Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is used primarily to build AWS servers. A specific example of how RHEL is used to build AWS servers involves purchasing licenses from third-party vendors like REL and also from AWS. Once an AMI is obtained from the Marketplace, the AMI is customized by injecting all organization standards.

After internal tools have been built on the AMI, that AMI is used to build AWS servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted the organization by helping track everything, such as how many users have access to the server, which is easy to monitor. RHEL also offers better options for downloading repositories easily, and the ability to stripe the EBS volumes has allowed for pulling more IOPS and throughput.

The impact on the team and organization has been significant, as it has helped improve application performance and backup performance. Since AWS backend is used for backups, RHEL striping has proven very useful.

By using RHEL striping, throughput and IOPS have increased, which reduced the backup completion time from fifteen to sixteen hours to just fifteen to sixteen minutes. The main reason is the backend and the striping implemented for EC2 instances.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers several valuable features, including being secure and standard, and making whatever commands are executed easier to manage. When security and standardization are considered, no other person can access those RHEL servers.

Another good aspect is that whatever is downloaded comes from the repository, and every command is tracked, including the person who entered the command. Tracking on RHEL AMIs and OS standardization is very effective.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps mitigate downtime and lower risks by using the Pacemaker role for high availability. The primary and secondary systems are managed by the Pacemaker role, which helps reduce downtime for applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved by including a better app stream module experience or simply phasing out modules in favor of straightforward version repos. Red Hat could also integrate more common tools directly or integrate EPEL more seamlessly. Additionally, enabling AI-based operational tuning for kernel parameters, file system parameters, and network stack optimization could enhance the experience.

Regarding needed improvements, simplifying the subscription and licensing would help reduce complexity in subscription management. Clear visibility of consumption and unused subscriptions and compliance is also important.

Seven years of experience have been accumulated in the current field.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers great scalability and supports very large memory.

The customer support received is good.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been the only solution used, and no switch from any other solution has occurred.

In comparing the business value of RHEL to other Linux distributions, no other Linux distributions have been used; only Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been utilized.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems are managed with a dedicated cloud support team that handles provisioning and monthly patching. Additionally, focus is placed on security hardening and optimizing it with cloud-init, instance tuning, and subscription activation.

Image Builder has been used, but the AMIs are not built personally. A dedicated support team handles the building of the AMIs.

A return on investment has been seen, as it has saved a tremendous amount of time.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps save time; for example, the Pacemaker role facilitates faster task completion, and it optimizes backup processes.

Regarding pricing, setup cost, and licensing, the pricing is good; however, licensing is a bit confusing.

My advice for others looking into using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is to be aware that subscriptions can be challenging to manage. When a server reboots, the subscription goes to open, which can lead to others consuming the subscription, creating a challenge regarding the subscription and licensing part.

Security requirements were a significant consideration in choosing RHEL in the cloud because it is not open source and is highly secure.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is assessed as having a better knowledge base offered through its tuning capabilities. By better tuning, the documentation is referred to, which helps in day-to-day work.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) entitlement management can be confusing, as converting systems between subscription modes is not straightforward.

I would rate this review a nine out of ten.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) basically runs the bank's apps as my main use case.

I like the feature Satellite the most because it has services to manage my multiple Linux servers.

Satellite has no parallel in the Linux distro world, especially for an enterprise, enabling me to manage my servers, patch them, create content, get them binaries, updated security updates, and all that. It makes it easier for admins and reduces the need for a lot of manpower, especially with Ansible that enables me to do configuration management of 20,000 Linux servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my organization very well as we are expanding ourselves.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped mitigate downtime and lower risk because the servers can run for more than 300 days of uptime. I do have to reboot them for patching, but otherwise, they are a very stable operating system that doesn't crash for no reason. If I experience kernel panics, it often involves EDRs or agents such as CrowdStrike, but otherwise, it's very stable with proactive features. We had issues with CrowdStrike; they identified the issue with their kernel drivers that used to crash my OS and provided a patch to address it, so they take care of us.

The implementation had challenges like whenever we bring out new products, there's always one issue: Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s documentation is not complete. I have to really have an enterprise account because I get access to their support, which sorts me out since every environment is unique. It's not a cookie cutter; I would deploy RHEL 8 in a way different compared to a retail store. So when it gets to those niche deployments, they don't have anything documented. I really have to get hold of the support, saying, "Hey, I'm trying to do this. It's not working," and then they will give me a solution, but I would expect that a document would have solved that issue without raising a ticket. That's my only complaint.

The area for improvement in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is documentation. I don't have any other suggestions. I think it's just the documentation that needs improvement. Otherwise, technically, I don't have anything to suggest.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for ten years.

I have experienced downtime or security incidents as a result of the solution when proper practices are not followed, especially if I am using any third-party security. You have to manage kernel options; otherwise, the base OS itself is very stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my organization very well as we are expanding ourselves.

I would evaluate customer service and technical support based on my experience. I felt naive about being a small enterprise versus a big enterprise, but the response time of tickets is consistent. I haven't seen a difference; I thought I would have a slower response being on a small account, but the speed of our calls is the same.

