We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for our infrastructure, and in recent years, we have also been using it for Ansible, primarily for appliance deployment on the customer side.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is deployed on-premises on our virtual machines.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux provided our organization with increased stability over the past decade.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has allowed us to centralize development and focus on our projects by providing a consolidated platform for our enterprise distribution.

We are satisfied with Red Hat's built-in security features, which effectively reduce risk, ensure business continuity, and maintain compliance. Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides a more secure operating system than other Linux solutions due to its robust security features and a supported kernel that receives regular security updates.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux, when used with Ansible, has significantly automated various tasks, leading to a reduction in the total cost of ownership.

It has helped save the organization costs.

I find the most valuable aspect of Red Hat Enterprise Linux to be its comprehensive support, encompassing both technical and security issues.

Red Hat's comprehensive documentation eliminates the need to contact technical support for any issues encountered.

The deployment learning curve for Red Hat Enterprise Linux could be more user-friendly.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for 14 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers exceptional stability, with downtime limited to scheduled maintenance periods.

Although Red Hat Enterprise Linux is designed for scalability, our current deployments are not large.

Our organization has always used Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux can be challenging, but the documentation provides valuable assistance.

The implementation was completed in-house.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers a significant return on investment through Ansible, a powerful tool that enables the automation of our environment.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux distinguishes itself from other vendors by offering exceptional support and ensuring that organizations have readily available assistance when needed.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the industry standard compared to other Linux vendors.

My customers primarily use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for application hosting and small databases. It is used for hosting Java applications and small web servers.

Cloud-based Red Hat Enterprise Linux deployments provide cost savings. If customers are purchasing a physical server, they need to have a proper setup. They need to have a data center, cabling, and a lot of other things. For cost-saving purposes, they are going for a cloud. As an operating system, it offers the same functionality on-prem or on the cloud.

It saves money for company owners. It helps our customers save money and do things quickly. They can build servers quickly. There is a menu where they can fill in the VM name and other details and attach storage. In ten minutes, they have a server ready.

I am Red Hat certified. I train people in corporations and educational institutes. Red Hat's material is very good. Their testing system is awesome. If someone is certified in Red Hat, you know that they know it well. There are millions of videos on YouTube, but they are not always updated. On the Red Hat site, the documentation is very clear. You just need to focus and study for two to three months to get certified.

Nowadays, delays are common with their support, and it often takes time to get assistance from experienced engineers.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for seven to eight years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is an excellent product, and its stability has improved significantly over time. It can operate for extended periods, like six months to one year, without issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux scales well with increasing user demands or infrastructure size. It is easily available and efficiently adapts to varying needs.

Most customers host medium-sized applications on the cloud. Storing a big application can lead to higher costs.

The technical support from Red Hat has declined over the past four or five years. It could be because there are not many skilled people. When we raise a case, it is attended by junior people or new people, which wastes two to three days. We might even have to raise the severity of the ticket. However, when senior people take ownership of the case, the support is awesome. They give proper support. This was not the case earlier, so whenever we raised a ticket, we got an immediate response from Red Hat.

The initial setup is smooth.

We have Cloud-based deployments. We are using AWS, GCP, Azure, and other cloud platforms. We also have on-premises deployment. Some customers also have a mixed deployment with the cloud and on-prem but in such environments, I have seen problems in terms of performance. For example, if my database is on-prem on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and I am storing my application on the cloud on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, whenever someone hits the website, there will be latency issues. I sorted out such issues for a customer. I suggested they migrate their server from the cloud to on-prem because their database was quite big. With a mixed setup, they were having a lot of issues in terms of performance and storing data. It was very slow. After they moved it on-prem, it was much faster. This is not a Red Hat-related issue. From the operating system side, no improvements are required. However, cloud providers need to improve their facilities.

For patching, I use Red Hat Satellite, and for configuration, I use Red Hat Ansible. Leapp upgrades are also awesome. A month back, I upgraded Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9. I created detailed documentation about the procedure. There were about 14 steps. It was straightforward.

