Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform Reviews

I am the platform engineer, and the platform serves a function for end users by allowing them to deploy their apps based on their application use cases.

The most valuable feature of this solution is its scalability on demand, which allows for potentially lower costs, and Built-in resiliency. Those are the three most important ones that spring to mind.

In my experience, the issues are not always simply technical. They do stem from technical challenges, but they struggle with the topic of adoption. When you encounter all of the customer pull, there are normally several tiers of your client pop that can adopt either the fundamental features or a little more advanced ones.

The majority of the time, the challenge is determining how to drive adoption, how to sell the product to the customer, and how much time they can spend to really utilize those advanced features. If we get into much more detail, but this is from my perspective as the platform engineer and not the end customer, the ability of the end user to be able to debug potential issues with their application That is arguably the most important, let's say, work throughput in my area.

I have been working with the OpenShift Container Platform for two months.

We use version 4.9, and our legacy version is 3.9.

OpenShift Container Platform is quite stable.

OpenShift Container Platform is highly scalable.

I have more data regarding the number of net spaces and the number of apps that are tied to it, rather than how many individuals are on the receiving end of such applications which would be considerably more difficult. I would say more than three persons for each application, which is definitely driving the number near 500. This would be an approximate number.

I would rate the technical support a 10 or 11 because, in my personal experience, they are always going above and beyond to deliver the solution.

They are very caring about their customers.

Because the platform I'm working with was inherited, I wouldn't know how that procedure works here. I have, however, performed a few deployments in a considerably smaller context. 

You have at least three distinct techniques to perform that deployment using OpenShift, as well as a few of IPIs and UPIs. 

When I approached that scenario, I was thinking in terms of UPI, which stands for user-provided infrastructure in a non-homogenous, domestic cloud environment, a tiny simulated cloud environment. 

It wasn't simple, and it took a few tries to get a functional cluster structure with various control planes and many worker nodes. 

It's a difficult response to a hard subject, in my opinion, but, it is not an extremely simple or out-of-the-box solution.

The deployment took about two hours if we count the successful attempt once I had my preexisting issue sorted out. 

The upgrade would depend on the scale of the cluster. It can take a couple of minutes per node, so it would depend on the number of nodes.

In terms of the cluster that has workloads that are on production, you need to make sure that the workloads are not experiencing any issues.

I have a vague understanding of it but keep in mind that enterprise pricing differs from, I don't know, people or smaller businesses approaching them.

It largely depends on how much money they earn from the application being deployed; you don't normally deploy an app just for the purpose of having it. 

You must constantly look into your revenue and how much you spend every container, minute, or hour of how much it is working.

I wouldn't have access to that information within my company, therefore I'd assume it's in plus.

As far as I understand the situation, while this solution was inherited, the outstanding technical support is one of the main reasons it was chosen over other solutions.

I would definitely recommend having the vanilla experience because, contrary to popular belief, OpenShift is not Kubernetes; it's actually written on top of Kubernetes and adds an extra value of authentication, auditing, and logging on top of that, but it does require a familiarity with Kubernetes to properly utilize its capabilities. 

After being acquainted with Kubernetes, I believe it is worthwhile to dip their fingers and brains into the distinctions that OpenShift provides in contrast to other basic Kubernetes implementations.

I would rate OpenShift Container Platform a seven out of ten.

It is really expensive. That is not something you would employ unless you had a strong business case for your application. That is, not in terms of the enterprise version.

You may use our OKD, which is a community version we provide, which is less expensive. However, it is not a supported version of OpenShift; it is only supported within the community. However, because the OKD community is small, there is a low likelihood that someone would respond to your inquiry if you run into problems and need to locate answers elsewhere.

We are moving as many applications as possible to a containerized environment. In terms of our environment, we have multiple data centers. One, of course, is for redundancy. Most of them are hot-warm. They're not hot-hot or hot-cold, depending on how you look at it, but pretty much everything that's important is fully redundant. That would be between our own private data centers and within Amazon across regions.

We have an on-premises and private cloud deployment. Amazon is the cloud provider. We've got some Azure out there too, but Amazon has been the primary focus.

Centralized control of container resources is most valuable.

There should be a simplification of the overall cluster environment. It should require fewer resources. Just to run a simple Hello World app, it requires about seven servers, and that's just crazy. I understand that it is fully redundant, but it's prohibitively expensive to get something simple going.

We've had a very difficult time going from version 3 to 4. We need to go to version 4 because of multiple network segments that may be running in a container and how we organize our applications. It's very difficult to have applications from different domains in the same container cluster. We've had a lot of problems with that. I find it to be an overcomplicated environment, and some of the other simpler containers may very well rise above this. 

It has probably been in use in the organization for about a year and a half.

