Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform Reviews

For the majority of use cases, we're actually building APIs for both the enterprise API and also OpenAPI. It's mainly for integrations for the backend. We implement the system for the customer.

It's deployed on a private cloud and on-prem. We are using version 5.8.

The banking transactions, inquiries, and account opening have been the most valuable.

The monitoring and logging could be improved. I think it would help developers in terms of provisioning the database and the whole development lifecycle.

I have been using this solution for two years.

Technical support is standard.

Initial setup was fine. If it's set up on-premise, it takes longer, maybe about four or five days. We actually deployed it on the cloud once using IBM. That takes a shorter amount of time because it's a managed service.

We used a consultant. 

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

If you care about your performance and the support, I would recommend it for enterprise mission critical applications.

I mainly use Container Platform for hosting and orchestrating our internal application.

The best feature is the management for the port life cycle, which automatically recycles, pulls, and scales up and down based on needs and requests.

Container Platform could be improved if we could aggregate logs out of the box instead of having to do it through integrations with other products.

I've been using OpenShift Container Platform for a year.

Container Platform is scalable. 

The initial setup was easy, and deployment on the cloud took around an hour.

We implemented using a vendor team.

The pricing is a bit more expensive than expected - it's moderately expensive.

We also evaluated open-source Kubernetes, VMware Tanzu, and VMware.

I would advise anybody thinking of implementing OpenShift Container Platform to get trained before using it because there are some tricks you need to learn hands-on. I would rate this solution seven out of ten.

The complexity of the installation could be reduced. While we got the necessary support, the instructions could be clearer.

We started using OpenShift recently.

It is quite stable.

In terms of scalability, I don't see any challenges.

Technical support is good; they are fast and reliable.

The initial setup is complex, but we got the necessary support. So, there were no major issues or challenges.

The price is slightly on the higher side. It is something that can be worked on because most of the businesses now have margins.

You should map the requirements of the solution that you're looking for before jumping into a container platform, but if you are looking for a container platform, OpenShift is a good option. I would rate it at eight on a scale from one to ten.

Our company supports most of the banks in India. We use four kinds of solutions broadly categorized as UPI and IPI deployed on AWS called ROSA and on Azure called ARO.

The most valuable features of OpenShift are the advanced cluster manager and advanced cluster security with the StackRox.

OpenShift needs to improve their container storage. In the next release of OpenShift I would also like to see simplification of Calico BGP with the container network and integration with MinIO, Portworx, and Rubrix.

I have been using OpenShift Container Platform since 2016.

OpenShift is a stable solution.

The platform is easy to scale as it supports Windows worker node.

Technical support at Red Hat is good.

Positive

The initial setup of OpenShift is straightforward.

When I compare the platform's deployment to other solutions like Kubernetes, OpenShift is good. When comparing with Rancher or VMware Tanzu, OpenShift is better than both. Specifically, the support and documentation of OpenShift is better than VMware.

I would rate OpenShift an 8 out of 10 overall.

The way our consultancy works is we have a number of internal products which we use, such as testing systems. We deploy our applications in scientific products and take advantage of automation. We are focusing on automation development for our customers. 

Previously we were using different automation methods. This product, however, is great. With OpenShift, you're able to achieve significantly higher deployments. There are more deployments per month on OpenShift. At the same time, it's all the tower application availability issues on offer that are great. Now, OpenShift follows us to make sure that all our applications are always highly available.

Openshift is a very developer-friendly product. 

The self-service allows us to deliver applications fast to production.

The functionality is quite good, even though we may only use 30% of it.

The solution has pretty good features overall. I can't recall if there are any that are lacking.

The pricing is quite high. It would be nice if they could make it more competitive.

The solution needs to introduce open ID connect integration for role-based access control.

I've been using the solution for maybe four years at this point.

This is a rather new product. It's only been on the market for 1.5 years, and therefore has a lot of growing to do. While the earlier versions were not as stable, we find version four to be very good and much improved.

You can scale the solution, however, we don't have that much money and therefore we aren't really scaling it.

We have architects, engineers, DevOps, and developers on the solution. We're a pretty small company of about 50, and maybe 40 users are using Openshift internally.

If anything, we would have to go to Red Hat to get technical support, however, we've been able to solve our own problems internally. Therefore, we've never really used technical support. I can't speak to their level of responsiveness or knowledge.

While it's completely different, we did use Ansible as a way of automation and to deploy applications, for example, on top of just using Linux and additional layers of stuff. Openshift is just a better product and more geared towards what we need.

