CentOS Reviews

CentOS is an operating system, and our applications are running on EC2 instances.

I am using the latest version, which is version 6.9. 

It's a Linux operating system, but it's compatible with cloud solutions.

This solution is used by over 1,000 clients. We don't plan on increasing usage because Red Hat announced that support has ended for CentOS.

 The open architecture is useful for us. That's why we're using CentOS. 

The main issue is the End of Support. For that reason, we will switch to another operating system.

I have used CentOS for over eight years.

The solution is stable.

It's scalable.

Installation is straightforward. Deployment takes 10 minutes with EC2. In AWS, there is nothing to install because it's ready.

I would rate this solution as five out of ten. 

Because there's an EOS, no one is willing to use CentOS anymore.

We primarily use the solution to build our applications. 

The solution is stable.

The product offers a free community-based version. You can also buy a license if you need to.

The platform already provides pretty great services. I'm not sure if it is missing any features.

The stability could always be improved.

I occasionally use the solution. 

The solution is stable and the performance is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution is scalable, however, if you would like to expand, you may need to pay for a business license. 

in terms of administration, 20 to 30 people use the solution.

I've never used technical support. If I need help, I can Google information to help troubleshoot. 

We did not previously use another operating system. 

The solution was very easy to install. The implementation process wasn't a problem at all. 

The deployment was fast. It maybe took one hour. 

I and another engineer handled the implementation together. You need two to three people to deploy the product.

We are using the community version, which is free. 

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. For the most part, it's a good solution. I'd recommend it to others.

We use CentOS an operating system if we want to install or do some processing.

The most valuable feature of CentOS is the speed and it is very easy to use.

CentOS could improve by having troubleshooting logs.

I have been using CentOS for approximately 10 years.

CentOS is stable.

The scalability of CentOS is good.

The initial setup of CentOS is easy. You can do it with basic knowledge. The full deployment took approximately three hours.

We did the implementation of CentOS in-house. We have approximately two people for the implementation and maintenance.

I rate CentOS an eight out of ten.

CentOS is mainly used for server installations and VMs.

CentOS's most valuable features are that it's cost-saving and helps to scale down your usage.

CentOS could be improved with more user-friendly monitoring.

CentOS is stable.

We use CentOS on a VM, so it's fixed usage.

I've also used Debian and Ubuntu.

The initial setup was straightforward as it's a managed service, so we just needed to spin up the VM. Deployment took around four to five months.

We used an in-house team.

I would give CentOS a rating of eight out of ten.

We use CentOS whenever we can to help bridge services or to add another layer to our infrastructure. We currently use CentOS for monitoring orientated tasks, but it has been our chosen distribution for our enterprise for a few years.

It allows us to freely use and test open-source technologies and solutions. Without it we wouldn't have a server monitoring system, log management system, or many other services that we depend on.

It has minimal updates compared to other distributions. We like the idea of long-term support. CentOS gives us a peace of mind when it comes to updates. It's also a bonus that most of our vendor supported hardware/software is built with CentOS under the hood, allowing us to stay in the Fedora ecosystem.

You're getting what you expect (a linux distro). The wizard has gotten better through the years, so maybe they could build more options into the wizard. However, we have scripts that we deploy to overcome this.

Three to six years.

I don't believe an update has broken anything in our environment. It's very stable and that's the reason CentOS was chosen.

Yes and no. In regards to the OS itself, there aren't any scalability issues. We have run into issues with other applications but that's not the fault of CentOS, rather, it is the application that would need to be revised.

We've used Ubuntu in the past for various systems and projects, and once in a while, a vendor uses it for their platform. We don't care for the more aggressive updates, and we usually don't need the most updated packages.

Straightforward. We deploy with the minimal options, and the wizard is very easy to navigate to help install it. We also have a script that we run to make this process much easier.

In-house for anything related to CentOS.

We don't track ROI.

You can pay for the support if you purchase Red Hat. We don't have the need for that just yet, and CentOS satisfies our needs when needed (assuming we can support it in-house).