It is fine. I've not heard anything negative about either the performance or the reliability.

Scalability is one of the primary reasons for going with a containerized environment like this. I have not heard that we've had any restrictions there, and I would be shocked and remarkably disappointed if we did. We have not hit any scalability issues yet.

I personally do not have any experience with them. I'm quite sure our low-level implementers do. 

They were just different JBoss containers. It really wasn't a containerized environment. We're looking at some of the AWS solutions.

I didn't do the initial setup. Some other people did that. We're all pretty uber geeks. So, I'm quite sure that we'd be able to figure it out naturally. Because it's a fully-featured and complex environment, you'd have to bone up on OpenShift to figure out how to install it properly, but I wouldn't expect it to be onerous.

Our implementation strategy was to start moving applications to be containerized and then implement them in the OpenShift. We were moving to OpenShift running on our own ECS on Amazon, but we have a lot of on-prem as well.

We're still working out the kinks. A part of that is our own dysfunction in terms of how we organize our apps, and then there is the problem with running apps from different domains in the same container. Some of those are our own self-imposed problems, but some of it is due to the OpenShift complexity.

We definitely hired different experts, but for the most part, we went out and hired people with the expertise, and now, they're employees. So, I'm quite sure there were consultants in there, but I don't know that offhand. 

We have not yet seen an ROI.

It depends on who you're talking to. For a large corporation, it is acceptable, other than the significant infrastructure requirements. For a small organization, it is in no way suitable, and we'd go for Amazon's container solution.

Additional costs are difficult for me to articulate because ours is a highly-complex environment even outside of it.

Ensure that you need all of the features that it has because otherwise, it's not worth the investment. Be careful what version you're getting into because that can be problematic to change after you've already invested in both the training and the infrastructure.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. Considering some of the problems we've had, even though some of them are self-imposed, I would hope that a containerized environment would be flexible to be able to give us some options there. 

OpenShift Connect Platform is on a private cloud setup. There, we deploy all of our applications.

They have built on top of Kubernetes. Most of the Kubernetes latest technology is already supported by the solution. The only thing is, we need to change our view of the routes. 

The stability needs improvement. 

I have been using OpenShift Container Platform for one year. 

Stability wise, I think there were few issues, but I'm not sure whether it was on an organization level or it was from OpenShift. The stability is a seven out of ten. 

The initial setup is not very complex but it is not as easy as Kubernetes. 

We have to pay for the license. 

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Neutral

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.

We currently have an annual license renewal.

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

We use it mainly for the retail space.

Everything is packaged into OpenShift Container Platform, whereas with Kubernetes, you have to create many operators. With OpenShift Container Platform, you just have to point and click.

The setup process is not great and could be better.

We have been using this solution for about two years, deployed both on cloud and on-premises. We can fire up an OpenShift cluster in Amazon. We are using the latest version.

It is very stable and solid. 

It is a scalable solution, and we have more than 500 users. We have about 15 people that manage all the different clusters.

The setup of OpenShift Container Platform is a bit complex when you set it up for the first time, but it is good after setup. The first time we deployed, it took about two days, but since we have mastered the solution, it no longer takes as long. We did not use any integration. Because we buy the Red Hat licenses, they just give us the green light.

We have seen a return on investment.

It costs about $10,000 for a three-year license.

We tested Swamp, Rancher and the US version of Kubernetes before OpenShift Container Platform.

I rate this solution a nine out of ten and recommend it to others.

Our company deploys the solution as a container platform that balances node availability and load. 

The most valuable feature is that the solution can be deployed in the cloud which removes the expense of a server. Everything you need is provided in the cloud where you can make clusters, add masters and worker nodes, and install ports. 

The solution includes an integrated file agent and a control center director that embeds within the release. It is much easier to configure the install or file agent through the GUI than having to work on command lines in a CLI. 

The solution does not work on a route-wise NFS.

I have been using the solution for two years. 

The solution is more stable than others because it allows for redundancies. Data can be stored on the PV and transferred to many worker nodes. 

The solution is easily scalable by joining worker nodes with masters. 

For example, your customers increase so you want to jump your worker nodes from four to forty. You simply install the solution, join worker nodes with masters, and create a larger cluster of servers within a matter of minutes. 

I serve as a DevOps expert for my customers and don't have the need to contact support. 

Our company used Docker but switched around the time it was acquired by Mirantis. 

The initial setup is straightforward. If you have an adequate amount of CPU and memory, then setup can be as fast as eight minutes. 

I rate the initial setup a nine out of ten. 

We currently use both Kubernetes and OpenShift. 

It is beneficial to be aware of Linux or Unix concepts when working with the solution and managing clusters. 

I rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

As an IT service provider, we work on enterprise technologies for our customers.

