We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

OpenShift Container Platform OverviewUNIXBusinessApplication

OpenShift Container Platform is #2 ranked solution in Container Management software. IT Central Station users give OpenShift Container Platform an average rating of 10 out of 10. OpenShift Container Platform is most commonly compared to VMware Tanzu Mission Control:OpenShift Container Platform vs VMware Tanzu Mission Control. The top industry researching this solution are professionals from a computer software company, accounting for 28% of all views.
What is OpenShift Container Platform?

Red Hat® OpenShift® offers a consistent hybrid cloud foundation for building and scaling containerized applications. Benefit from streamlined platform installation and upgrades from one of the enterprise Kubernetes leaders.

OpenShift Container Platform Buyer's Guide

Download the OpenShift Container Platform Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: November 2021

OpenShift Container Platform Customers
Edenor, BMW, Ford, Argentine Ministry of Health
OpenShift Container Platform Video

Pricing Advice

What users are saying about OpenShift Container Platform pricing:
  • "OpenShift with Red Hat support is pretty costly. We have done a comparison between AWS EKS (Elastic Kubernetes Services) which provides fully managed services from AWS. It's built on open-source-based Kubernetes clusters and it is much cheaper compared to Red Hat, but it is a little expensive compared to ECS provided by AWS."

OpenShift Container Platform Reviews

Filter by:
Filter Reviews
Industry
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Company Size
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Job Level
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Rating
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Considered
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Order by:
Loading...
  • Date
  • Highest Rating
  • Lowest Rating
  • Review Length
Search:
Showingreviews based on the current filters. Reset all filters
Chandrashekhar NR
Senior Architect at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Completely removes overhead for our developers in terms of managing orchestration of Kubernetes clusters

Pros and Cons

  • "Some of the primary features we leverage in the platform have to do with how we manage the cluster configurations, the properties, and the auto-scalability. These are the features that definitely provide value in terms of reducing overhead for the developers."
  • "With the recent trend of cloud-native, fully managed serverless services, I don't see much documentation about how a customer should move from on-prem to the cloud, or what is the best way to do a lift-and-shift. Even if you are on AWS OCP, which is self-managed infra services, and you want to use the ROSA managed services, what is the best way to achieve that migration? I don't see documentation for these kinds of use cases from Red Hat."

What is our primary use case?

As an IT service provider, we work on enterprise technologies for our customers.

We have multiple customers with multiple domains, but the majority of our experience is in the banking and telecom sectors. In banking, they're using the OpenShift platform for their microservices-based requirements, and similarly on the telecom side, they are using it for the microservices-led solutions.

We started with the on-prem deployment of OpenShift Container Platform, version 3.2. But currently, we are also helping our customers to migrate to 4.x and to cloud solutions. The plan is to move to a cloud version, strictly on AWS. We are exploring the OpenShift Container Platform cluster, and ROSA (Red Hat OpenShift Service on AWS) the latest one with the managed services. By mid-2022, we'll probably be on cloud with this.

How has it helped my organization?

OpenShift eliminates distractions so that we can focus on innovation and other things. It completely removes overhead for the developers in terms of managing the orchestration of Kubernetes container clusters. It provides all the built-in features for managing these requirements. As a result, our team is more focused on development and on innovations in the underlying services. With microservices or applications that are deployed on OpenShift, they are able to focus more with the business requirements and innovate by further optimizing efficiently, utilizing the resources at a Kubernetes level.

What is most valuable?

Some of the primary features we leverage in the platform have to do with how we manage the cluster configurations, the properties, and the auto-scalability. These are the features that definitely provide value in terms of reducing overhead for the developers.

Also the Kubernetes cluster management or orchestration is provisioned through the UI and the CLI.

We are using the Red Hat OpenStack OpenShift Platform. It is much faster in terms of deploying the cluster. As of now, our experience rolling it out is more on the on-prem, but I think with the 4.0 version there is a little bit of a change regarding the way it is deployed, either using the installer base or user-driven installations. It takes a couple of days just to roll out the entire cluster and configure it so that it is ready for the applications or the services to be deployed on the cluster.