With Red Hat Insights, we can see the security threats. Red Hat Insights is integrated with Red Hat Satellite. It will be helpful from the patching point of view. It lets you do subjective analytics of servers.

I did some research on pricing a long time ago, and at that time, it was much cheaper than Windows. I do not have current details about pricing, but it is affordable.

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

The primary use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux is automation. We have Ansible running on some Red Hat Enterprise Linux servers, and a lot of it is geared towards automation. We have the automation of processes like patching, upgrades, OS enhancements, or OS upgrades. Additionally, our stores run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is pretty secure, but we rely on our network products to handle a lot of our security. We have Cisco products. These servers that we are currently running are not necessarily tightened down on the ports, traffic, etc. We rely on Cisco firewalling to handle a lot of the traffic, load balancing, and so forth. I have not configured a lot of security per se right on the server itself at a kernel level.

I like the knowledge base. They have a pretty good knowledge base portal. On their website, they have a lot of great classes. I do appreciate doing that. I have taken several myself, so I am pretty impressed by that.

We use Ansible Playbooks for patching our devices, especially those that are out in the field. We are using Ansible Playbooks to handle patching. We are using the systemctl command that goes into the repos to grab whatever patches we need. So far, the management experience has been good.

I have used a lot of different Linux distributions, and one thing that I like about Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the support. The support from Red Hat is very good. They offer excellent customer and vendor support.

The ease of training is great, and I appreciate products like Ansible Tower.

Its interface is good. It is a very solid operating system.

Some of the documentation that I have run into or encountered appeared to be a bit outdated. That would be an area for improvement.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since early 2000. It has been about 20 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very stable. I have not experienced any instances of crashing with the Red Hat servers that I have worked on.

Other than the issues with the legacy software or some of the IBM AS/400 that we tried to add to it, it has been pretty seamless. Building them out and migration to the data center or the VMware environment has been pretty seamless.

Customer service is great. We use a support portal to open a ticket, and the response time is good. We usually get an email response or an update to the ticketing system, and then if necessary, we get a callback within four hours. The response time also depends on the priority. If we are looking at a massive data center outage, I am sure it is a priority one. Most of the tickets I submitted took one to four hours.

I have used SUSE in the past. They have a pretty good support system. They have got a good OS. I am not sure what the market share is for those guys, but they are pretty good.

Our environment is a combination of the cloud and on-premises, but we primarily use Red Hat Enterprise Linux on-prem. We have a few development test servers running on Azure. They are not used in production. They are just for testing.

I was involved with the migration from SUSE to Red Hat, but that was close to a decade ago.

From what I recall, the initial setup was not that difficult. We did have some engineers from Red Hat who came out to help us. It would have been more difficult if we did not have them there, but from my recollection, it was not very challenging or difficult. We were able to get that done pretty quickly. There were some issues with legacy software, but those applications were built on the Windows platform. They were a little bit of a mess. Other than that, it appeared to go pretty smoothly for us.

It does not require much maintenance. Other than patching and keeping up with bulletins as to what might be out there, there is not much. There is not a huge amount of maintenance. They run pretty solidly. The uptime is great. I do not have to restart a lot of these servers. I might have to restart a service here and there, but nothing that I can remember.

We had help from Red Hat engineers during the implementation.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides a much more secure and stable system than Windows infrastructure, and the support is also great. Of course, you pay for the support.

We were able to see its benefits after some time. Some of the returns are seen after a while, not immediately. Sometimes, migrations might be difficult to do if you are running legacy software.

I am not involved in the budgetary aspect, but from what I understand, the pricing is competitive, similar to what we paid for SUSE.

Having a solid foundation in Linux can be very helpful. Learn as much as possible. Automation has become a very important part of the industry now. Learning how to automate with Ansible, Kubernetes, Docker, and Python along with Red Hat Enterprise Linux should set you up for success.