We have multiple customers with multiple domains, but the majority of our experience is in the banking and telecom sectors. In banking, they're using the OpenShift platform for their microservices-based requirements, and similarly on the telecom side, they are using it for the microservices-led solutions.

We started with the on-prem deployment of OpenShift Container Platform, version 3.2. But currently, we are also helping our customers to migrate to 4.x and to cloud solutions. The plan is to move to a cloud version, strictly on AWS. We are exploring the OpenShift Container Platform cluster, and ROSA (Red Hat OpenShift Service on AWS) the latest one with the managed services. By mid-2022, we'll probably be on cloud with this.

OpenShift eliminates distractions so that we can focus on innovation and other things. It completely removes overhead for the developers in terms of managing the orchestration of Kubernetes container clusters. It provides all the built-in features for managing these requirements. As a result, our team is more focused on development and on innovations in the underlying services. With microservices or applications that are deployed on OpenShift, they are able to focus more with the business requirements and innovate by further optimizing efficiently, utilizing the resources at a Kubernetes level.

Some of the primary features we leverage in the platform have to do with how we manage the cluster configurations, the properties, and the auto-scalability. These are the features that definitely provide value in terms of reducing overhead for the developers.

Also the Kubernetes cluster management or orchestration is provisioned through the UI and the CLI.

We are using the Red Hat OpenStack OpenShift Platform. It is much faster in terms of deploying the cluster. As of now, our experience rolling it out is more on the on-prem, but I think with the 4.0 version there is a little bit of a change regarding the way it is deployed, either using the installer base or user-driven installations. It takes a couple of days just to roll out the entire cluster and configure it so that it is ready for the applications or the services to be deployed on the cluster.

The robustness, the availability in terms of resilience, and the service availability with the multiple cluster nodes configured automatically, is pretty good. Even if load balancing is required across multiple clusters with the SDN network, it's pretty good. We haven't had many issues when it comes to robustness. We are happy with the performance provided.

From our experience on the on-prem, we know that there are 10 layers of security provisioned by the OpenShift platform, starting from the kernel level, and including the clusters and the container level. That definitely helped us to achieve a lot of enterprise security requirements in terms of accessibility and managing the infra part or the cluster part.

For running business-critical applications, the solution's security is pretty good. We are able to achieve consistent efficiency and availability for all our critical service requirements, when spanned across multiple DCs with the load balancer and DR solutions. We don't have to spend much on it, once we orchestrate the cluster with the proper configurations. At that point, everything is taken care of automatically.

At the service level, I don't see a very granular level of security as compared with the container-based clusters. It is at the Kubernetes level, not at the service level.

Also, when I compare it with the other container or Kubernetes technologies, we have pretty good documentation from OpenShift, but with the recent trend of cloud-native, fully managed serverless services, I don't see much documentation about how a customer should move from on-prem to the cloud, or what is the best way to do a lift-and-shift. Even if you are on AWS OCP, which is self-managed infra services, and you want to use the ROSA managed services, what is the best way to achieve that migration? I don't see documentation for these kinds of use cases from Red Hat. There is some room for improvement there.

We have been using OpenShift Container Platform, as an organization, for the last three or four years.

The stability is pretty good. The industry has been using these enterprise solutions over the long term and we haven't heard of or seen any issues with stability. Of course, it depends on the way you configure it or manage it. But given best practices, the stability is pretty good.

The solution gives us the flexibility to start with a small number of nodes and to scale it to the maximum number of nodes. As of now, we haven't gone beyond whatever the limitations are, in terms of the number of clusters or nodes, within OpenShift. We are well within the limits and are able to achieve our requirements. That aspect makes it more flexible.

Scalability is definitely one of the positives with OpenShift, where you can have a distributed cluster across multiple DCs or multiple Availability Zones with AWS. The only thing we don't see is much documentation. If we want to maintain Active-Active disaster recovery or hot and warm availability requirements, even in on-prem, how do our clusters scale across different regions or different availabilities? And how do I manage the internal cluster storage being replicated across multiple clusters? How does that work, and how do we prove it? That's another use case where, when it comes to documentation, there is a little gap.

But overall, scalability is pretty consistent and achievable with OpenShift.

I'm not involved much in post-production support. Usually, it is the customer team that gets into those kinds of requirements. But what I heard from our customers is pretty good, in terms of the support provided by the Red Hat. We know that they have a very good enterprise support team and provide support fairly quickly for technical issues.

On AWS, we have seen they have OCP-dedicated infra, which is completely managed by Red Hat. Now with ROSA, where AWS and Red Hat are both managing it, we are expecting a similar kind of support from Red Hat.

