Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

I work daily on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in my current field. I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a daily task, including OS upgrade and patching activities.

What I like most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it is very easy to handle and very user-friendly. As a non-technical person, I find it very easy to understand.

The documentation in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very helpful for every issue. I have accessed the documentation multiple times, and it has helped me, especially when we are facing issues in OS upgrade and patching. Some steps are already mentioned in the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) documentation, making it very easy to handle and solve the issues.

What I dislike about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it has high-cost licensing, which makes it unaffordable for me to purchase a Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) license myself.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the past three to four years.

I have not seen any instability in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), such as lagging or crashing.

I have had to contact the technical support of Red Hat multiple times, and I find that their support is very quick and instant and also provides an instant correct alternative solution. For Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) support, I would rate them 9 out of 10.

The installation of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is easy. I have already completed a Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) installation, so it was straightforward for me.

I have not used any alternatives to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I have been using Leapp in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). The maintenance does require updates on my end, and our company takes care of that. I would rate this review 9 out of 10.

I still have experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but I mainly work with SUSE Linux. The solutions are for on-premises deployments.

From what I have heard, my organization is going to use SUSE Linux as a standard. For Red Hat, the people who deal with servers have a few of them and are probably migrating them through VMware.

The part that my group deals with the most is SAP, and all that we have on them is SUSE Linux.

The main differences between Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and SUSE Linux may be in some commands. The heart is very similar with logical volume manager and other components, but there might be commands that change, such as command line interface commands that might change even when they perform the same thing.

I believe that the best features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include the interface with logical volume manager and file system management, since I work more with storage administration.

I used to deal more with Unix, and the way Unix performed things was better for me. For example, at the Linux level, all the partitioning is difficult for me in the way it uses certain terms, such as physical disk, when you call it SDB or SDBA.

From this perspective, I found this hard. I used to be more accustomed to Unix. However, they are very similar at this level with the device types and other components.

I believe that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved in areas such as monitoring, storage, and virtualization.

Everyone today is talking about virtualization and there is a need for it. There are many virtualization implementations, and everyone is moving toward that area.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for several years in total.

I assess the knowledge base for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as good. The documentation is nice and good, and it is available. The documents I have seen are self-explanatory, and the explanations are clear.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) support as good. I know it is good, but since we usually look at the documentation, I have not placed a request for an error or similar issue. I probably have not had the need to do that. I would rate it a nine or ten. In our case, I have not dealt so much with that part, as there has not been a need to request a patch or upgrade.

Positive

I personally have not used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Image Builder or Red Hat system roles. I know that some of the people who give us support do use them. I know it is helpful, but I do not have details about them because my group is dealing more with the hardware parts, such as HP physical servers and storage.

We are dealing more with that aspect.

I believe that the most important security features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include the standard ones, such as user and password authorization and read and write access, which are standard in Linux.

I believe that you probably want to use additional software. My company has many tools, and another team works with the security part. However, you probably need integration with that. The basic features that every Linux software has are standard and robust.

I would rate this review a nine out of ten overall.

The primary use case for our company is for deploying applications.

The most valuable aspect is for deploying applications.

The ease of use works well and is what I appreciate the most about the solution's most valuable features.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me to automate my process to mitigate downtime and workloads.

The solution has improved my organization, especially with the ease of deployment, as it's mostly just a better user experience for our users.

The challenges that we've had with different servers that don't have access to the internet require an installation, and keeping track of all the different versions on the different deployments is a challenge. I would love a feature that could manage the agent versions.

On the Ansible side, from what I've seen, there are certain templates and playbooks that can be used for specific use cases that I'd like to see in the next release.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for a couple of years.

The stability and reliability of this solution is very good.

In the environments that I work in, I've had no downtime, crashes, or performance issues.

It scales well with our growing needs and organization, and it's been pretty easy to spin up new servers as we require them.

The other users of the solution in my company are probably more on the operation side.

I think it would be suitable for a couple more roles.