The robustness, the availability in terms of resilience, and the service availability with the multiple cluster nodes configured automatically, is pretty good. Even if load balancing is required across multiple clusters with the SDN network, it's pretty good. We haven't had many issues when it comes to robustness. We are happy with the performance provided.

From our experience on the on-prem, we know that there are 10 layers of security provisioned by the OpenShift platform, starting from the kernel level, and including the clusters and the container level. That definitely helped us to achieve a lot of enterprise security requirements in terms of accessibility and managing the infra part or the cluster part.

For running business-critical applications, the solution's security is pretty good. We are able to achieve consistent efficiency and availability for all our critical service requirements, when spanned across multiple DCs with the load balancer and DR solutions. We don't have to spend much on it, once we orchestrate the cluster with the proper configurations. At that point, everything is taken care of automatically.

What needs improvement?

At the service level, I don't see a very granular level of security as compared with the container-based clusters. It is at the Kubernetes level, not at the service level.

Also, when I compare it with the other container or Kubernetes technologies, we have pretty good documentation from OpenShift, but with the recent trend of cloud-native, fully managed serverless services, I don't see much documentation about how a customer should move from on-prem to the cloud, or what is the best way to do a lift-and-shift. Even if you are on AWS OCP, which is self-managed infra services, and you want to use the ROSA managed services, what is the best way to achieve that migration? I don't see documentation for these kinds of use cases from Red Hat. There is some room for improvement there.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using OpenShift Container Platform, as an organization, for the last three or four years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is pretty good. The industry has been using these enterprise solutions over the long term and we haven't heard of or seen any issues with stability. Of course, it depends on the way you configure it or manage it. But given best practices, the stability is pretty good.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The solution gives us the flexibility to start with a small number of nodes and to scale it to the maximum number of nodes. As of now, we haven't gone beyond whatever the limitations are, in terms of the number of clusters or nodes, within OpenShift. We are well within the limits and are able to achieve our requirements. That aspect makes it more flexible.

Scalability is definitely one of the positives with OpenShift, where you can have a distributed cluster across multiple DCs or multiple Availability Zones with AWS. The only thing we don't see is much documentation. If we want to maintain Active-Active disaster recovery or hot and warm availability requirements, even in on-prem, how do our clusters scale across different regions or different availabilities? And how do I manage the internal cluster storage being replicated across multiple clusters? How does that work, and how do we prove it? That's another use case where, when it comes to documentation, there is a little gap.

But overall, scalability is pretty consistent and achievable with OpenShift.

How are customer service and technical support?

I'm not involved much in post-production support. Usually, it is the customer team that gets into those kinds of requirements. But what I heard from our customers is pretty good, in terms of the support provided by the Red Hat. We know that they have a very good enterprise support team and provide support fairly quickly for technical issues.

On AWS, we have seen they have OCP-dedicated infra, which is completely managed by Red Hat. Now with ROSA, where AWS and Red Hat are both managing it, we are expecting a similar kind of support from Red Hat.

Whether Red Hat acts as a partner with our customers depends on the customer. Most of our customers use Red Hat enterprise support for technical issues with OpenShift Cluster Platform. But they don't get deeply integrated with Red Hat in terms of exchanging ideas or innovating new solutions. But Red Hat is always providing its innovations and doing research into new products. That has definitely helped our customers.

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

We embarked on OpenShift as our first enterprise container technology.

There are open-source-based Kubernetes services provided by AWS and there are a number of cluster-based solutions available. But what Red Hat and OpenShift did was that they packaged all of their solutions within their platform so that it provides added features. For our finance or banking customers, adopting an open-source solution is challenging, but the enterprise-grade support from Red Hat makes it much easier for them to adopt the OpenShift cluster.

As for building our own container platform, initially we tried with Dockers, but when we compared other Kubernetes cluster technologies to OpenShift we found that OpenShift is a much better solution in terms of the features.

How was the initial setup?

With the on-prem solution, with OCP, where you have control of your infra, I feel the setup is straightforward, because you know OpenShift 4.0, or other versions, and how to install it. You have the resources and the skill sets and it is easy to just start with that part.

