External reviews are not included in the AWS star rating for the product.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the underlying licensing system that our third-party tool uses. It offers convenience. We can open a case when we want to escalate anything.
The tool's insights included with licensing is good. Security patching is also a good feature for us.
I don't like the UI changes that come with different versions.
The tool's support is good. Sometimes, support comes from India. I try to wait and ensure remote support is from the US so that it fits the timeline.
Positive
The product's deployment is straightforward.
We are a big data shop that has around 700-800 nodes.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux Leapp was very helpful. It is very easy to use.
Our servers run for 500 days, and we reboot them every 600 days.
I search through Red Hat Enterprise Linux's knowledge base daily.
We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 since the third-party tool is compatible with it.
We use satellites for the operating system and Ansible to do the configuration.
I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a nine out of ten.
We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to host website content.
The tool's most valuable features are stability and maturity. Linux offers cost efficiency. Red Hat comes at the top of other Linux vendors. I am very satisfied with Red Hat Enterprise Linux's maturity.
We had issues migrating from the old to the new Red Hat Enterprise Linux version in the virtual environment. It forced us to spin up a new virtual environment to have the new Red Hat Enterprise Linux version.
I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for over 15 years.
My experience with Red Hat's support team is positive. They are a lot better than our cloud CMS vendor.
Positive
We used Sun Microsystems and Unix on on-prem.
The product supports our hybrid cloud strategy well.
We move workloads between different clouds and data sandboxes.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux's knowledge base is quite extensive. It is free, which helps us to advocate the product. I would like it to continue and rate it positive.
The Red Hat Enterprise Linux web console was helpful and offered visibility through dashboards. It helped us see what was going on with our system.
I rate it a nine out of ten.
We have general use cases.
It's a well-supported OS. I don't know what we'd use if we didn't have it.
Moreover, the last time I had an issue flagged with the vulnerability, I was able to go to the Red Hat website and find a patch. It worked pretty well.
The built-in security worked well when it came to solidifying risk production and maintaining compliance. The uptime or security of our systems has been pretty solid.
It helps us maintain our security standards and keeps us up to date on security.
One of the most valuable features is the package manager because it makes it easier to keep everything up to date.
The package compatibility between different releases is a little confusing sometimes.
I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for 10 years.
We've also used Ubuntu.
It's a matter of certain servers that need to be kept secure, so we chose Red Hat.
When I order a server in our organization, it comes installed, and then they spin it up.
I am involved in the upgrade processes. The upgrades weren't complex but required some downtime. We don't normally upgrade until a particular OS version becomes end-of-life and the new one starts.
Our in-house IT department did the deployment. We have a separate IT department that leverages the training provided by Red Hat.
Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten because most of the information I need I could find on the Red Hat website.
All our infrastructure uses Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Every service we run is all Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Even containerization is on it.
It has improved our organization. It has standardized processes. Everyone uses it.
The upgrades are straightforward which helps when you want to move a major version of an upgrade. It's done in a standard way.
Everything we do is all Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Red Hat Enterprise Linux's security has been good because I have never seen any application going down due to security reasons.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux enables us to achieve security standard certification. For example, we have a very tightly SCC-regulated company so there are many rules that we are to follow and we are able to achieve this using Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
I have been using it for six years.
We are all on-prem, but we also have some footprints in AWS but those images are also on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux has supported our hybrid cloud strategy. We have a few things running on AWS. We have a few things on OpenShift. We are able to get all the basic images. It is easy to start and deploy anywhere.
One thing I like is the updates because when we patch it and upgrade it, we save a lot of time doing those upgrades and migrations.
Moreover, upgrades or migration to Red Hat Enterprise Linux have been straightforward in some ways. For example, we are currently migrating to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 and we have all our servers running on RHEL 7. We have scripts that are very easy to migrate.
For our implementation strategy, we go environment by environment. We start with our development environment. Once we are done with it, we test it. We have some automation test suites, test them, and we go to the upper environment.
We worked directly with Red Hat for the deployment. We are already working on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 migration. Every year, whenever there is a major version release, we migrate to the major version.
We see a return on investment in terms of saving time. One thing I like is the updates because when we patch it and upgrade it, we save a lot of time doing those upgrades and migrations.
Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.
All of our application services, application databases, and web services run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Everything is on there.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux is certainly more secure than AIX, which is what we had. It's also better than Solaris. It has improved from that perspective. We can handle the vulnerabilities better. It's more secure.
Other than that, some of the products that we are using, we are migrating out of very costly license items. For example, we're using Fusion because we wanted to migrate, and then we started using Vision Manager. We did a POC a few years ago. We started using PAM because we wanted an engine in our workflow management system from that perspective.
We are still exploring a lot of items, but it's been a decent journey. It has helped to set up modern technologies.