I've been made aware of some of the latest announcements that were made today; for a large organization, it takes a while to get there, so we might not be able to realize those for another couple of years, but it seems there are new features that are coming out.

I'm not sure if there was one specific feature that stood out to me today; I'd have to look back at my notes, but it seems there's more functionality that's being offered.

I would rate this review a 9.

I use it for a commercial platform for a bank in Ecuador. We have a product development for development in JBoss. We can have multiple channels on the left side in TBM and ES. 

I have a product in development that serves as middleware. We have multi-channel on the left side and multi-database on the right side. We don't use an AMQ yet. It's broad.

The valuable features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for on-premises are its flexibility and compatibility; it works exceptionally with JBoss. 

We find that the performance of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very good, and the deployment is very easy. On YouTube, for example, they processed nearly 10 million transactions over nine years. 

Security is important, and it performs efficiently and is confident compared with a firewall and WAF, or whatever you use as a firewall to protect our deployments. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps with uptime and security; with every deployment, we evaluate security and apply vulnerability scanners, covering every vulnerability without any problem.

I don't know where Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can improve; I just know that I don't use the cloud version, but I know the price, and I think it has many similar features to use JBoss with old features. 

In the last years, we have tried to quote a project using JBoss, but the license on cloud was cheaper than the on-premise license.

I have used the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) operating system since 2016.

I use documentation and community forums for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). There's plenty of knowledge in many forums, and when I have trouble, I can find a lot of support on the web; there is a lot of information we can find.

Depending on the support I have to use, we didn't have a problem; we have a local reseller who helps with the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) support directly. We use a partner for direct support with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Our business in Ecuador is a local partner, and the name of the partner business is ASAP. Mr. Jimmy Rodriguez provides support and attends to our needs very efficiently.

Positive

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is more expensive compared with WebLogic, and I prefer JBoss against WebLogic. The main differences between the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) operating systems and Windows and Solaris are concerning performance; the best performance is in the order of Linux, Solaris, and then Windows.

Achieving security standard certification is necessary for my business, and I'm always recommending Red Hat Enterprise Linux to my clients. 

On a scale of 1-10, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 10.

Our use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) involve a lot of infrastructure; we run Ansible on it, and we run any other containerized utilities we're using on Podman. We run OpenShift as well, so I don't think we have any RHEL workloads on there, but we definitely use RHEL for a lot of our internal infrastructure.

The Podman feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very valuable; that's probably the core of it—just a simple containerized solution that allows us to stand it up in a server really quickly. This feature and other features benefit our company since we are able to quickly deploy containers to support our infrastructure with minimal management needs from our engineering team. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points such as automation, as well as supporting other file servers using NFS and other kinds of development workloads we're running on it.

My experience with RHEL has not been too complicated; most of our stuff is on RHEL 9 now. A lot of times, our security team comes to us for some of the patching and upgrades, so we're following their lead, however, it hasn't been too difficult for us. We manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching using Ansible and Terraform a lot, so we've been happy with that management experience.

My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features is that using SC Linux is helpful for us to lock things down, and our security team is pretty happy with it whenever they're doing their vulnerability scans. From a security standpoint, we're happy with it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk. If there ever is a problem, it's quick to stand up a replacement system.

It's pretty lightweight, so I'd much rather deal with a RHEL system any day versus a Windows system. If you compare it to a Windows system, which has a much bigger attack surface, there's a big reduction there.

When it comes to our security team having to scan for vulnerabilities and such, there is a lot less vulnerability scanning that needs to be done, so it's been a better fit for us for our infrastructure.

I am interested to see how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved. It can be improved overall. Specifically, I'm interested in seeing some of the image incorporation with RHEL 10, as that might improve some of our upgrades and help in moving to the newer versions. I'm eager to learn more about that.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in my company for ten-plus years.

It has been very reliable and stable; I have not had any major crashes or outages with RHEL.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales very well with the growing needs of our company, as we can spin up instances quickly whenever we add new environments or data centers.

