Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure Review

Stable and scalable with good automation capabilities


What is our primary use case?

We use the solution as a part of our in-house use in our R&D department. We use it mainly as a desktop as a service.

What is most valuable?

The most useful feature is the solution's automation in terms of how we are able to spin up a certain workload in real-time when we are doing R&D.

What needs improvement?

The licensing policy needs to be improved. They have a licensing policy based on the number of CPU sockets. Nowadays what has happened is that the license they are trying to move is based on the number of CPU cores. With the advancement in technology there are now more cores in a single CPU. It's been very challenging in terms of managing the license around everything. Today we have a processor with 24 and 32 cores on the same physical CPU.

I would like to see the inter-operative ability of different hyper-converged platforms. For example, Nutanix came out with a VM platform where you would be able to manage a couple of workloads on the cloud as well. I would like to see the same from Red Hat where users could not only manage direct hyper-convergence from their end but at the same time have a couple of workloads on AWS, Azure, and/or Google. 

Seamless migration of one workload to another would be ideal.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using the solution for a couple of years. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability of the solution is good. We haven't experienced any bugs or glitches. We've been satisfied so far.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability of the solution is good. We can scale up to a 32 or 64 load.

We have about 800 to 1,000 people in R&D using the solution. Mostly they are architects, programmers and virtualization engineers.

How are customer service and technical support?

We often use technical support. We've been satisfied with their responses and their turnaround times.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We also use Zero Stack, which is an open stack platform. Zero Stack is a very simplified version of Red Hat. In Red Hat, you get a wider variety of choice and the stability is superior.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is straightforward.

We had a very small cluster for the hyper-converged, so it took a few days to a week to deploy. We only had three or four nodes, and that was it. For us, it was quite simple.

What about the implementation team?

We handled the implementation ourselves with the assistance of three experts within our organization.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We evaluated Zero Stack as well and we ultimately ended up using both in our organization.

We were using an app as well, which is built on OpenStack, so it was a cloud hyper-converged solution. However, we saw there were certain challenges in terms of scalability and that was an issue so we moved to Zero Stack, and then finally to the Red Hat. Zero Stack a year back got acquired or they closed down. Ultimately, all the staff left in December of 2018. We found it a huge challenge because we no longer had support, so we moved to the Red Hat almost a year later.

What other advice do I have?

I have been using Red Hat and there is a small hyper-converged solution called Zero Stack which I also use.

We're in discussions with Red Hat in India to have some sort of enterprise agreement with them in the future.

I'd recommend Red Hat to others. I'd rate it nine out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
**Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Add a Comment
Guest