But ROSA is a very new approach, with the fully-managed and serverless cluster. I feel there are some gaps there because you don't have control of infra provisioning. AWS and Red Hat directly provision things once you provide the configurations. But if a customer wants to use a fully managed service with some level of customization, we don't see how we can easily achieve that.

On average, if it's a single-cluster deployment for five nodes, it may take three days to get the infra up and running. And then, to do all the configurations and get the applications deployed, it probably takes another one or two days, including the testing and readiness of the infra. So a total of about five days is the optimum timeline to get a single cluster up and running with the services deployed in it.

As we are exploring the cloud migration side of things, we definitely have a deployment plan where we use the templates, including Terraform templates, when it comes to infra and core provisioning. We then have a clusterized deployment as a basic migration approach or a phased approach. We leverage tools like the Migration Toolkit from Red Hat itself and some AWS tools which are relevant if there are challenges with agent installation and the like.

What was our ROI?

We have seen return on investment from using OpenShift. The TCO is much better, comparatively, over the course of three to five years. We have seen a reduction in infra and cluster management operational costs. These are some of the aspects where we have definitely seen a return on investment.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

OpenShift with Red Hat support is pretty costly. We have done a comparison between AWS EKS (Elastic Kubernetes Services) which provides fully managed services from AWS. It's built on open-source-based Kubernetes clusters and it is much cheaper compared to Red Hat, but it is a little expensive compared to ECS provided by AWS.

Initially, we had this interim state where we wanted to move as a lift-and-shift, meaning we wanted to move OpenShift to OpenShift. We had three choices: OpenShift Container Platform, the OpenShift dedicated platform from Red Hat itself, and ROSA with the fully managed services. For lift-and-shift, we wanted to maintain an as-is state and made a decision to go with AWS OCP, which helps us to control our infrastructure and deployment requirements, while maintaining the as-is state. Price-wise, this option is less than ROSA. In ROSA, we would need to pay the cost for the underlying AWS resources we would be using, plus a nominal cost to Red Hat for managing every cluster and every worker node.

There is no doubt about things, feature-wise. In terms of scalability, availability, stability, robustness, OpenShift stands out. It's the cost and support factors which make the decision a little difficult.

What other advice do I have?

If a customer is looking for a fully controlled or fully managed container technology, OpenShift is definitely a choice for them. But there are other services available, like AWS EKS, which come with similar kinds of services. It depends on if you need a deep-dive solution: Do you want to maintain your own infra or do you want fully managed services? And do you want to leverage other OpenShift cluster services? But OpenShift is the choice.

We don't use the full-fledged automated services for OpenShift clusters as of now, although we do use a few of the automated services. What we are using currently is sufficient and it helps us to meet a lot of audit and telemetric requirements.

In terms of using it for cloud native stacks and meeting regulatory constraints, we are still exploring that. We are currently looking at the AWS OCP and ROSA platforms. ROSA provides flexibility in terms of installations and managing the entire infra. ROSA is completely managed by automated serverless services, where you just provide the initial configurations for the kind of a cluster you need and it automatically provisions the infrastructure for you. Whereas with OCP you have control over the infrastructure and you can play with your cluster orchestrations, configurations, et cetera. In these ways, with the cloud services, we do have flexibility, but the cost factor may be a differentiator in terms of the on-prem and the cloud versions.

We definitely plan to use the CodeReady Workspaces, but we are not there yet. The idea is to move on to the AWS Workspaces.

Overall, I would rate the solution at nine out of 10. It has everything. For me, it is not a 10 because the support and the pricing costs stand out.

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
Flag as inappropriate
Awais Afzal
Digital Solution Technical Analyst at ADIB - Abu Dhabi Islamic Bank
Real User
Top 5
Can be controlled at a granular level and has good auto-scaling features

Pros and Cons

  • "The auto scalability feature, which is based on smart agendas, determined from pre-prepared rules is the most valuable feature. You can also create different routes for deployment. Deployment types can be provided with an identifier, such as an ARB deployment. This really helped in rolling out releases without disrupting services for the end-users."
  • "From a networking perspective, the routing capability can be matured further. OpenShift doesn't handle restrictions on what kind of IPs are allowed, who can access them, and who cannot access them. So it is a simple matter of just using it with adequate network access, at the network level."