We have not tried Red Hat Enterprise Linux Image Builder or System Roles. Image Builder sounds good, but I have not tried Image Builder. We build our images from vCenter. Image Builder would definitely be something to check out.

Using it in a hybrid environment is a very interesting concept, where we keep some of the hardware and applications on-prem and then maybe rely on Red Hat to handle some of the networking or other configurations externally. I would like to try that hybrid approach.

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

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the enterprise for production environments. We mostly use it on bare metal servers, which are dedicated. In terms of deployment, we use the on-premises version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has given us better insights and allowed us to manage the environment more effectively. In terms of overall performance improvements, it has provided us with increased visibility into security, which has been helpful for our cybersecurity team.

Its built-in security features seem pretty sufficient for our purposes, but we have other teams that manage the security and build aspects. I am more involved in the maintenance of it, but in terms of the built-in security features, I find it sufficient. The security team also takes care of the compliance aspect.

I mainly use the Red Hat database for vulnerabilities. It is pretty good for determining whether or not a vulnerability has been resolved.

We use Red Hat Satellite for patching. I like Red Hat Satellite for patching and keeping us secure.

We have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux in hybrid environments. It seems to work fairly well. For hybrid environments, it is probably one of the easier ones to deploy because it allows us to scale.

We were able to realize the benefits of Red Hat Enterprise Linux immediately after the deployment.

In terms of the organization and structure, the support is on point. The reporting and other things are very standardized. It does not leave much room for error when working in production environments.

When we first deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux, it is very challenging to determine which security features have been deployed. It would be beneficial to have more insight into this. Additionally, once it is built, there does not seem to be an option to retroactively change security features, which can make it difficult to ascertain which ones have been deployed.

Their knowledge base is very verbose. There is too much information. It can complicate things a little bit. It is very detailed. If they can shorten it, that might be helpful.

We have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for a few years now, approximately seven to eight years.

I would rate the stability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux as seven out of ten. We do encounter problems, most of which can be resolved. Occasionally, we face issues that cannot be resolved until the kernel developers address them. These are typically dealt with through quarterly releases or major upgrades.

In terms of scalability, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux about a nine out of ten. It is easy for us to make snapshots when we are patching. If we need to clone, we can do so, although they might not be full backups necessarily.

We use their portal for contacting support. The support from Red Hat is quite quick because it operates on a service-level agreement (SLA). For the paid support features, they are very responsive.

I am familiar with CentOS, and I have used OpenSUSE and SUSE Enterprise for testing and comparison purposes.

CentOS did not have as many security features. Of course, CentOS had the community support. CentOS was bought by Red Hat, and then the support started lacking. It was then discontinued to promote Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We have done some physical to virtual migrations using VMware. We have been mostly involved in that. We have done a little bit of virtual-to-cloud migration but not as much as physical-to-virtual.

The migration is more on the complex side. There are quite a few players involved. We need to collaborate with different teams. We need to make sure that the database is there, and that the database team is always involved. It is not terribly simple. It requires quite a bit of project planning and coordination. We usually have a six-month project so that it can be planned and tested.

It does require maintenance on our end but not very frequently.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux licensing is quite costly, but I personally do not deal with pricing.

My advice to new users would be to focus more on the build aspect because it can be overlooked by many new users.

The Leapp utility works well when you do not have a much-customized environment. The more customized your environment is, the more complicated it gets to get Leapp to work to switch over to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It is possible, but the more customized your environment is, the harder it is because it will require the kernel module. Convert2RHEL is pretty much the same as Leapp. The more customized the environment, the harder it is. It is feasible. It is just a matter of how much time you are willing to spend on it.

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

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to control my Docker systems and build and run containers on them. I also use it for a tokenization project I'm working on.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has improved the availability and security of our systems. The knowledge base, Wiki forums, and other resources are very helpful in simplifying my daily operations. We realized the benefits immediately after deployment.

The most valuable features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux are the availability, file system performance, and overall system availability. The kernel is more secure than my previous operating systems, such as Windows. Red Hat's knowledge base is helpful. I consult it several times in my daily work. I can ask questions on the forums and get help in my daily operations.