We use a lot of Red Hat products. We use Red Hat PAM, Red Hat Session Manager, and the operating system.
We use the operating system the most because all our servers are on it.
The support is good. Red Hat provides use with a degree of training.
The adoption was slightly slow because the knowledge in the market is slightly less available. It's hard to find resources to actually support the product.
Some kind of training that can upskill the resource into this technology could certainly help.
I started using Red Hat Enterprise Linux version 6 in 2019. We have our own data center.
We used different solutions. We moved from AIX 7.1 to RHEL 6. Then we moved to 7. Now we're going to 8.
We chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux because we wanted to adopt newer technologies and we wanted to secure our systems. Red Hat Enterprise Linux was a good available option.
It's on-prem right now. The deployment was straightforward.
I manage the infrastructure team so all of these things are under my purview.
We did hit some hiccups, but then RHEL's emergency support was available, and we were able to resolve it.
We have an engineering team that analyzes different products. During the analysis phase, we look for all vulnerabilities.
Once it passes all of those things, it becomes available in our internal protocol. We have different names where it becomes available in our source space to get deployed.
Migrations and upgrades have been straightforward. For example, OpenSSL has different versions that are not supported on RHEL 7, which we have right now. There is a version that comes built-in.
We faced some issues, but we worked it out with Red Hat. They gave us a patch.
We're moving to RHEL 8 now. We moved to RHEL 7 last year; we're going to RHEL 8 now. Next year, in 2024, we plan to move to RHEL 8.
We saw a return on investment. It is helping the business.
The pricing is competitive. It's not low, but it is in the market.
Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.
Our primary use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux is to set up and manage servers for various application teams, especially those dealing with hospital ADT applications. These applications handle critical data related to patient admissions and management within healthcare facilities.
While configuring Red Hat Enterprise Linux and its associated tools can be complex and sometimes frustrating, I have found that leveraging the support and resources provided by Red Hat is invaluable. Through collaboration with Red Hat's support team and a better understanding of the intricacies involved, we have significantly improved the speed and efficiency of managing our extensive infrastructure, making the process smoother and more manageable than before.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux has improved our system's security.
While measuring uptime is important, what matters most to us is improving the value and efficiency of patch and reboot cycles. Red Hat Enterprise Linux's tools, including Satellite and Ansible, provide valuable visibility and transparency regarding vulnerabilities, packages, and infected systems, helping enhance security and patch management.
The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the Ansible Automation Platform, closely followed by Satellite. These two tools are integral to our environment.
Satellite helps with provisioning, managing metadata, and licensing, while Ansible ensures uniform setup across our extensive environment, making the management of our infrastructure much smoother and more efficient.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux could be improved in several ways, especially regarding transparency and communication of new features. Enhancements could include better documentation and quick reference materials for various user groups, including developers, system administrators, etc.
Additionally, there could be improved visibility for new and improved commands within Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Many users still rely on outdated commands when newer, more efficient alternatives are available. Providing frequent updates and maintenance for resources like the admin blog would help improve communication and transparency regarding Red Hat Enterprise Linux's capabilities and features.
I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for 11 years.
I would rate the support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux an eight out of ten. There has been a noticeable improvement in their support, particularly after their acquisition by IBM.
Positive
The deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux was initially complex because we were not aware of all the available tools to streamline the process. We had to learn, but now we are more proficient.
Tasks that once took a month can now be completed in a week. We worked directly with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, without an integrated reseller or consultant.
We have seen a return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. By transitioning applications to the Red Hat Linux platform, we have been able to reduce our data center footprint and associated costs, such as electricity. This cost savings in other areas has been a clear benefit of using Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Our upgrade and migration plans are focused on a balance between stability and staying current with the latest and most secure versions of Red Hat.
While there is a desire to be on the cutting edge, we must consider what is currently in use by our clinicians and staff who rely on our hospital systems. We aim to strike a balance between these factors and leverage a sandbox environment to test the latest versions before deploying them in our production environment.
We have been thoroughly impressed with Red Hat Insights and are currently in the process of exploring Leapp, which has shown great results in our evaluations. The web console has been invaluable for us, particularly when collaborating with application custodians who may not be familiar with the command line interface.
We use Ansible for managing our Red Hat Enterprise Linux systems for provisioning and patching, which has improved visibility and reduced issues compared to third-party solutions. Overall, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux as a nine out of ten.
The SAP solution subscriptions have made things a lot easier because it's a standard build.
The solutions were premium and standard, which were not the same. They've combined those into just one standard version. Only the support hours are different. That is fantastic for us. It makes life easier.
For the standard subscriptions, in the past, updating the OS could increase your downtime. With the production ones, it did not. It got our non-production and production out of sync. Now, they've combined that all into one. It's just the support hours that are different. They're fantastic.
We use the SAP solution subscriptions only for SAP, which are great.