I have been pretty pleased with the customer service and technical support; it's infrequent that we have to engage support, but when we do, they've been responsive and we've gotten some answers, so we've been happy. I would rate the customer service and technical support as eight out of 10.

Positive

We have considered other solutions before or while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We've considered other Linux distros in the past, however, the ability to have a fully supported platform allows us to reach out to support from Red Hat if needed, which is the reason why we've stuck with Red Hat versus others.

In terms of deployment, it's been good standing it up and then maintaining it with patching through Satellite. Upgrades have been not time-impacted. They're pretty quick to get patching done. Everything is pretty easy. Migrations aren't too complicated. 

The biggest return on investment for me when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is certainly the ease of use for the engineering team; they can get things done without taking a lot of their time.

My experience with the pricing, setup cost, and licensing of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) platform has been pleasing; it's pretty straightforward and we haven't had any major concerns with costs on it compared to others, so we've been happy.

Currently, we don't have any upgrade or migration plans to stay current with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as far as moving to RHEL 10; that's going to be coming, I'm sure. Most of it involves keeping on the latest versions, and sometimes it's just a driver for keeping Podman up to date whenever Ansible needs to run, as Ansible is core for us.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight out of ten overall. 

What could make it a ten comes down to us being able to have time to dig into some of the features we're not using, so it's probably just on us to get wowed by some of the stuff we're not doing today. 

I set up Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for my customers. The customers either install some middleware on top of it or manage it directly from my company, or the customer will manage the application on top of the server directly.

The most valuable feature is the support. The support from Red Hat is definitely valuable. Having a Technical Account Manager facilitates getting to the core of the issue and eventually tries to correct the behavior of the operating system in case something is not fitting what I expect.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely good. Most of the simple issues can be fixed by going through it, including sometimes third-party issues that happen. I can mention a couple of incidents that occurred, one with CrowdStrike and one with Qualys Cloud Agent. In both cases, the knowledge base was informative about the existing issues. If I was a customer of those partners, then I would have been affected by problems that came from third-party products. Generally speaking, the knowledge base is absolutely good for problems that come from Red Hat itself.

The most important security feature in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the readability and detail of the security report. From a security perspective itself, it is not a game-changer, but when it comes to communicating to the customer that something is not an issue, this is beneficial because I can reference an article that is easily readable by the customer.

Red Hat Insights is definitely helpful, providing information that I would not spot otherwise. However, there is room for improvement. Red Hat Insights needs to be able to manage in a detached environment, which is on the roadmap as far as I know, because we are working with big banks, and therefore, we cannot have too much direct connection, especially from the cloud to the server. Another open point is that from Red Hat Insights, I cannot make use of my own Ansible Automation Platform, unless I'm mistaken. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is derived from Fedora. Sometimes, we encounter features in a server environment that are more suitable for desktops, leading to unexpected complications. For instance, networking on a desktop is typically designed with different priorities compared to a server. We often find ourselves forced to use features originally intended for desktop use, even when simpler alternatives would be more effective and manageable. This complexity can be unnecessary, as it adds layers of functionality that do not provide any real value. Ultimately, users should be able to manage their connections without being overwhelmed by features that are irrelevant to their needs.

A downside is that it is sometimes difficult to agree on product modifications. For instance, one issue we encountered was that certain commands were not responding as we expected. Another example, which might be easier to understand, is during upgrades when certain directories are reverted to their original permission settings. This contradicts some hardening recommendations and makes it more difficult to advocate for a change to practices that have been in place for a decade, even when there are valid reasons for the change. It’s important to note that the resistance to change can be attributed to their collaboration with upstream developers, but that’s just our perspective.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for more than 12 years.

It is definitely a stable product. As I shared previously, my main concern is about desktop components that are coming into the newest release. If RHEL 6 was definitely a 10 out of 10, now with RHEL 9, I would rate it a 7 out of 10 because it no longer allows me to have a clear understanding of what is going on and a clear configuration that speaks for itself. The shift towards configuration as code has some drawbacks in this case.