Using Red Hat Enterprise Linux's image builder is easy. I can use GitAI to pull any image I want to build on my system and reach into it using Red Hat. I use Convert2RHEL to publish my work on tokenization. I'm publishing more than 70 prints on my system daily, and saving this file. It's easy to use.

There are performance issues with the response time when accessing the console, but I'm unsure if that's Red Hat Enterprise Linux's fault or if it's due to the lack of CPU or memory on our machines. The enterprise interface could be improved. I can only use the keyboard to transfer files from one system to another. I want to use my mouse on the interface, not just scroll up and down. I would also like my logs archived as an RAR and sent to me.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for more than five years.

Stability is critical to us. Red Hat Enterprise Linux ensures our machine's availability and reduces the need for frequent restarts.

I have not contacted customer or technical support myself. Our infrastructure team handles any contacts with Red Hat support.

I have used Ubuntu before. Red Hat has a more robust knowledge base, and finding solutions to any problem is easier.

The infrastructure team handled the initial setup. I'm a software engineer working on my applications. The infrastructure team builds the machine, and I only use it. It was relatively easy, depending on the complexity of the deployment configuration. After deployment, we have maintenance on our machine if there are new patches to deploy. I have three machines, and each one is identical, with the same containers, so I don't need to do maintenance on our machines more than once monthly.

It is important to use the knowledge base and familiarize oneself with key commands to gain more about Linux and ease its usage.

We use this operating system for our on-prem servers because it is more secure and reliable. We can install whatever application we want.

I chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux because it is more secure and reliable than other operating systems. Red Hat has a feature called SELinux. I always use it because it is more secure than the other operating systems. I am using it with most of the applications. It is our baseline OS for any application.

The built-in security features are helpful when it comes to simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance.

Red Hat has very useful documentation. I always use it when I face an error or something like that. It is very reliable, and I use it all the time.

Over the last three to four years, I did not work in just one environment. I worked in two environments, but all the time we used Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we got more security and reliability. We have seen performance enhancement and less downtime for our main application. There is more reliability and better performance. It has improved our environment. We now have better performance, more reliability, and more security. There is about 30% to 50% improvement.

I have previously worked in the banking sector for one of the banks. We can now configure Red Hat Enterprise Linux for PCI-DSS Compliance. It has improved in that aspect.

SELinux is valuable. The main reasons for using Red Hat Enterprise Linux are security, reliability, and efficiency. The system is very reliable, and it is more efficient than others.

It is not very easy to manage because it has a command line interface, and it can be a little bit confusing from one version to another. For example, the administration of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 is a bit different than Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9. It is a little bit hard but not that much.

The GUI experience can be better. They can make it easier to access files and copy them. We should be able to do that without the command line. For example, if you compare it with Windows, Windows is easier to use. They can just simplify the user experience.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for three to four years.

It is stable. I would rate it an eight out of ten for stability.

I did not face any issue with scalability, so I would rate it a nine out of ten.

We implemented it at the HQ and the DR site. We used it at two locations. We had 100 to 200 users using these servers.

I have experience with Windows Server. From a security perspective, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is more secure. From a performance perspective, Red Hat Enterprise Linux has better performance, but from the ease of management perspective, Windows is better.

The installation at the application layer is a little bit complex. The duration depends on the application, but most of the application takes months. Implementing an easy application or service, such as a web service, takes two to three days.

When it comes to the management, I manage it locally. I go through SSH on the command line and manage it. For security patching and updates, most of the time, I use Red Hat Satellite. It is a product from Red Hat for managing updates. Red Hat Satellite is easy to use and very helpful. I have upgraded from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.

When it comes to security patches, they require a restart. That can cause some downtime.

I do not have much knowledge of licensing. That is handled by the procurement team, but I know that it is expensive. If they can provide more licensing options, it will be much easier for companies to buy.

I would recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux because it is more secure, reliable, and scalable.