What is our primary use case?

We use the solution for a financial institution, with a niche implementation. They're re-architecting their entire functions, flows, and creating microservices. They're running a security infrastructure platform as a service on OpenShift. We provide and develop services for the client. 

How has it helped my organization?

The client benefited from greatly improved Infrastructure improvements in relation to cost.
For each kind of module, there are several approaches that can be used. For example, within the transfer module, there are multiple different kinds of transfers that are associated with different aspects such as international laws, central bank laws, and regional laws. The solution has to deal with a number of metrics and compliances. They had several servers just to handle all these demands, including necessary compliance checks. Security is also very important.

OpenShift has reduced its reliance on different hardware drastically. The service takes care of any resource requirements. This is demonstrated by the processing of transactions. Normally the process that services transactions at specific times keep running, regardless, thus taking up resources. This is not beneficial when transactions only need to be processed at certain times of month such as the start of the month where the load is needed at the start of the month. The autoscale feature of OpenShift will automatically expand your service at that point. Once the monthly transactions are processed the resources are "auto-scaled" down once again. This is a very powerful feature.

What is most valuable?

The auto scalability feature, which is based on smart agendas, determined from pre-prepared rules is the most valuable feature. You can also create different routes for deployment. Deployment types can be provided with an identifier, such as an ARB deployment. This really helped in rolling out releases without disrupting services for the end-users.

Secondly, there is the ability to control at a granular level. For example, they can release two versions of the same service and control the traffic towards it to a specific percentage.  Other organizations don't seem to use this feature in the same way we did. Additional rules can be specified to determine individual versions of a service, and rules for governing users access to such services.

Marketing can also make use of OpenShift by analyzing logs to provide useable data. This is one of the features that I really like about OpenShift. It is also a secure environment, with user access configurable at a very granular level. Depending on the API and the ecosystem, it is possible to completely plug and integrate. You control how the deployment works and the testing process. 

What needs improvement?

From a networking perspective, the routing capability can be matured further. OpenShift doesn't handle restrictions on what kind of IPs are allowed, who can access them, and who cannot access them. So it is a simple matter of just using it with adequate network access, at the network level.

It should be possible to whitelist IPs so that you can allow and restrict access to the API. That would be a fantastic feature. OpenShift would then encapsulate the entire security and access. This is one improvement that I would seriously want our client to have, and for that reason, I have joined the OpenShift community, and it is a project I could probably work on myself. 

The second thing is that deployment is more of a strategy rather than a feature in OpenShift. Although you can create different routes, and it works fine, it is not an innate feature of OpenShift that it understands that you want to run specific versions of the same service as needed.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using OpenShift Container Platform for two years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It is very stable when it's running. So far, I haven't found any issues. We went through operating system upgrades. We did need to perform some patching, so there was some vulnerability and there were many tasks we had to undertake to assist with stability. In fact, we use two clusters. One of them is used for non-production purposes. It is a developer's structure and is a very stable solution.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The auto-scalability feature, which is based on smart agendas, can be determined from pre-prepared rules. You can also create different routes for deployment. Deployment types can be provided with an identifier.

This is very flexible and saves resources when you don't need them, and scales up when you do. This is a very powerful feature.

How are customer service and technical support?

We used the Redhat TAM service i.e. their exam service. They assign a technical application manager to you, and we have used that. The support is very, very responsive. They're a sponsor. They respond very quickly. What I like about them is that they have a very precise requirement. They will ask you for one single solution you require. That's it. They will come back to you and provide point pinpoint in-depth guidance into the problem that you have.
Unlike most support companies, you usually obtain a workable solution in a good time frame.

How was the initial setup?

It was very complex to setup. We had to set up Ansible, the IT automation engine. This uses playbooks. The playbooks are quite complex. It's very hard to understand and is a steep learning curve to completely understand them. 