With a Technical Account Manager, we have a very individual approach. I would rate the technical support from Red Hat a ten out of ten.

The support has had a positive impact. I was able to go through a huge incident that required getting to the core of the problem, such as what happened with CrowdStrike. It involved an issue perceived on the LDAP server caused by a change performed in the code of Red Hat. My feedback is that the support is always great when addressing complex analysis, and that's the most important value-added aspect I will mention.

I used different solutions before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but not from an enterprise perspective, so without support. I used Debian and Slackware and other similar solutions. I decided to switch mainly because of the support. 

When I switched from my previous job to my current job, they were already using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I am working with banks, which are highly regulated, and I need backend support from the vendor in order to work with the bank.

We have seen a return on investment from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) so far. I don't have any specific metrics, but the penalty we would have faced if Red Hat had not helped us in identifying the problem would have been millions of euros.

Red Hat helps to mitigate downtime and lower risks through support, engaging them at the right time to promptly resolve issues. Red Hat Insights also assists in this regard.

I'm the one who's managing that. I find the pricing of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) affordable, but the subscription model is something that the business units of Red Hat need to revisit and fix.

I participated in a review to eventually switch to SUSE and to Oracle Linux as well. Oracle Linux is a definitive no, mainly because of the support. The support from Oracle's side is awful. I don't want to ever have a case with them because it's terrible. For SUSE, it was mainly a matter of cost-benefit since we didn't have the chance to go into depth on that because the cost was not a game-changer, and we would have had to reinstall the whole 7,000 servers, so it was too much to get the benefit from the reduced cost.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine out of ten.

My main use cases involve using it to run our Ansible automation platform and various workloads, depending on what Development decides based on the project. We also use it for our Kubernetes clusters.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate the most are focused on stability. It is a reliable system that I can depend on more than anything else. That stability benefits my company by providing more uptime and more satisfied gamers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points related to stability and documentation. It is very easy to find solutions to problems or access official documentation, whereas with other Debian-based distributions, one often finds themselves searching through random forums.

Regarding built-in security features for risk reduction and compliance maintenance, some features are straightforward when following standards and installation profiles. However, the development side frequently mentions challenges with SELinux, as it is more difficult to understand and somewhat esoteric. Some features are very well-developed and easily understood, while others are more complex to implement.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks. While there is not much technical difference between RHEL and Oracle Linux, compared to other alternatives, it provides benefits.

We manage our systems for provisioning and patching using Ansible automation controller for patches and mirror repositories as needed.

What is lacking is better FS support natively in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). It has many nice features, however, XFS is becoming outdated. That is the major improvement that would be relatively easy to implement, perhaps around version 11. Fedora has already introduced it, so it is in the pipeline.

When it comes to its stability and reliability, it is great.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales fine with the growing needs of my company. I do not see much difference between RHEL and any other real distribution in those terms. 

As far as scalability, it is all Linux at the end of the day and will scale equally. The management tools and features on top of it provide the value-add, but regarding the base operating system, I do not see much difference.

We do not use customer service and technical support frequently. It is more about getting that checkbox for insurance, compliance, or whatever regulation we need to follow. 

If I had to rate the customer support, I would give it an eight as it is quite good. 

Positive

My experience deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has evolved. In the past, it used to be more complicated, however, with current development tools and methodologies, it is far easier. Using Packer and initialization files that build every time, it functions smoothly.

My team deploys the solution on-premise, and we have varying departments and organizations for on-prem.

From my perspective, I have seen a return on investment while using this platform. It is beneficial to have that stability and reliable package repositories that we depend on, rather than using something more open-source and community-driven. There is definitely a good return.

My experience with the pricing, setup costs, and licensing has been satisfactory. It aligns with business expectations.

I consider all distributions before or while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), however, the application team ultimately decides what fits their development cycle and needs best. For our on-premise workloads that need to be stable and operate over years, it is our default choice.