I considered other solutions before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but it was a default choice for us. I see that they have expanded; earlier, it was just a bare-metal OS and not an ecosystem, but now they are in OpenShift, providing Kubernetes and everything.

I wasn't using another solution to address my needs prior to adopting it.

The upgrade or migration is straightforward if I have applications that depend less on what the OS is, but in our case, it was not that simple. We had a business requirement, so we had to shut down the older one, provision a new one, and move everything.

I have seen ROI from using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in terms of uptime itself.

My experience with pricing, setup, and cost of the solution is that it's a service based on how many cores, not sockets.

My deployment model for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is on-premises, but I am just starting off with cloud.

For security requirements in the cloud, I don't do SELinux; I just depend on my ACLs because my servers are not internet-facing. We trust Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) with the binaries, with nothing on the base OS such as firewalls or SELinux.

I use AWS and Azure as my cloud providers.

I manage my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for security, updates, and patches with Red Hat Satellite, which makes it very easy.

I have been involved in upgrades from RHEL 6 to 7 and from 7 to 8.

My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s FIPS and security compliance features is that it's the best in the industry. They have FIPS, which I think is more for federal clients, and although I haven't used it, I know they offer it by default on their Linux.

My upgrade and migration plans are to always try to stay on the current version all the time, unless there's a legacy application. Any apps I manage are always on the latest Red Hat release, and we keep migrating them as Red Hat provides the first-ever release out, which is a requirement for our Satellite to support the latest version.

The area for improvement in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is documentation.

I would assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as paywalled, so if you don't pay for it, you wouldn't be able to access their system. The KB is pretty good, but you need to have a Red Hat account.

My advice to a company considering this solution is to go for it. It is supported by enterprise support from Red Hat, which I don't think any other enterprise can offer. While I know Canonical does it for Ubuntu, SUSE is another good option; however, the adoption is not there, and you don't have a lot of sysadmins. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a bible due to the abundance of resources in the market. I would rate this solution a 10.

The main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is to manage the database and the server.

The solution helps solve pain points for monitoring servers, for example, databases and servers.

The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the security and also the performance for scheduling and tasking for the memory.

These features benefit the organization because we have hundreds of servers, databases, and many files, and we have the ability to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I am interested in migrating to the cloud platform, so we are trying to implement that in the organization.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for five to seven years.

I have not experienced any downtime, crashes, or performance issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales well to meet the growing organizational needs.

We are looking for containerization for scalability, and it is easy to scale out and scale in.

We have expanded usage and tried manually to increase the number of servers, and we see the disk increasing exponentially, which is why we are looking for scaling.

I would evaluate customer service and technical support as quite good, since I technically get 24/7 support if I encounter issues from updates or new features.

I would assess the level of support from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) team as very informative; we learn a lot from the documentation from the Red Hat support team.

Before selecting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I considered the availability of resources and security, as we have files and a lot of data with not enough time to handle that from the internet, and distribution is mostly for security.

The experience deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was easy, as we use different methods, such as installing or using some source files by using some servers to deploy.

The most common challenges faced with the deployment are mostly enterprise related, such as resource compatibility and making automation instead of active compatibility.

The opinion on pricing and its cost-effectiveness for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it is quite good for production on-premises.

The advice I would give to other organizations is that they should mostly rely on the Linux operating system; it is quite reliable and easy to use, install, deploy, and manage, so I would advise them to use it.

I would rate this product a 10.

My main use cases include running our application in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since all our applications are based on a Red Hat server. Everything we use is Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

As SecDevOps Lead, I drove the adoption of Red Hat’s Ansible Automation Platform, which transformed our deployment process. Previously, manual scripts led to inconsistencies and delays; now, we achieve consistent, error-free deployments in under 10 minutes. Weekly RHEL patching, integrated into our CI/CD pipeline, has strengthened our security posture—critical for meeting regulatory requirements. These improvements have directly supported our business goals of agility and reliability.

A key area for improvement is the ability to apply patches without requiring a full server reboot. This would minimize downtime for mission-critical applications. I’m actively evaluating Red Hat’s live kernel patching solutions and advocating for their adoption to further enhance our uptime and operational efficiency.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for almost seven years.

I assess the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as good since I didn't see much downtime with the servers or any random problems coming up with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I would say it's good in terms of stability.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales well with the growing needs of my organization because whatever solutions we are trying, we are able to do in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). It's coming along well.

I evaluate customer service and technical support as something I'm not sure about because I didn't directly work with them.

I didn't consider any other solutions before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and I haven't used any other solution to address similar needs.

My experience with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is nice, but I didn't deploy anything from a Linux perspective. Overall, I think it's a nice experience that I have with Red Hat.

When it comes to managing my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching, it has come up well over the years. Before, I think it took a lot of time to provision a server and patch it, including securing and hardening the server. Nowadays, it's very easy. I didn't work directly, but I have provisioned.

I feel that we've seen ROI since I'm not involved in purchasing, but I can feel that it's a good ROI.

My experience with pricing, including cost and licensing, is that I'm not sure.