The playbook is quite complex. If you miss out on any configuration it takes a long time to fix. This is inevitable with a huge corporation with multiple different services. You have to uninstall the whole thing, go back, fix the playbook issue, and redeploy.

The first deployment I did was with Red Hat. This took us three days to be completed. Because every time there was some configuration issue or something that was misunderstood. It's not straightforward to fix. This was in version 3.11. From 3.4 they made it easy if you are on the cloud. The installer will ask if you want OpenShift to deploy a connection to the cloud, which also creates an infrastructure for you and deploys all of it.

At the corporate level, you have security and compliance concerns to be addressed during deployment. It gets really tedious on how you're supposed to have an installer which provides guidance, asks questions, and more elaborate questions where they are needed. Then, there is the question of "labels". You have to understand what those labels actually mean, and then supply a value against that label.

There are organizations out there who are ready to go for OpenShift but are not willing to pay for that kind of service. They want the in-house capability of OpenShift deployment but that's about it. There are not many of these people in the market. They only wish to use the deployment capability but it's a bit tedious. It is however a one-off operation. You don't go about every day deploying software, so it is not worthwhile obtaining the whole solution.

What about the implementation team?

This was an in-house implementation.

What was our ROI?

Infrastructure costs reduced by 50%.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

It is a costly solution but then again, it's intended for enterprise-level business, and the license has to reflect that. We implemented the solution at a college. It is appreciated what the GPU's processing power requirements will be higher. The licensing is very flexible. The license is related to the processing power you need, and the infrastructure of any clusters which go with that. 

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We had a comparison between OpenShift and Pivotal from VM. But OpenShift is on another level to Pivotal. 

What other advice do I have?

A common mistake is to assume that the solution can change the architecture type. e.g. some people think by using this solution they can change their application architecture into a microservices architecture. OpenShift is an orchestration architecture. These types of solutions are not intended to be run as a microservices architecture. Very often, the two become confused.

As the cost of this product is expensive it should only be considered for large enterprises. There will also be a need to hire technical people, and this may also involve a training cost. 
There has to be a cost-benefit. It can be done as a single solution, but the solution itself is huge. 

You also need to make the best use of the solution. If you are processing millions of transactions, that would describe an adequate use. You need to calculate the solution costs against the work it is designed to do, otherwise, it becomes a cost overhead. Certainly, for a single application, it would be a waste of money.

I would rate OpenShift Container Platform a 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.
Learn what your peers think about OpenShift Container Platform. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: November 2021.
553,954 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Artemii Kropachev
CTO and Principal Architect at Li9 Technology Solutions
Real User
Top 5
Developer-friendly with good functionality and delivers applications to production fast

Pros and Cons

  • "Openshift is a very developer-friendly product."
  • "The solution needs to introduce open ID connect integration for role-based access control."

What is our primary use case?

The way our consultancy works is we have a number of internal products which we use, such as testing systems. We deploy our applications in scientific products and take advantage of automation. We are focusing on automation development for our customers. 

How has it helped my organization?

Previously we were using different automation methods. This product, however, is great. With OpenShift, you're able to achieve significantly higher deployments. There are more deployments per month on OpenShift. At the same time, it's all the tower application availability issues on offer that are great. Now, OpenShift follows us to make sure that all our applications are always highly available.

What is most valuable?

Openshift is a very developer-friendly product. 

The self-service allows us to deliver applications fast to production.

The functionality is quite good, even though we may only use 30% of it.

What needs improvement?

The solution has pretty good features overall. I can't recall if there are any that are lacking.

The pricing is quite high. It would be nice if they could make it more competitive.

The solution needs to introduce open ID connect integration for role-based access control.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using the solution for maybe four years at this point.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

This is a rather new product. It's only been on the market for 1.5 years, and therefore has a lot of growing to do. While the earlier versions were not as stable, we find version four to be very good and much improved.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

You can scale the solution, however, we don't have that much money and therefore we aren't really scaling it.

We have architects, engineers, DevOps, and developers on the solution. We're a pretty small company of about 50, and maybe 40 users are using Openshift internally.