We started to use an Openshift a long time ago. Right now, it's difficult to say if it's straightforward or complex as every version is completely different. Once we were with Openshft version three, it was pretty easy to install. As was version four.

However, then it will be installed inside your infrastructure on the public clouds of endpoints.

The solution is very costly. However, you do get good value for the price, and therefore we're willing to pay even if the cost is high.

We are a Red Hat partner. We're a consultancy firm.

We started using OpenShift version two, then we migrated to OpenShift's version three and now we are on a complete version four.

We tend to use all deployment models - on-premises, public and private clouds, and hybrid options.

If a company is considering the solution, I would advise that they maybe start working with some guys who have experience with the product. It will be much more work otherwise, and you can save time by avoiding POCs. 

Overall, I would rate the solution ten out of ten. Even though the pricing is high, I knew what I was getting into, and for me, for the value we get from the product, it's worth the cost.

We use OpenShift Container Platform for on-premises services.

More tools are available in OpenShift Container Platform to maintain and manage the clusters.

OpenShift Container Platform is an expensive solution, and its pricing could be improved.

I have been using OpenShift Container Platform for four to five years.

OpenShift Container Platform is a stable solution.

I rate OpenShift Container Platform a nine out of ten for scalability. There are many users using it in our organization.

The initial setup of OpenShift Container Platform was straightforward.

OpenShift Container Platform’s deployment takes a couple of minutes.

We have seen a return on investment with OpenShift Container Platform. The solution is worth the money.

OpenShift Container Platform is highly-priced. Besides the license fee, you must have a dedicated set of resources to maintain and manage OpenShift Container Platform.

Overall, I rate OpenShift Container Platform a nine out of ten.

It's a Kubernetes container orchestration solution. Ideally, we will deploy it in the cloud, but it is on-premises for now. We also use Red Hat Linux servers. Some of our operating systems are also Red Hat Linux. All the Red Hat products work well together, and people at my company are familiar with the platform. 

The main goal of adopting OpenShift is to overcome the current challenges of integrating with App Connect. One of the objectives is to make our containers more scalable. The other goals involve the benefits we can get from packaging and more.

I don't have a lot of use cases right now, but when we start using it in production, OpenShift will make things like machine workflows easier. It will enable us to control or orchestrate containers better and provide a tool to demo other aspects of development, deployment, and monitoring on the same platform.

We expect OpenShift to help us with regulatory compliance. Entities like banks require approval of decisions through these kinds of ledgers. Sometimes, it's virtually impossible to do this. OpenShift makes meeting these standards easier.

We still do not see the benefits in terms of development time and quality of the final product because we're still in the evaluation phase, but we'll soon have a better understanding of what we can achieve with the tool. At the same time, we've seen examples of other players that already use OpenShift and recognize the benefits they get from using it. 

OpenShift provides tools that tell me everything I have on a container, and I can make it on-premise or on a cloud infrastructure.

We have been evaluating OpenShift for a couple of months. After we finish the evaluation, we will start testing it. We started looking at OpenShift as a possibility last year. 

OpenShift is a stable product overall.

OpenShift is scalable. Once we fully deploy it, many people will use it. 

I rate Red Hat support an eight out of ten. 

Positive

We used vanilla kubernetes containers.

Setting up OpenShift isn't easy. I rate it three out of ten for ease of setup. We're deploying it in three phases. They're in the second phase now. The total deployment time will be five months. We expect to complete the deployment this March. There are 13 people on three teams working on this deployment.

We are using a third-party consultant. They work to ensure we understand the process.

I rate OpenShift a nine out of ten. I think it's the way to go. Lots of companies are adopting it.

OpenShift is a user-friendly container platform with a solid GUI that helps you follow what is going on and gives you an overview of all your clusters. It's more user-friendly than the Kubernetes itself. The interface helps you learn the platform and provides access to some features or specific comments.

OpenShift's documentation could be better. It's difficult to document everything you need in a specific use case. You have to seek some support or spend a few minutes trying to figure out what's going on.

Another thing that bugs me is that they removed the software in NFS storage. I don't understand why because this is a common type of storage. I am having problems with that, so I wish they would put it back. 

I've been dealing with the OpenShift Container Platform for about two years. I am not an end-user, but I develop solutions with it. I test, make proofs of concept, and design solutions that run on top of it, like Cloud Pak.

OpenShift has great technicians who work with developers. It's nice to have access to real product developers when you contact tech support.

I rate OpenShift Container Platform eight out of 10. It's an excellent solution. It might be a bit more difficult to maintain than some solutions, but it brings you a lot of value.