I haven't expanded any usage of it, apart from using Ansible and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features when it comes to simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance is that it's pretty good from what I've heard when I talk with the team, even though I'm not directly working on that.As for my upgrade and migration plans to stay current, we recently upgraded to Red Hat 8. If we want to do another Red Hat 10, it's good.Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk as it allows provisioning servers very easily. In case the servers go down, it comes up very fast as well.I assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as very good. Recently, I had a walkthrough of a trial, and it's pretty much simplified and whatever we need is there.My advice to other organizations considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is to just use it. It's easy. I gave this review a rating of 10.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for our workloads, DevOps and SRE workloads, to manage our application and CI/CD pipeline runs.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in our DevOps and SRE workloads for DevOps and CI/CD pipeline runs and also for managing our infrastructure.

We mostly use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to automate our infrastructure, and we use it to automate our image cataloging and all those things.

The best features Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers are that it is very easy to use, and the commanding is also straightforward. It's easy to install, easy to configure, and easy to manage all aspects.

When we need to install or upgrade our version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we have straightforward commands. Using the DNF command, we execute the commands. When we upgrade the OS version, it is without downtime. We can run that in minimal time.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted our organization because all of our enterprise applications run on Red Hat RHEL only, which is the enterprise version. For our application runs and application connections, we use Red Hat, which is very helpful for managing our entire application.

We have very minimal downtime, which is beneficial for us. We can improvise our application connectivity and interconnection. Everything performs exceptionally well.

As of now, there are no notable things to advise, from my understanding. As per customer interaction, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) listens, every word is counted, and it is improved. At this point, everything performs as expected.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for almost five-plus years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is always stable, and I definitely recommend choosing RHEL.

In terms of scalability, reliability, and application upgradation, I am satisfied with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

The customer support is very interactive and provides quick responses. It is very helpful for us to improve our system.

When we need to install or upgrade our version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we have straightforward commands. Using the DNF command, we execute the commands.

In terms of investment, we have saved both time and money.

In terms of hourly and weekly savings, we save almost six to seven hours per week with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). This is based on user experience, deployment, configuration, and high availability perspectives.

At the enterprise level, the pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is as expected. It's quite standard - not very high, not very low. It's appropriate because the support is provided within and depends on our SLO and SLA.

Everything is set as expected, which is quite good. We are also expecting the same kind of support from Red Hat. All aspects look good.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 9.5.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are server virtualization.

It allows us to stay more in line with our mandates.

What I value the most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are the patching capacity and the patching capacity with Ansible. The patching capacity of RHEL has improved my company significantly. It allows us to stay more in line with our mandates for our infrastructure. I assess the knowledge base offered by RHEL as fantastic.

Security requirements were a consideration when choosing the solution. We liked that the patching rules were straightforward. We've had good experiences with provisioning and patching.

It helps support risk reduction and maintain compliance. The user interface is very intuitive.

We'll be migrating more to RHEL 10. Some in our environment are still in RHEL 7.

It's helped us mitigate risk. Any time we've had to do a patch update, the patch time is minimal. The risk reduction has been significant.

The knowledge base offered by RHEL is excellent.

Even though I don't have complaints, I would like them to focus even more on what they're doing with Lightspeed and the AI assistance, so they could look more into that.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for three years.

I have never had any problems with the stability and reliability of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) platform.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points by being more scalable.

I have not yet had any experience with customer service and technical support.

We have not used another solution before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), nor are we considering another solution; we've been staying a RHEL shop.

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it's very easy to scale up with regards to patching and updating.

I really dont have much to do with the licensing aspects.

The advice I would give to other companies considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is to seriously look into it and really not be too stuck or hung up on one single platform, and explore your options.

I rate RHEL a nine out of ten.

I am the backend support for RHEL. We develop the stage for the application user.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has benefited my company greatly because it is open source, making it very helpful to adopt.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points because every script and everything in RHEL is very human-friendly. We can automate processes, make changes according to our needs, edit files, add directories, and implement any modifications. Even in the RPMs, we can make changes according to our application needs, which is very helpful for us.

One of the features I appreciate most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is its user-friendly interface. We have been using it continuously for this reason. As they are automating processes and introducing new methods, especially in RHEL 9, I thoroughly enjoy using the platform.

The GUI mode of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) needs to be improved compared to the CLI mode.

I started using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at the beginning of my career. I have worked with RHEL versions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9. We will begin using RHEL 10 very soon.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has not helped me to mitigate downtime and lower risks.

I have experience with customer service and technical support from Red Hat. When we encounter issues, we open a ticket with Red Hat, and they provide very good solutions.

When it comes to provisioning and patching Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems in our environment, we use Red Hat Satellite to carve out the image. We build our own image from Red Hat Satellite.

I have been involved in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) upgrades and migrations from on-premises to the cloud. The migration process was straightforward without any difficulties. We performed both hot migration and cold migration successfully.

Reliability is key with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and the backend support from Red Hat is awesome. It is much easier to develop our own environment through Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) compared to other platforms such as Windows or Ubuntu. It is very human-friendly and easy to manage.

My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security for simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance is that, compared to other vendors such as Ubuntu and Debian, Red Hat is more familiar with these aspects. We love to use RHEL.

Overall, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a ten.