The cons are that you have extensive third-party support for Microsoft and VMware platforms that don't exist in the Red Hat world. 

Red Hat has some partners, but if your company uses something that backs up VMware on a block level, for example, those backup products often won't have support for Red Hat. They might just say to back up all your VMs as if they were individual clients, which isn't as efficient, even though it still works.

The biggest improvement would be more third-party direct support for things like backups and provisioning through third-party portals. The framework is all there because the API is open and well-documented – that's what vendors who support VMware use. 

They could write their software to work against RHEV, but they're not investing in doing it for the Red Hat solution. 

So, that's the biggest difference between VMware and Red Hat. Microsoft's third-party support for Hyper-V is fairly decent.

View full review »

Management of RHEV is not as easy as VMware. Some features do not work. The product does not provide features similar to VMware’s VMotion. After creating the cluster, the VM is moved to another node if we move down. However, the VM does not move the parent node automatically. It has to be moved manually. VMware moves it automatically. RHEV moves it to the parent node only if we restart.

Everything can be handled in VMware through the GUI. However, in RHEV, some things can be managed through UI, and others cannot. We have to troubleshoot and use CLI. A few features of the product do not work as well as those in VMware.

View full review »

We would like the dashboard feature of this solution to be improved, as it is not very detailed at present.

View full review »

With RHEV, the cyberattacks should be fewer. I want RHEV to be better protected.

View full review »

The solution should be made more user-friendly.

View full review »

It's very difficult to deploy.

There is not any proper documentation on the site to reference. They need to really share more details and documents about the product. 

View full review »

Most of the time we're engaged with the kind of discussion where we have to compare them with VMware. So when we do a direct comparison, then obviously VMware does better in terms of having Fault Tolerance and doing active disaster recovery and these kind of things. This is something that can be improved within Red Hat. That is one aspect.

But when you talk about the latest changes that are happening, I think both VMware and Red Hat are working on something like virtualization on top of the Kubernetes platform, so I think that will take it to altogether a different level. Because Red Hat is working on OpenShift Virtualization, and I think VMware has its own Tanzu, they both are competing well.

I think the future looks good for both of them. Red Hat may beat VMware in terms of when you compare it with OpenShift Virtualization. But looking at the present KVM, I don't know what things are going to look like.

In terms of what can be improved, I can't say right now because I don't know how much they are willing to do that or their roadmap looks like for this technology. In virtualization, like I mentioned, I think there are a lot of things that they are doing. In fact to be very frank, I'm not aware of the latest container-based virtualization that they're working on or what kind of features they have, so I'm not in the right position. I can't comment on that.

View full review »

To be honest, I can't think of anything that needs improving, they work faster than I do and produce things so quickly and swiftly that I can't catch up with them. Before I can think of something new, they are already there and have done it. What they have right now is way beyond the essential requirements of our customers who would not require more than 20%-30% of what they offer.

There aren't any additional features I can think of that should be included. They're already offering hyper convergence which is way beyond the world for us and beyond what ordinary users could imagine having. Maybe one day they'll come up with a way of running their software without any hardware.

View full review »

RHEV can improve by keeping pace with new features and new enhancements. They should not be halted or delayed innovation because over the past quarter the enhancements have not been as fast as they have been previously. 

View full review »

Realistically, I found Red Hat to be fairly usable. It was an easy transition from Unix to using Linux and I can't think of any real improvements necessary. If anything, I actually like check config better than system CTL.

For improvements or additional features, it would be nice for it to integrate better into two in ones. If you wanted to go to the desktop computer side of things, it lags behind in that you need to go to something like Fedora to get all the extra bells and whistles.

View full review »

The UI should be more interactive with more features. In terms of virtualization product services the features are very limited. I'd like to see additional functionality and net virtualization features.

View full review »

The solution has a very small lifecycle. They should work on this particular area.

View full review »

The interface is a bit complex, in my opinion. They should work to simplify it if possible.

Currently, we cannot get a direct local resource mount. 

When I want to customize the solution, I would like to have a similar operating system resource included, similar to what VMware offers. We'd like to have the same hosting features VMware has.

View full review »

There has to be more effort into closing the security vulnerabilities in this solution because we are facing daily attacks. We would like to have this done faster.