For upgrades or migrations, I recommend building new and migrating. My team operates both on-premise and in the cloud, and we have purchased Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) through AWS Marketplace. 

Overall rating: nine out of ten. To make it a ten, I would want to see more features. As someone who considers themselves an open-source zealot, the locking down of package repositories behind subscription paywalls was upsetting. It used to be a ten out of ten before that change.

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is application hosting.

The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate the most is the stability. 

I used to use Ubuntu quite a bit, however, the stability of RHEL is the main thing that I enjoy about it. 

RHEL benefits my company by providing a stable platform and strong support behind it, which are the motivating factors of using it in general.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points such as support stability, so maintenance and operations are much easier. I manage my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching using Ansible, Satellite, and Puppet, and I am satisfied with that management experience.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports my hybrid cloud strategy by looking into Openshift. Currently, we are independently deploying between the two environments because we do not yet have a platform to bridge those into a true hybrid.

Security requirements were not necessarily a consideration in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the cloud since we have our security team for all of our security compliance, so it is just our standard that we use.

The solution can be improved, especially for user-provided solutions; they could be vetted more thoroughly by Red Hat. I cannot think of anything specific that could improve Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), aside from my thoughts on support, particularly since I have not yet tried version nine. Better support would make it a ten.

At this company, I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for two and a half years.

The stability and reliability of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) platform are great.

I do not know if we have run into scaling problems with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Typically, our app people work directly with the vendor and request a few VMs, so we do not really have issues with running out of compute resources.

The customer service and technical support I receive are mostly good; sometimes it is hit or miss, but mostly good. If I had to rate them from one to ten, I would give them a nine.

Positive

Before I came to the company, they were using Ubuntu, and I tried to convince them to switch over to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). While I am using it today, we still support Ubuntu because there are certain researchers that prefer it, but for the operations of the hospital, it is all Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I have been involved in updates for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), going from version eight to nine. I typically just deploy the next version and migrate whatever application or system may be to that instead of jumping to another version. It is more about deploying a new system and migrating the old system over, to avoid any dependency issues.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from my perspective is probably security and performance. We run a lot of Windows, which comes with costs to keep it constantly updated, while RHEL seems to have fewer vulnerabilities and is one of the more performant platforms among Linux distributions.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing has been fair. I have looked for virtual data center licenses and it seems fairly priced compared to alternatives such as Windows.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is hit or miss. Sometimes people provide answers that exactly solve the problem, and sometimes it is for older versions that are not applicable.

I have not purchased Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) through AWS Marketplace. We are looking into that option.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is used within our organization to orchestrate a multitenant, microservice-based architecture. This supports a distributed system of predominantly web-based applications and frontends. A typical deployment involves around 60 to 70 Amazon EC2 instances working in concert.

The primary use cases involve running interconnected applications with requirements such as low latency and high availability, often achieved through redundant, multi-tenant, and load-balanced architectures. These applications may utilize read or write-optimized instances or be memory or processor-optimized, depending on their specific needs. Optimization is achieved through the processor, RAM, and connected protocols. The foundation for these applications is Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux facilitates seamless workload migration between diverse cloud environments and data centers. In DevOps, workload portability between cloud and data centers is crucial, so we prioritize operating systems supported by multiple cloud providers and available locally. Key considerations include stability, security hardening capabilities, and the ability to obtain government or compliance organization approvals, which are incredibly stringent in sectors like banking and securities exchange. Red Hat Enterprise Linux meets these requirements by providing a secure, reliable, and consistently delivered operating system that facilitates approvals and ensures seamless workload mobility.

Regarding Red Hat Enterprise Linux provisioning and patching, both processes are generally straightforward. Patching can be completed within a few hours. Once the automation pipelines are properly configured, tested, and operational, provisioning can be fully automated. This applies to any operating system, not just Red Hat. Setting up a correct pipeline ensures smooth provisioning regardless of the OS.