I used System Roles two years ago. It was simple to use System Roles. I succeeded in implementing them, so it was simple. They can be managed, but I used them only one time, so I do not have this much experience with them.

I also used a service called Cockpit. It was easy to use. It was very helpful and easy.

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

I work on SAP HANA, which is on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has a good support portal that I rely on.

The system rules are helpful for segregation of duties, as they provide us with more feasible access to the system, allowing us to register it accordingly.

We immediately see the benefits of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

From an administrative perspective, the cloud platform is the best because we don't have to wait long. It's a portal, so we can access whatever we want through it, whether the Azure portal or the AWS portal; we click, and it'll purchase it for us. Some deployments take 30 to 40 minutes. But in most cases, especially for small services, it's just a few seconds to three minutes. From a business perspective, the pay-as-you-go concept is where we only pay for what we use. So those are the two things I like most about the cloud version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Using Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the cloud can become costly over the long term.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for six years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the cloud is stable with a 99.9 percent uptime. Regional redundancies are used to ensure data accessibility.

The initial deployment was a little challenging until I became familiar with the solution through the portal. We did encounter a handshaking issue with Azure that required submitting a ticket to Microsoft, but otherwise, the process went smoothly. A team of four were involved in the deployment.

The implementation was completed in-house.

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

We have to apply patches weekly, monthly, or quarterly, depending on their purpose.

We had no concerns about using Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the cloud because both AWS and Azure supported it, and they provided support if needed.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for file transfers and changing file permissions. It is also used to check file spaces and for migration purposes. Our tools are hosted on the Linux environment, and our agent services run on it.

We use Red Hat Linux to start and stop our agent services during migration, install new agents, and transfer files. The primary benefit is that it's a widely used open-source solution with good support. Now that we've migrated from CentOS to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we will realize some benefits. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has more features.

I like Red Hat Enterprise Linux's clustering capabilities and high-level architecture. It has high availability, built-in disaster recovery, SSH features, and scripting.

The documentation is excellent. Since it was acquired by IBM, the open-source tools and technologies hosted on the Linux environment have been updated with many new features.

It would be great if Red Hat had its cloud instead of using AWS, Azure, or GCP. Red Hat Enterprise Linux should have a dedicated cloud. I would also like to see more Windows support.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux could also be more user-friendly and use AI or machine learning to automate processes. That is the most dynamic feature in the information technology industry.

I have used Red Hat for five years.

We have intermittent issues with stability, but we're hoping they will improve in the latest version.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is quite scalable. We can place a lot of agents on Linux servers, some on the cloud, and a few on-prem. It can handle the workload.

I rate Red Hat support eight out of 10. We have communicated with Red Hat support via email.

Before Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we used CentOS. Another Linux flavor I've used is Ubuntu.

The first deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux had a learning curve, but I've learned a lot since then. Once you know the process, then it's straightforward. It uses a command-based process, but if it were based on a GUI or a console, like a Windows installer, that would be a significant improvement.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux requires some housekeeping. We have to restart and patch servers weekly or biweekly and check the CPU, memory size, file size, the database used, and whether the IP network protocols are defined. All this happens monthly, weekly, or fortnightly.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux eight out of 10.

We are using the solution for automation. Mainly, we're doing a lot of automation with it. One of the projects, for example, is for ensuring payments processes on forms. We streamline and optimize the insurance claims process using OpenShift. This has enabled us to do faster claims processes and make resource utilization more efficient than it was. Everything can be done online. There are no papers involved.

It is mainly just cutting out redundant tasks. The focus was mainly driven by driving costs down and efficient resource utilization. We wanted a solution that could make deployment easy and ensure scalability.

The biggest benefit has been the automation. It affected our delivery schedule. Instead of doing something in two weeks, we do it faster. We've cut down our production time. And people are able to focus on other tasks since they're automating a lot of things. Even with our clients, when they have issues, we have created a system where they can send out a ticket. And from that ticket, we can diagnose, and it's easier to solve the issue at hand.