When it comes to Linux, we've tried the Debian route before. Trying both Debian and Ubuntu, we settled on CentOS once we noticed that the enterprise market was going in that direction. It proved to be a wise choice.

If you had to choose a Linux distribution for enterprise grade stability, then this would be the logical choice. If you want latest features and fast deployment of updates, then you might want to take a look at Ubuntu.

Our primary use case for the solution is utilizing it as an OS in a virtualized environment. It helps us install and deploy our applications and other services accessed by other users, internally and externally. The solution is deployed on-premises.

We have found the ease of integration valuable. The solution is easy to integrate with other applications and with other services. For example, if you want to deploy something, it simplifies the integration with other applications and services.

The solution could include more integration of third-party solutions to check on the quality and vulnerabilities of the code.

We have been using the solution for approximately two years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. Approximately 1000 users are utilizing the solution.

The initial setup was straightforward, and deployment took two to four hours.

We implemented the solution in-house. Five developers are required for deployment.

The license is affordable. I rate the price a ten out of ten.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. The solution is good, but the integration can be improved, and more security features could be included in the next release.

It can be used for setting up virtual spaces and the development environment. We have CentOS VPS.

The user access level is most valuable. When you do administration with CentOS, the number of customizations that you can do for each user is higher than other solutions. It is very customizable.

Its memory consumption is much lower than any other OS.

The YUM install manager can be improved. It is below average as compared to the other install managers. This is the only major problem that I see with CentOS. They should reduce dependency on the YUM manager.

They can improve the help for features. It has so many features, but there is no help. They should provide more information and tutorials. Currently, because of the lack of knowledge or availability of resources, features are getting underutilized.

I have been using CentOS for around two years.

It is quite stable.

It is one of the top-notch products in terms of scalability. For scalability, many premium features are available.

Currently, we have around 12 to 15 users. We have plans to increase its usage.

We don't have much experience with their technical support.

Its installation was quite straightforward. There is not much in terms of the setup cost. It was quite straightforward, and it happened quite quickly. From scratch, it took around one and a half hours.

I installed it myself. For its deployment and maintenance, we don't have any technical team. We are able to manage with less than one person per month. We have a manager who manages it.

It is open-source, which means it is a free product. It has a one-time deployment cost.

I evaluated Red Hat.

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate CentOS a nine out of ten.

The solution provides stability and standardization. CentOS is fairly faithful to the Linux Standards Base, Freedesktop.org, and POSIX. Pretty much any code targeted at Linux builds and runs without any tweaking. Hardware support is extensive and diverse.

It's good to have a stable server OS that many people understand in depth. It has easier to find CentOS internal experts than Microsoft Windows internal experts, for example.

Out of the box, the NFS client is weak. It needs considerable kernel tuning before it runs NFS-bound applications efficiently. Perf "goes off a cliff" long before it should with the default settings.

The auto-mounter has been unstable, although it has been getting better recently.

We've been using CentOS 5 and 6 for seven years.

It needs a kernel tuning tool. Many settings are mysterious and require considerable forum searching.

When the NFS client becomes overloaded, due to its default queue sizes that are way too small, combined with poor scheduling algorithms, it makes the host unstable.

There were no scalability issues yet.

Red Hat service is excellent. It is definitely worth the nominal license fee for access to their knowledge base.

Red Hat service is excellent. It is definitely worth the nominal license fee for access to their knowledge base.

We were using Suse Enterprise. It was too non-standard. We often ended up fighting its mysterious "Yet Another Setup Tool" to get things installed.

The setup was straightforward, until the need for kernel tuning arose. Then we were kind of on our own.

We developed an installation image in-house and we distribute it to new hosts through a combination of PXE and Perforce sync.

The ROI is incalculable. We could not do our business without CentOS/Red Hat. It's the standard platform for most of our engineering tools.

Buy a Red Hat license. It's worth it.

We used SLES for a few years on some hosts. We considered Ubuntu LTS, Debian Stable, and FreeBSD.

FreeBSD may be a better choice for network intensive applications, if your apps will run on it.