the back end. 

OpenShift is a platform for ensuring that your apps are running reliably. 

OpenShift has 100% compatibility with Kubernetes. I find using kubectl, and kubectl commands to be valuable.

The security features of OpenShift are strong when in use of role-based access. The solution is easily compatible with other solutions and the features are easily installed.

OpenShift could be improved if it were more accessible for smaller budgets. I currently mostly use Raspberry Pi, which will be over to use Kubernetes. As a platform, I am using Raspberry Pi rather than using a very large configuration computer. 

The solution requires eight or more cores of CPUs, multiplied over the number of nodes needed to make OpenShift reliable, making it susceptible to failures.

In the future, I would like to see a roadmap to have Wasm supported. If you have WebAssembly as an alternative to Docker, it would be great.

I have been learning how to use OpenShift for years, but actively using it for six months.

The solution is stable. We haven't experienced downtime. 

OpenShift is easy to scale. You just need to make sure you have the capacity to purchase and the number of nodes needed. Scalability only depends on your budget.

Currently, they are more than 10 users of OpenShift in the organization.

Technical support has been efficient, supportive, and communicative. They do not drop the ball. I would rate the customer service and support of OpenShift a five out of five. 

Positive

Previously, I had experience with VMware's Kubernetes version. VMware was very difficult to install. I could not understand the route they were taking and why there were so many steps. 

The initial setup of OpenShift is straightforward if you are an experienced platform engineer. Installing on AWS or Azure could be more complex. The product has a Terraform command to install everything.

If all of the tools that are needed and all the hardware is there, the implementation should be straightforward. I would rate the initial setup a four out of five overall.

Pricing of OpenShift depends on the number of nodes and who is hosting it. OpenShift is more expensive than other solutions, however, I think it is worth it.

Anyone looking to implement OpenShift in their organization should start with the most minimal setup for configuration. There is an OpenShift version with just the single master with a built-in worker. You will only need a single CPU and you can start with at least three masters and a single worker and scale from there as the need arises, whether it is to add additional worker nodes or as your app grows.

There is no product that compares to OpenShift. I would rate it a 10 out of 10 overall.

Compared to OpenStack, OpenShift is the best product in the market. There are plenty of cloud service providers who use OpenStack or other open-source products, but OpenShift is the best. Even AWS is just an okay product, but they have different proprietary software, which is not the same as OpenShift.

The most valuable features of the solution stem from the product's GUI, and other such areas of the product have been set up. Compared to AWS, OpenShift is better.

Latency and performance are two areas of concern in OpenShift where improvements are required.

OpenShift's scalability has scope for improvement.

OpenShift's technical support team needs to improve the support they provide to my company since the support we currently receive depends on the support package we have from the ones that OpenShift offers, like platinum, gold, or silver. OpenShift's technical support team is good, but it takes time for them to find the root cause of a particular issue. One of the clients of my company doesn't face many issues with the product, so we don't use much of the technical support. I can say that OpenShift's technical support team is okay in general.

I have experience with the product, but I don't possess a large amount of technical knowledge to comment on what functionalities need to be added to the product.

I have been using OpenShift for two years. My company is a user of Red Hat products.

It is a scalable or expandable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Eight members of my company's team use OpenShift.

For one of my company's clients, we have to deal with the technical support team of OpenShift. With Red Hat, my company has platinum support. I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

AWS and DigitalOcean are products with which I have some experience.

Kubernetes on AWS is a bit complex to set up, whereas OpenShift is easier for me to set up. However, they use the same things during the setup process. OpenShift is just a better product for a new user compared to AWS since the former is easier to understand.

The product's initial setup is very easy, especially compared to AWS.

The solution is deployed on a public cloud since half of the deployment is in the data center and half of it is in the cloud.

My company makes payments towards the licensing costs attached to OpenShift.

During the evaluation phase, I looked at Google Cloud.

I carried out OpenShift's integration process for two or three firms as a part of the team, so it was not done by myself alone. I did carry out the integration process for AWS. Comparing OpenShift with AWS, I found the former to be much easier.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.

I have not used it on IBM Cloud. It is basically used on AWS and Azure. I am using a standard OpenShift.

OpenShift is a container orchestration tool. We have been using it for hosting products on container-based applications.

Actually, what happens is that the solution gives or provides that kind of stability and much more. It gives a good production environment that is much more stable and error-free. That's how the solution contributes to the productivity of my whole organization.

If we compare OpenShift and Kubernetes Harbor, OpenShift is derived from Kubernetes. However, some of the most prominent features of OpenShift are its security services and some of the policies, especially security policies that are some of the add-ons and the best things I like in OpenShift.

Some things need to be improved in the solution. Some of the storage services and integrations with third-party tools should be made possible.

I think some more things will come in, like the projects of CNCFs. I think that verified CNCF projects will be integrated into OpenShift.

I have been using OpenShift for eighteen months.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I think the support is fine. It depends upon some of the SLAs and how things or how the SLAs have been maintained. Overall, it is fine, so I will rate the support a seven out of ten.

Neutral

Initially, the setup seemed to be complex, but the recommendations from Red Hat, and especially on the CoreOS systems, for quality, stability, and security purposes, it seems to be complex. However, once we get hands-on experience, it is very, very useful and easily maintainable as well.

I have seen a return on investment, and it depends upon the types and the nature of some of the most critical applications that have been hosted on the OpenShift infrastructure. Considering in terms of stability, performance-wise, and security-wise, if everything goes fine, I think its return on investment is justified.

The price depends on the type and the nature of the organizations, along with the types of projects that are of considerable range. I don't think the price is very much of an issue for any organization against the services being delivered over the cloud and the services of OpenSuite.

If any organization is just working on open-source technologies and wants to have enterprise support and enterprise-grade solutions, then we must go with OpenShift.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We use the solution to split monolithic into microservices. I mostly use OpenShift as a Kubernetes distribution. 

I am impressed with the product's security features. 

The tool lacks some features to make it compliant with Kubernetes. 

I am working with the solution for four years. 

The tool is stable. 

The cloud version is scalable. The solution's on-prem scalability can be improved. 

The tool's support should be improved. 

Positive

The tool's deployment takes a matter of hours to complete. You need a team of three to four to maintain the solution. 

The product's support is expensive. I would rate the tool's pricing an eight out of ten. 

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. The tool requires knowledgeable people to manage it.