Whether Red Hat acts as a partner with our customers depends on the customer. Most of our customers use Red Hat enterprise support for technical issues with OpenShift Cluster Platform. But they don't get deeply integrated with Red Hat in terms of exchanging ideas or innovating new solutions. But Red Hat is always providing its innovations and doing research into new products. That has definitely helped our customers.

We embarked on OpenShift as our first enterprise container technology.

There are open-source-based Kubernetes services provided by AWS and there are a number of cluster-based solutions available. But what Red Hat and OpenShift did was that they packaged all of their solutions within their platform so that it provides added features. For our finance or banking customers, adopting an open-source solution is challenging, but the enterprise-grade support from Red Hat makes it much easier for them to adopt the OpenShift cluster.

As for building our own container platform, initially we tried with Dockers, but when we compared other Kubernetes cluster technologies to OpenShift we found that OpenShift is a much better solution in terms of the features.

With the on-prem solution, with OCP, where you have control of your infra, I feel the setup is straightforward, because you know OpenShift 4.0, or other versions, and how to install it. You have the resources and the skill sets and it is easy to just start with that part.

But ROSA is a very new approach, with the fully-managed and serverless cluster. I feel there are some gaps there because you don't have control of infra provisioning. AWS and Red Hat directly provision things once you provide the configurations. But if a customer wants to use a fully managed service with some level of customization, we don't see how we can easily achieve that.

On average, if it's a single-cluster deployment for five nodes, it may take three days to get the infra up and running. And then, to do all the configurations and get the applications deployed, it probably takes another one or two days, including the testing and readiness of the infra. So a total of about five days is the optimum timeline to get a single cluster up and running with the services deployed in it.

As we are exploring the cloud migration side of things, we definitely have a deployment plan where we use the templates, including Terraform templates, when it comes to infra and core provisioning. We then have a clusterized deployment as a basic migration approach or a phased approach. We leverage tools like the Migration Toolkit from Red Hat itself and some AWS tools which are relevant if there are challenges with agent installation and the like.

We have seen return on investment from using OpenShift. The TCO is much better, comparatively, over the course of three to five years. We have seen a reduction in infra and cluster management operational costs. These are some of the aspects where we have definitely seen a return on investment.

OpenShift with Red Hat support is pretty costly. We have done a comparison between AWS EKS (Elastic Kubernetes Services) which provides fully managed services from AWS. It's built on open-source-based Kubernetes clusters and it is much cheaper compared to Red Hat, but it is a little expensive compared to ECS provided by AWS.

Initially, we had this interim state where we wanted to move as a lift-and-shift, meaning we wanted to move OpenShift to OpenShift. We had three choices: OpenShift Container Platform, the OpenShift dedicated platform from Red Hat itself, and ROSA with the fully managed services. For lift-and-shift, we wanted to maintain an as-is state and made a decision to go with AWS OCP, which helps us to control our infrastructure and deployment requirements, while maintaining the as-is state. Price-wise, this option is less than ROSA. In ROSA, we would need to pay the cost for the underlying AWS resources we would be using, plus a nominal cost to Red Hat for managing every cluster and every worker node.

There is no doubt about things, feature-wise. In terms of scalability, availability, stability, robustness, OpenShift stands out. It's the cost and support factors which make the decision a little difficult.

If a customer is looking for a fully controlled or fully managed container technology, OpenShift is definitely a choice for them. But there are other services available, like AWS EKS, which come with similar kinds of services. It depends on if you need a deep-dive solution: Do you want to maintain your own infra or do you want fully managed services? And do you want to leverage other OpenShift cluster services? But OpenShift is the choice.

We don't use the full-fledged automated services for OpenShift clusters as of now, although we do use a few of the automated services. What we are using currently is sufficient and it helps us to meet a lot of audit and telemetric requirements.

In terms of using it for cloud native stacks and meeting regulatory constraints, we are still exploring that. We are currently looking at the AWS OCP and ROSA platforms. ROSA provides flexibility in terms of installations and managing the entire infra. ROSA is completely managed by automated serverless services, where you just provide the initial configurations for the kind of a cluster you need and it automatically provisions the infrastructure for you. Whereas with OCP you have control over the infrastructure and you can play with your cluster orchestrations, configurations, et cetera. In these ways, with the cloud services, we do have flexibility, but the cost factor may be a differentiator in terms of the on-prem and the cloud versions.

We definitely plan to use the CodeReady Workspaces, but we are not there yet. The idea is to move on to the AWS Workspaces.

Overall, I would rate the solution at nine out of 10. It has everything. For me, it is not a 10 because the support and the pricing costs stand out.

The solution being used for application containization.

I like the Flexibility of the solution. 

Metrics monitoring feature needs improvement.

I have been using Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform for five years.

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