Implementing Red Hat Enterprise Linux has resulted in significant resource savings due to its efficient usage of minimal resources. Compared to other operating systems, Red Hat Enterprise Linux requires less RAM and CPU allocation, which translates to cost savings. Additionally, its stability and minimal downtime contribute to operational efficiency.

The Red Hat command line interface is more user-friendly than the Windows command line interface. Red Hat makes it easier to perform tasks like reviewing logs, checking network connectivity, checking DNS, and setting up a proxy. Additionally, searching for specific characters within numerous log files is simpler in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux instance compared to other operating systems.

The implementation and limitations of SELinux should be re-evaluated. Its current configuration presents numerous challenges and restricts certain functionalities, hindering the overall usability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Addressing these limitations would significantly enhance the operating system's flexibility and efficiency.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for six years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is almost perfect in terms of stability. It works consistently with minimal downtime and very few bugs or glitches, deserving a high rating for stability.

There are no issues with scalability when it comes to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It scales efficiently, fulfilling our needs without difficulty.

My experience contacting Red Hat technical support was positive, with knowledgeable and supportive staff, particularly during early hours. However, I found more detailed knowledge through community interactions on platforms like Stack Overflow.

Positive

Before adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux for production applications, other Linux operating systems like Ubuntu and Windows servers were used for monitoring and testing purposes. Red Hat Enterprise Linux became the choice for critical server applications.

The initial setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is straightforward. Once the images and database information are available, the automation process is simple and efficient, taking only a couple of hours to complete.

Using Red Hat Enterprise Linux can yield resource savings of 200 percent to 300 percent compared to Windows Server instances. Its minimal RAM and CPU usage allows for smaller instances, resulting in significant cost reductions.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a more cost-effective solution than Windows Servers. Windows Servers base their cost on the number of users and have high licensing fees, while Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers free versions alongside its paid, supported versions. This makes Red Hat Enterprise Linux a good option for startups and organizations with limited budgets. While the free versions may lack direct vendor support, the availability of paid support options and the robust Red Hat Enterprise Linux ecosystem provides flexibility for growing businesses. Additionally, the presence of compatible open-source alternatives further enhances cost-effectiveness and choice. Overall, Red Hat Enterprise Linux presents a compelling advantage in terms of cost compared to other operating systems, especially for nascent organizations.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux eight out of ten.

While Red Hat offers free license versions and CentOS provides a similar platform, the official Red Hat documentation may not be the most helpful resource. More valuable support can often be found in community-driven platforms like Stack Overflow, where users share their knowledge and experiences through questions and answers. This user-generated content often proves more practical and supportive than the official Red Hat resources.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is deployed in a multi-region configuration with three availability zones per region. Data is replicated from region one to region two, which serves as a read-only replica. Traffic is load-balanced across all availability zones within a region, ensuring automatic failover to the remaining zones in case of an outage. Similarly, if an entire region fails, traffic is redirected to the other available region. This setup provides high availability and disaster recovery capabilities. We have a couple of thousand users in our organization.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux requires periodic updates. To manage logs, a retrieval and deletion method is necessary, which can be achieved using built-in features like cron jobs. Red Hat supports these features. Additionally, security patches should be applied as they become available.

I recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux, particularly for enterprise implementation, due to its lightweight and secure design. Its robust community support and extensive availability of solutions in forums and unofficial resources make it preferable to other operating systems.

The solution is used for on-premises data centers. Multiple private data centers run workloads on VMware Cloud solutions, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux is deployed on critical systems. We use KVM virtualization technology to host various virtual machines on Red Hat Enterprise Linux that run workloads and applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux improved our compliance by working with third-party security providers, like CIS Enterprise Internet Security. It's a nonprofit organization that provides many security solutions and benchmarking for each operating system. CIS and Red Hat jointly developed a CIS-approved operating system. They work with various public cloud providers like App Engine, Google, and AWS to provide comprehensive CIS-approved images in Red Hat Enterprise Linux. 