We would like to see live-patching on the systems, without having to require a reboot. It would be better to have more patches, especially kernel-level updates, live and online so that we can keep the business up and running during this period.

Improvements can be made to managing this solution, such as enhancements to the GUI.

There should be better integration with third-party tools.

Tools for scanning the hardware, such as the CPU and memory, would make life easier.

View full review »

We hope that Red Hat can produce a paradigm edition. We are looking for paradigm computing and paradigm storage.

Its scalability can be improved. It is not easy to scale, and we hope that Red Hat can provide a more scalable system.

They should also provide local service and support. Our customers are looking for a good software vendor to provide professional services.

View full review »

Customers are not aware of this solution, they can improve by providing more awareness and solution availability. The technical features are okay right now for our requirements, but of course, with technology, there are areas for improvement.

Additionally, there should be more integration with other platforms. 

View full review »

The documentation is not as good as it should be. There is a need for making it descriptive and in sequence. There are a lot of links in the docs and some parts are repeated.

Technically, Red Hat products are robust and durable with an excellent support.

View full review »

There are two things that I would like to see improvement in when it comes to Red Hat. First is the pricing and second is the support. Of those two, I think support should be the main focus.  

We are facing some challenges within Malaysia because we do not really have system integrators for Red Hat available who can provide on-site support. This would be useful in critical situations such as outages. At those times, it would be optimal to have an expert technician who has significant experience with the product on the company site to help us more quickly resolve these critical issues.  

The closest that we have come to this within Malaysia was an instance where we had to join an online conference call. It was complicated and inefficient. We had to bridge the connection with the principals, login, and then to check and to dump the data for the troubleshooting purposes.  

If Red Hat can expand their services to include physical support within Malaysia then it would be great for us. We need to have access to immediate support of this type when it comes to critical issues.  

View full review »

The pricing could be improved.

The support is tricky in a few places. We're facing some challenges within Malaysia where we don't really have the system integrators available who can provide extended support. When we need personnel on-site, we can't get them.  

Instead, we have to join in an online conference call and then bridge the connection with the principals, log in and then check and dump the data for troubleshooting purposes, etc.

View full review »

The time I've used the solution is too short. I need more time with the solution before providing feedback. While everything needs improvement in some way, I have no specifics.

View full review »

The UI is based on a default. It's not bad, but it could be a bit better.

The solution could improve its pricing.

We'd like it if it would be possible on Red Hat Virtualization to possibly connect two or three VMs to the same disk.

View full review »

I heard that there are big differences between Red Hat 8 and 7, but it's still quite difficult for me to judge it. I found it a bit more difficult to manage than version seven, which was much easier. In terms of features, though, it is still not yet clear which is better. I have no clear idea of which features need to be changed at the moment.

View full review »

Configuring the network interfaces is much better in Ubuntu and should be improved. I find this to be the biggest problem. In Ubunto they have the idea of the Netplan, which is much better than the facility in Red Hat.

View full review »

The Administration of the Oracle database and the SAP ERP needs improvement.

In the next release. I would like to see some additional features to make it easier, such as improvements to the GUI and the maintenance. The maintenance of Red Hat is difficult.

View full review »

This solution could be more secure. Also, the CPU power could be increased.

View full review »

Few cons of Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Hypervisor are1) Need to create virtual machine environment per node 2) Issues with clustering 3) Load balancing not very efficient and fails to utilize and distribute network resources. View full review »

The GUI interface needs improvement. Not 90%, but 50% or 60% of the work is done from the command line and so on, so the GUI needs work because people are looking for an easier way to manage the environment. Right now, if someone is not very familiar with Red Hat and actually is looking to add Red Hat to the environment, they have to take some training. It needs to be easier to use.

The solution could use network virtualization.

View full review »

It needs a better administrator KB, similar to what Citrix XenDesktop has. Also, they don't know how to sell their great products and don’t really seems to be interested in taking care of their partners who trust and really know their products.

View full review »

You need to buy support from red hat and you need to renew support every year in order to keep getting support from red hat. Some features are unavailable compared to leading visualization products. RHEV hyper-visor came later into the market than other leading visualization product. View full review »