In terms of cost per head, we've seen a drastic drawdown from that. It is mainly optimizing a lot of our systems and resources.

The high availability is great. It's available most of the time - even when we're doing upgrades, provisioning, configuration, and patching. It made things easier for us.

The automation is great. I'm a big fan of offering convenience to people and making systems easier for people to understand and use.

There are good features, such as proactive monitoring as well. It offers predictive analytics, which helps you identify issues before they impact operations. We can foresee several problems. On top of that, this is how we can combat those problems. These types of features are really valuable when considering a company's strategy and when it comes to the impact of operations.

We are able to move workloads between different clouds or our data center using Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

The knowledge base on offer is quite extensive. We started learning from a third-party provider since we've had a lot of use cases. Maybe you are installing something, or maybe during virtualization, you have to do something, and you need more information. The Red Hat OpenShift community is quite huge. Even a resource such as YouTube has people releasing videos on common problems. Even outside of Red Hat itself, the Red Hat community is very good. The information is extensive. The knowledge base is there. There's a lot of information sharing. People do not try to gatekeep information.

When it comes to provisioning and patching, so far, we have not had a lot of issues. We currently are using a subscription model. In terms of getting security patches and updates, they support us quite well. There's a 24-hour support base and they're quite good.

I've tried the Leapp and Red Hat Insights features. It helps with proactive monitoring. It did analyze the system configurations and compares those against databases of known problems and fixes. Basically, there's a pool of data that has common issues and it analyzes how you've configured your system and then compares them. It can come back to you and say, "Hey, this is your problem. Why don't you try the solution?" It's like a good AI tool. It gives us a lot of help. It's quick. Thanks to this feature, we sometimes find that we don't really need to open a ticket for support.

We realized the benefits of using RHEL in months. We were told when we were doing the onboarding, we'd see benefits in six months. For us, it took a little over eight months. That was due to some of our internal processes that we had to do, some sign-offs, et cetera. Still, it took us less than a year. Over time, we are down 20% to 30%.

In the beginning, we didn't start on the cloud. Only now are we fully transitioning to going off-site. There are still some clients who are a little resistant to going to the cloud. It's nice to be hybrid, to accommodate both. We've done a lot of virtualization and server consolidation. So far, everything is running smoothly.

When moving workloads between different clouds or data centers, it's not that simple. There are a lot of things that you need to consider, including prerequisites and things like hardware, network, operating systems, et cetera. Once you get the hang of it, it becomes easier. However, in the beginning, it was very, very challenging. Coming from a development background, I found it easier to use command lines.

I've hit some snags doing updates or changing things for clients.

It would be nice if they improved vulnerability management. They could add more security tools and tools for provisioning.

I've used the solution for two years.

The stability is good. We don't really have any downtime. I'd rate stability nine out of ten.

We've had no issues with scalability. It's quite user-friendly.

During the implementation, we did have to open a support ticket. They assisted us effectively.

I've never tried other solutions. I know of other solutions, such as Ubuntu. However, my interactions with that solution have been minimal.

The initial setup was a little bit complex. The instructions, however, were very clear, and our deployment strategy was clear. Still, for the technicians doing it, it was complex.

The setup took about a week and a half.

I've been involved with two upgrades so far. They were challenging. There were a lot of teams involved. There needed to be a lot of migration planning. We had to use the Link Utility and we did a lot of testing first. We spent a long time verifying the applications and checking dependencies. It was quite a learning curve.

There is some maintenance needed in the form of system updates.

We did get a lot of help from RHEL. We had senior engineers guide us through the setup.

We've seen an ROI of around 30%.

When we went through IBM, it was quite expensive. Now, we are going through AWS, which is less pricey.

We started off as a partner to IBM, and IBM opened up the opportunity for us to build certifications for Red Hat through the certification program. Then we became support specialists, taking on RHEL projects. We are in the process of becoming a reseller.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. We're doing a lot of big data infrastructure and they are giving us good stability and performance.