How are customer service and technical support?

If anything, we would have to go to Red Hat to get technical support, however, we've been able to solve our own problems internally. Therefore, we've never really used technical support. I can't speak to their level of responsiveness or knowledge.

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

While it's completely different, we did use Ansible as a way of automation and to deploy applications, for example, on top of just using Linux and additional layers of stuff. Openshift is just a better product and more geared towards what we need.

How was the initial setup?

We started to use an Openshift a long time ago. Right now, it's difficult to say if it's straightforward or complex as every version is completely different. Once we were with Openshft version three, it was pretty easy to install. As was version four.

However, then it will be installed inside your infrastructure on the public clouds of endpoints.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The solution is very costly. However, you do get good value for the price, and therefore we're willing to pay even if the cost is high.

What other advice do I have?

We are a Red Hat partner. We're a consultancy firm.

We started using OpenShift version two, then we migrated to OpenShift's version three and now we are on a complete version four.

We tend to use all deployment models - on-premises, public and private clouds, and hybrid options.

If a company is considering the solution, I would advise that they maybe start working with some guys who have experience with the product. It will be much more work otherwise, and you can save time by avoiding POCs. 

Overall, I would rate the solution ten out of ten. Even though the pricing is high, I knew what I was getting into, and for me, for the value we get from the product, it's worth the cost.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Hybrid Cloud
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
OY
Computer Specialist at a government with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 20
Provides good security throughout the stack and software supply chain because you can update the entire environment with security patches

Pros and Cons

  • "Red Hat's security throughout the stack and software supply chain is good. It is a lightweight operating system. You don't have to worry about the security patches on the system. You can update the entire environment with security patches, which is a nice feature."
  • "It has an option to install OpenShift without connecting it to the Internet. We tried this, but it was very hard. We couldn't manage to use that option. We wanted to use it offline for installations, updates, upgrades, etc., but we didn't find the offline installation and updates easy. This could be better."

What is our primary use case?

We are using it for a payment system.

How has it helped my organization?

We run business-critical applications on OpenShift. It is very good.

Since we had limited time for our project, this solution was very helpful in getting us into production within a short time frame.

What is most valuable?

The management console is easy to use. You can easily install some components with OpenShift Operator. 

Red Hat's security throughout the stack and software supply chain is good. It is a lightweight operating system. You don't have to worry about the security patches on the system. You can update the entire environment with security patches, which is a nice feature.

What needs improvement?

It has an option to install OpenShift without connecting it to the Internet. We tried this, but it was very hard. We couldn't manage to use that option. We wanted to use it offline for installations, updates, upgrades, etc., but we didn't find the offline installation and updates easy. This could be better.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using it for two months, since December, with an important project.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I find the platform stable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It is scalable. The problem is the license.

It is used not only with our company, but with some banks.

New banks or another organization may come to use the product going forward. 

How are customer service and technical support?

We use the technical support, but not much. Some of my friends use it more in-depth. I think it is not so great, but useful. By starting at Level 1 to Level 2 to Level 3, accessing the right person sometimes takes us time.

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

We were previously using a container platform with Onsite, but we were using it for different applications, like servers.

We went with OpenShift because we knew that we already had Linux systems running on Red Hat and were getting support from Red Hat, e.g., we are using the Red Hat Enterprise Linux system.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was not complicated. It has many documents. Since we bought in a company, they had some predefined documents, which was helpful for us. 

It took two to three weeks to do the initial five online installations, then we installed three different clusters in one week.

We had a step-by-step plan that we followed to implement this solution. We installed the machine, then the images on the machine. We ran them after the cluster was up, then we installed the Operators.

What about the implementation team?

We worked with a local company during installation. Those guys did the installation. They did not have in-depth product knowledge, but they were helpful. I think the company was a partner of Red Hat.

What other advice do I have?

Take some time to understand and learn the product before starting it.

Our Red Hat products integrate well in our company. 

My company has a background with Red Hat. The people from our company had established relationships with Red Hat.

I would rate this product as an eight out of 10.

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.
Flag as inappropriate