The US federal government has already certified the OS for FIPS compliance. FIPS is the organization that designs cryptography algorithms for federal agencies, and they approved Red Hat Enterprise Linux. 

It takes some time to realize the benefits. Some customers cannot see a direct benefit because the licensing is a bit complex. In a huge enterprise environment, you could see an immediate effect, but a smaller or medium-sized organization may take a while to yield a return on investment.

The most significant advantage is that it is more stable and secure than other operating systems. Years ago, we worked on Windows-based systems with more challenges regarding patch management and vulnerabilities than Unix operating systems. We get more frequent patch releases from the vendor weekly, monthly, and quarterly. It also has strong security features, is OIS and FIPS certified, and has built-in Linux security configurations.

In addition to Linux's built-in security tools, it has Red Hat Enterprise Linux configuration features that provide robust security controls. We also have third-party solutions that provide more in-depth solutions for our cloud and on-premises infrastructure. We have to provide security at each layer of the OSI models. For example, on the application layer, we have to provide web solutions or application gateways, but it provides good security features for the OS layer. 

We use another Red Hat product called Ansible to automate patching tasks and infrastructure deployment. We don't have a large number of servers, so we manage patching and configuration through Ansible. For bigger deployments, they have solutions like Satellite, but we use Ansible. 

We use Image Builder to create a Golden Image for our CICD pipelines. We have a CIS-approved image that integrates their security controls for our automation tools and some of the ones specific to our organization. We added some of the controls from the Red Hat management framework that govern how an image should be created and what controls must be integrated into this base image. 

The web console is useful for people without Linux backgrounds who lack experience working with the command prompt. The web console helps them manage the system better without knowing all the commands.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux licensing is a bit complex. The solution operates on a subscription-based model, which may not provide immediate return on investment for small to medium-sized organizations. It also has a steep learning curve for employees unfamiliar with Linux, and it demands a skilled team or a dedicated service center to operate effectively.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux for about four to six years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers great stability and performance compared to other operating systems. It does not have issues with crashing or substantial downtime.

I rate Red Hat support seven out of 10. We have only opened one or two cases with technical support, but we've had good experiences. They respond immediately based on the SLA level. In the future, we plan to use Red Hat's OpenShift and Kubernetes solutions, so we expect to work with the support team more because we're new to those products. 

Red Hat's Knowledgebase is an excellent support resource. It stays updated about new things coming to our region and provides lots of articles about the products. It's a good starting point for troubleshooting without the need to call the support team. We use the knowledgebase to resolve issues as often as we can, but we contact support if we get stuck and can't find the solution. 

Neutral

We have physical systems running SUSE Linux and Windows, but we're gradually migrating them to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Some systems are running Solaris, and we haven't decided whether we'll migrate to Red Hat Enterprise Linux or other operating systems.

Our operations team takes care of migrations and installations. We're primarily responsible for business impact assessments and helping the operations team do a POC to determine the effect on the application environment. We consider the licensing and give the operations team approval to do the migrations and install the new operating system. 

The team consists of two or three people. We cannot migrate directly from one system to another. We simulate everything in the POC environment and perform migrations in the development environment using our in-house tools. They will check the source machines and find out what applications are running. It will assess them and look into the destination systems. Using some replication technology, it will do a direct synchronous verification between one storage to the other.

We need some downtime to complete the migration, and most of the data is stored in SAN storage. That is called a long migration. Once the operating systems and associated patches and applications have been migrated, we have to migrate them manually for the storage side.

The subscription-based pricing can be costly, particularly for smaller deployments. The more subscriptions you have, the easier it is to see a return on investment because it helps larger organizations more. It may be considered expensive compared to other solutions like CentOS or Ubuntu, which offer some of the same features without additional costs.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux eight out of 10. I recommend new users get some training on the platform because installations and migrations can be complex. Setting up clusters can be challenging for new users who don't have hands-on Linux experience without vendor assistance.