Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

Stable Linux OS. The stability of the OS is very important for the computer system. Unstable means you never know when it will crash or fail while your valuable data and business applications are running.

It's an open source solution.

Many areas in version 5 are obsolete such as filesystem ext2, ext3, while the new versions (v.6, 7) support ext4, Btrfs, ZFS, etc.

10 years.

No.

No.

No technical support.

No.

No.

No more support and licensing.

No.

We use this solution as our operating system.

The security, ongoing support, and ease of taking a system and getting authorization from a government agency have helped the way our organization functions.

The built-in security features support certain security standards such as encryption. It is simpler to meet FIPS 140 encryption requirements such as the ATOs.

The ease of use of this solution has been most valuable. 

The cost of this solution could be improved. 

I have been using this solution for two years. 

This is a stable solution.

We previously used Linux. Red Hat meets our needs more comprehensively.

Our main ROI is in the ability to readily get ATOs.

For somebody familiar with the Linux platform, it is not difficult to troubleshoot when using this solution.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten. 

Red Hat is mission critical to our environment.

Red Hat has improved the mission critical environments running Oracle databases, while CentOS has improved our web environment and MySQL.

Oracle and SAP Environment and all HPC environments.

10 years

No issues

Very stable i don´t find any problem we have many environment using redhat since first version.

Not encountered problem with scalability

The customer service is good and all problem was solved, i dont have any problem

Very good

We have many kinds of the linux version on the all environment but to HPC environment we use Redhat but all another versions work very well

I work with the two scenario

The licensing valor is too high and must be improved

Red Hat is similar to CentOS, except that CentOS doesn't offer to support certain solutions, such as Oracle.

My experience is primarily on-premises. I work in the financial and banking area, which has about 2,000 VMs.

The benefits are reliability, stability, and good support.

I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux stable. 

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat is good. They also have good support for the business. The web console has been acceptable, but we don't really use those tools.

I don't find Red Hat Enterprise Linux's security features to be good. They have many vulnerabilities that haven't been fixed for many years. They have numerous vulnerabilities that remain unresolved. Just some security details could be fixed. They have many vulnerabilities left over from previous years, with not enough being fixed, and their commitment is only to fix the critical and important ones. For moderate and low severity issues, they don't have the commitment. The security part is weak. Based on all scan reports, they have many vulnerabilities that can't be fixed adequately. 

We will be involved with some Red Hat Enterprise Linux upgrades or migrations to other cloud platforms. It's not straightforward in my opinion; we have to create an image from Red Hat Virtualization Manager and convert the image to a format that can be recognized by other platforms, such as Microsoft Azure. We have to convert the image and then import it to the Azure cloud. It's not easy, as it requires manual work. There's no tool available for this process.

I have three years of experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

The uptime is excellent as it's automated and stable. I would say the uptime is very good.

Overall, their support is good. I would rate their technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

We didn't use any other Linux systems before. Initially, we used other operating systems such as AIX and Solaris, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux was the first Linux we introduced.

We also have SUSE Linux for one specific product.

When it comes to provisioning and patching, we use the satellite. It's acceptable when patching. I am satisfied with the provisioning and patching process as it's easy to manage. We don't use Insight, and I don't know about it. We don't use the Linux image builder or System Roles; we use our own Ansible Playbook to build a system.

We have all the automation set up for server provisioning and patching. We have the web console, but we don't really use its tools. We use our own Ansible Playbook, which allows us to manage and customize. We have many customizations. All the agents are installed for compliance, IP setup, file system creation - everything is automated.

When we create a VM, it only takes running the playbook and clicking a button. It takes about two minutes of work, and the automation handles the rest. In about two hours, the VM is up and running. If we use their tools, there are many limitations for customization, and we can only build an OS, but for the rest, we still have to run the automation. That's why we don't use those tools.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a six out of ten.

Our use case involves modernizing applications for our clients. We take the application, extract the main functions and features, and modernize them to have those features in the cloud with a new customer experience. One way to do this is to prepare a new platform or solution in the cloud. Then we get the data from their on-premise services and move this data to the cloud. 

We mainly have customers from the public sector, telecommunications, and fintech, and these customers require many systems to modernize because most of them are 15 or 20 years old, and that's why they need to modernize for a better customer experience and journey.

It's almost a standard for us because all of the infrastructure in the cloud is based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We are using OpenShift as an orchestration platform. We work with several orchestration platforms, such as Kubernetes and EKS from AWS. In the case of Red Hat, we are using OpenShift. The main feature of OpenShift for us is the continuous integration, continuous delivery, and security; the granularity of security is important for us. They have a lot of features on top of Kubernetes. 

Red Hat is a good partner for us, and the service and support guides are really valuable for understanding and improving our knowledge in this area.

The main benefit of Red Hat is the huge community. They are delivering better quality by constantly updating and adding features for different products. The stability and quality of their service are very good.

I believe they need to improve in terms of compatibility between services. I know that it's difficult to follow the different versions and maintain compatibility. For example, in OpenShift, they have several internal tools that are not completely compatible with the product, and that's an area they need to work on. Supporting different versions and ensuring compatibility between these versions is necessary for us to continue putting effort into this.

We started on-prem about 15 years ago, and we have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the cloud for five years.

The quality of their services is high because they have people internally working on improving features every day.

Red Hat is a good partner. I would rate their support an eight out of ten.

Positive

Two of our clients switched to Red Hat because they have support from the organization. The management of their products, in terms of documentation and processes for installation and configuration, is well-documented. It's not like other open-source products in the market that lack the full support of an organization. This is the main reason they pay for licenses or subscriptions; there's an organization behind the products supporting them.

Upgrades or migrations are pretty straightforward and not complex, according to our experience.

We require a small team of between three and five people for upgrades or migrations. For such projects, we mainly have developers and cloud engineers. For the data itself, we also have data engineers.

Pricing is sometimes an issue for our clients because it's not a cheap solution. The different licenses have a high cost, and perhaps they could improve by offering different kinds of discounts or lowering the price to make this solution more appealing compared to other cloud providers.

Moving workloads between centers depends on the knowledge of the data and the frequency of synchronization. It depends on different factors, but normally, it is a matter of knowledge about the data structure and the different mechanisms and techniques for moving this data. It's not only a matter of tools; it's related to understanding how the data is structured and how often it changes.

We don't manage Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for provisioning and patching because we work with the cloud directly. These services are managed by AWS.

We move workloads between on-prem and the cloud using Red Hat Enterprise Linux. For this, we are using other tools, such as Divisio, which is also supported by Red Hat. We have Apache NiFi and Kafka for messaging delivery and integration between the services.

If you have a multi-cloud strategy, Red Hat is a better fit. However, if you only use one cloud service like Amazon or Google, I'm not sure if Red Hat provides great benefits compared to the cloud provider. Our clients have had only one cloud provider.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.