OpenShift Reviews

The CI and CD are fast, easy, and secure. Customers need this product and Red Hat certifies it on the RH product. The container customization with S2I is problematic.

In a couple of months, we can move from physical infrastructure to a container. There is no need to worry about service, since Red Hat does it for us. Consequently, we can focus on development.

I think that container development needs to be improved. The source 2 image is very comfortable, but it is not documented. There are no precise guidelines from RH. The source 2 image is the biggest addition that Red Hat gives to Kubernetes, but you cannot depend on Red Hat for every customization.

I have used this solution for 1 year.

The product is stable, but it must be well designed.

I have not encountered any big issues with scalability, but the application must be designed for scalability.

In Europe, support is not as fast as it needs to be. If you follow Red Hat's guidelines when designing the architecture, it has a very difficult blocking situation (you must be skilled on the OpenShift product before putting it into production...as usual!).

I prefer Kubernetes. But customers need very good support from developers, which Kubernetes do not have.

The initial setup was not straightforward. You must understand every single component. Only then is everything clear and goes fast. Teaching developers how to implement the application with new methodology is problematic.

I think OpenShift PREMIERE costs a lot more, compared to the support given in Europe. If you buy directly from the service on the cloud, the level of support is not the same.

In order to understand OpenShift, you must try Docker. Afterwards, you must understand orchestrators like Kubernetes (the OpenShift underground) and Swarm. You must work with developers. I also implemented Jenkies and Nexus in order to attain full, real automation.

It is a very good product. But before implementing it, verify that the product matches your expectations. Remember that the product changes very quickly, so read news as often as you can! This is not the only solution, so be ready to work with it. But this solution was selected by Red Hat.

Our primary use case is to move applications to OpenShift in order to remove legacy solutions. 

The most valuable feature is the high availability for the applications. 

I don't really see any improvements that need to be done.

I have been using OpenShift for two to three years. 

We don't have bugs or glitches. We only have problems that are connected to our deployed applications, the applications that weren't fully prepared for the OpenShift deployment. 

I haven't contacted their technical support. Our devops team does contact them. They contacted them in regards to some problems with the operations. They were satisfied with the support. 

The initial setup was very simple. It was done by our devops team. They did the entire deployment. 

OpenShift is the way of the future. I would recommend it. 

I would rate OpenShift a nine out of ten. Not a ten because it's not a standard solution and the endpoint protection user has to prepare to use it with documentation or has to get training from other people. It's not easy to start because it's not like other solutions. 

• Continuous integration between different technologies

• Single Sign-On

• Security enhanced

• Easy deployment and follow-up of entire pipeline process

We connected Jenkins as the main build operator with API calls to the OpenShift Pipeline. It is amazing the amount of time saved. You can see the logs of pipeline process on Jenkins and follow it in real-time or by notifications if something goes wrong. We used Slack for build notifications as well.

• Build

• Deployment

• Product delivery

These areas would save time for the entire team.

We have used this solution for one year so far. We have been following all the improvements on the tool since the launch.

There were only deployment problems on my end, but I did have to reconstruct pipelines.

There were no stability issues.

There were no scalability issues, but only some Docker issues.

Customer service is perfect.

Not available.

I started using another technology, whose name I don't recall. The goal of OpenShift is to make things easier by connecting all tools in one switch.

The first installations were tricky. There were some bugs and workarounds, but it was never hard.

Newer versions were smoother and the problems no longer exist.

The first implementation was done on my own, where I was learning, testing, and exploring. All the documentation is updated on their website.

The ROI is in terms of productivity and saving time. I can't measure how much money I saved by using this technology, but know for sure that the money was well invested.

Go for it. Red Hat is professional on solutions.

I tried Rancher and other similar technologies, but their goals weren't the same as mine.

Try using OpenShift Origin (free version) for a instance. It is pretty stable and has new nice features. The code is on GitHub, so you can always suggest improvements and bug fixes.

The pod solution and the on-demand solution are well suited, although I have feelings of loss regarding not using VMware.

It is promising though. The project we are on is large scale so further information would be far more pertinent when fully deployed I think.

Right now the major point is cost effectiveness. The improvements I am expecting will be better presented when in full production.

For some reason there have been some DNS issues. At this time I am not convinced it is OpenShift though. I will have to circle back to this one.

We have just bought the solution and started using it recently.

There have been some DNS issues.

We did not yet encounter any issues with scalability but I am looking forward to our first "go day."

This isn't really an issue. I haven't really called upon support yet. Red Hat reps have been really quick to respond on other issues though.

We were using VMware which is more expensive for no good reason. Thank you OpenShift.

Linux in general is a different flavor. Nothing out of the unexpected. Though, as in all things, there is room for improvement. One solid BIN would be nice.

In the installation of ORIGIN, using the playbook and Ansible install in the Docker, there are fixed points which would make the install easier.

Save money and get OpenShift. Literally.

We evaluated VMware, but then I am biased. I will always choose Red Hat as I know all too well what it does as opposed to other solutions. I am not knocking other solutions, but Red Hat wins in the long run.

Do your homework. Take the time to analyze what you really want and need. I am not saying this is the absolute answer to all your questions as that would be unreasonable and naive. I personally believe that at least 75% of cases probably should be directed at Red Hat in general.

Migrate to microservices.

Has helped us with faster deployment time, zero downtime.

• Scaling
• Fast deployment
• Zero downtime when releasing a new version
• Auto-recreate pod if pod fails
• Fast rollback, with one click, to previous version

It could use auto-scaling based on criteria such as transaction volume, queue backlog, etc. Currently, it is limited to CPU and memory. 

Credential not hidden, so people on the same group can view it.

Java and WildFly.

OpenShift is great for flexibility, agility, and speed of delivery. We use WildFly as an application server. We have not started to use OpenShift mainly, yet.

• WildFly, because it standardizes infrastructure.
• The git repository and docker. Git is essential for source code and Docker for infrastructure.

It would be great if it supported Bitbucket repositories too.

The ability to persist data, the security model, the web console, the installation - all of those features make using the product easier.

We develop software for customers that runs on OpenShift, so developing on a standard product like OpenShift supports our customers' need for cloud based container solutions.

The security model is hard to understand and use. Debugging errors can be hard as well.

We have been using the solution for two years.

The product seems to be mature enough to use for production application deployments without stability issues.

The product is able to meet most scalability goals.

The technical support is generally good and there are ample materials available on the web to help find answers to issues.

We have not switched from another product. We also support other cloud offerings like Kubernetes.

The installation is better now than early on and can be complicated to set up if you are not familiar with Red Hat Linux and Docker.

For trials and prototypes, the open source version of OpenShift will suffice for most users and is compatible with the licensed version of OpenShift.

We evaluated Cloud Foundry but decided upon a Docker container based platform like OpenShift.

Start small, try the open source OpenShift Origin first, then develop a sample application to get accustomed to the platform.

The OpenShift environment will be used by medical applications. This environment is still in the development/QA phase.

Not yet.

The scaling and uptime of the applications.

Needs work on volume handling (although this is already better with GlusterFS). Security (SSSD) would also be an improvement.

Not at this moment (still running in dev/QA phase).

Not at this moment (still running in dev/QA phase).

Five stars out of five, all issues were solved in an acceptable timeframe.

This was my first installation. It was not straightforward due to internal limitations, not the product.

I rate it a six out of 10. There are still some issues with it. I have several cases at Red Hat that need to be resolved.

Do a test to try the solution.