We also use Ansible. Ansible is a wonderful tool for automation. We use it to automate our patching. We use Ansible to get playbooks to take care of anything that's manual.
We were able to achieve our security standard certifications.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux has affected our HA systems in a negative way. We're working through some of those issues.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 came up with a new feature that's like a MOM API in our cluster. It goes out into the AWS side and it needs to be adjusted. It does a retry that causes a cluster to failover pretty quickly, so we turned that feature off. That's something that could be improved.
I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for a long time. It has been at least 10 to 15 years.
Support has been great. We get the right people for what we need.
Positive
The patching has been good, but we scan with Qualys all the time. It comes up with thousands of EIDs all the time, but putting on the patches seems to resolve that.
We're operating right now from 7.9 to 8.6. We have to go with the supported versions. We did qualify for RHEL 9.
We used Unix in the past. We did have to come up with the SAP side. It was always Unix.
Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.
We are currently in the midst of a POC phase with a standalone cluster. This cluster consists of both coordinator and worker nodes, with a metadata store for storing various metadata. The entire setup is deployed on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8, and we have established a connection to the OpenShift UI.
While using it, we encountered far fewer complexities, and the entire process is much smoother and streamlined. For patching purposes, we simply need to communicate with our system administrator. They take care of the patching process, so we don't have to get involved and we can easily connect to the artifact repository and download the necessary artifacts to install in our system.
We have a set of JSON files containing YAML configurations where all the required image details are documented and this setup makes it very straightforward for us.As for the Web Console, if you're talking about the user interface for tasks like creating ports, deploying applications, managing secrets, and other functions, I haven't encountered any significant issues.
The process is generally straightforward and quick, taking just a few minutes. OpenShift offers two types of interfaces: one where you can edit YAML files for more advanced customization, and the other where you can use forms for faster deployment, though with fewer features.
Continuous improvement is essential to enhance user experiences and address evolving needs.
I have been working with it for approximately six months.
Our experience with its customer support is very good. Whenever we encounter any issues, we receive prompt and comprehensive assistance. There's no need to wait or take any additional steps to get the help we require, which is highly appreciated. I would rate it nine out of ten.
Positive
In the past, our work primarily involved Hadoop, and we also dealt with Solid Cloud for security and other purposes, but we found that this setup was slow and not open source. On the other hand, the DLP solution we're currently using is not only cost-effective but also significantly faster.
I also used a Linux browser, specifically the KCL browser which required me to go through the process of installing packages and various components, while in the current setup, everything is seamlessly connected. We simply use the OC command with a private key to connect to OpenShift. There are no extra or additional steps required, making the whole process exceptionally fast and efficient. It's quite remarkable and makes the workflow truly hassle-free.
The initial setup was easy.
The deployment process is straightforward. I simply had to deploy the images using OC commands, and the process of connecting to OpenShift was remarkably fast and smooth.
Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.
Our use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux is for production applications.
We are a Managed Service Provider. Red Hat Enterprise Linux enables us not to be worried about vulnerabilities, security, and patching.
The most valuable features are the subscriptions and upgrades.
We need to have more flexibility on the developed versions. Not everybody is ready to subscribe to enterprise versions. They would like to test the tool without subscriptions.
We chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux because of its security.
We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux with AWS. We started our practice with AWS, and most customers use it instead of GCP or Azure. We use the product in a hybrid environment, mostly when shifting the containers or existing workloads from legacy systems.
Most of the customers use Red Hat Enterprise Linux because it is the only approved OS. The tool's knowledge base is good but is limited to subscriptions.
The upgrade migration is straightforward. For the initial projects, we used to execute CLI scripts. We plan to upgrade the system if everything works well in the lower environment.
I have used the image builder feature. I rate the overall product a nine out of ten.
We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for VMs and physical servers.
The containerized platform will help us use ROSA.
The tool's most valuable feature is OpenShift. We plan to move all our applications to microservices. The container platform is integrated into one.
I opened a few cases, and the tool's support responded quickly.
Positive
Deployment is simple if you have been using the solution for a long time. However, it can be complex if you are new to it.
We use RHEL 7 and RHEL 8 on on-premises. RHEL 8 is on the AWS. There is a security policy like CIS when deploying the solution. You can embed it on the image. I am not sure if there is HIPAA compliance yet.
Migration from RHEL 8 to RHEL 9 is easy. Upgrade depends on the application that is running on each instance. You need to check if it is compatible with the kernel. We need to plan things before migrating to the latest version. We need to stay current to ensure compliance. We plan to move from RHEL 7 to RHEL 9 and use RHEL 8 and RHEL 9.
We use Red Hat insights but do not utilize them. It helps with the remediation. I use Image Builder to build AWS and GCP images. I haven't deployed them.
I rate the product a nine out of ten.