OpenShift Room for Improvement
JK
Jan Kappert
OpenShift consultant at HCS Company
The operators need a lot of improvement, with better integrations.
What we see now is a move from traditional DevOps to GitOps. We use Argo CD for that, which provides a little more integration. It would be nice to have the same UI experience in the OpenShift console without having to log in on a third console.
View full review »One thing that can be improved but is surely difficult to improve is the cost. We have a lot of customers who would prefer a Vanilla Kubernetes solution or another solution that combines Kubernetes with some cloud provider, especially if they are already using a specific cloud provider. When we try to work with them, some customers complain about it.
Another thing is that the installation and setup process is a little bit complex, but I must admit that it has improved a lot as compared to the older version.
Autoscaling is a very unique feature, but it could be useful to have more options based on traffic statistics, for example, via Prometheus. So, there should be more ready solutions to autoscale based on specific applications.
View full review »MB
Matthias Bertschy
Senior Kubernetes Architect at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
The solution needs to support the new features in Kubernetes more quickly. For example, there are some Kubernetes features that we rely on that are not yet integrated into OpenShift, even though they have been available for six months. Another aspect that needs improvement is the console and the user interaction with the console itself.
Buyer's Guide
OpenShift
March 2024
Learn what your peers think about OpenShift. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: March 2024.
763,955 professionals have used our research since 2012.
JS
John Schiwitz
PaaS Support Engineer at a outsourcing company with 10,001+ employees
The software-defined networking part of it caused us quite a bit of heartburn. We ran into a lot of problems with the difference between on-prem and cloud, where we had to make quite a number of modifications. That heartburn meant millions of dollars for us. That was a year ago and the product has matured since then. They've since resolved it, so it's not really an issue anymore.
The storage part of it was also problematic. There were quite a few things that really hampered us. But it's much better now.
View full review »We want to see better alerting, especially in critical situations requiring immediate intervention. Until we go to the dashboard, it can be challenging to quickly recognize that there's an issue for us to deal with. Therefore, a popup of the event or a tweaked GUI to catch our attention when it's alerting would be a welcome change. Everything else is good. We don't need any additional features. From the operations perspective, as an administrator, there is nothing concerning.
Red Hat has to improve its support. They should provide quicker and better support for issues with lower severity.
View full review »AS
AbhinavSingh
Technical Marketing Engineer - Hybrid Cloud Infrastructures at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
One area for improvement is the documentation. They need to make it a little bit more user-friendly.
Also, if you compare certain features and the installation process with Rancher, Rancher is simpler.
View full review »One of the features that I've observed in Tanzu Mission Control is that I can manage multiple Kubernetes environments. For instance, one of my lines of business is using OpenShift OKD; another one wants to use Google Anthos, and somebody else wants to use VMware Tanzu. If I have to manage all these, Tanzu Mission Control is giving me the opportunity to completely manage all of my Kubernetes clusters, whereas, with OpenShift, I can only manage a particular area. I can't manage other Kubernetes clusters. I would like to have the option to manage all Kubernetes clusters with OpenShift.
I would like to have self-service capability. A lot of developers want to become independent today, and they don't want to depend on the Infra teams for managing, provisioning, etc. If we can give a self-service capability, in terms of building a particular Kubernetes cluster end-to-end, to developers, that would be a plus. That's the ask of the hour.
View full review »ES
EisaShaheen
DevOps Engineer at Nudtteo
An enhancement to consider for the future might involve incorporating a comprehensive solution for CI/CD tailored specifically for OpenShift.
View full review »SP
Srinadh Puli
VP at United Overseas Bank Limited (UOB)
My team has found some bugs in OpenShift due to continuous integration, and this is an area for improvement in the platform. RedHat should fix the bugs.
Another area for improvement in OpenShift is that upgrading clusters can be challenging, resulting in downtime.
Application support also needs improvement in OpenShift because the platform doesn't support all applications in the cloud.
I'd like upgraded storage in the next release of OpenShift, especially when I need to do a DR exercise. It would also be good if the platform allows mirroring with another cluster, or more portability in terms of moving applications to another cluster.
View full review »SR
reviewer1600287
Lead Enterprise Architect at a financial services firm with 51-200 employees
Room for improvement is around the offerings that come as a bundle with the container platform. The packaging of the platform should be done such that customers do not have to purchase additional licenses.
They should partner with Jenkins. It goes without saying that I need Jenkins for my CICD. If Jenkins comes with support, that's good. But if there is a licensed product, I need to secure that license and then I will get support.
Although the bundling with OCP is better than that offered by others, they can work more on it.
View full review »There is room for improvement regarding the secret management and the integrated vault. I want easier node management and more user-friendly scripts for installing master and worker nodes.
In addition, the configuration for addons onto OpenShift could be more straightforward; for example, if I want to integrate with a general monitoring solution.
View full review »OpenShift could be improved if it were more accessible for smaller budgets. I currently mostly use Raspberry Pi, which will be over to use Kubernetes. As a platform, I am using Raspberry Pi rather than using a very large configuration computer.
The solution requires eight or more cores of CPUs, multiplied over the number of nodes needed to make OpenShift reliable, making it susceptible to failures.
In the future, I would like to see a roadmap to have Wasm supported. If you have WebAssembly as an alternative to Docker, it would be great.
View full review »JA
Javeed Abdul
Senior System Engineer at a tech consulting company with 10,001+ employees
Latency and performance are two areas of concern in OpenShift where improvements are required.
OpenShift's scalability has scope for improvement.
OpenShift's technical support team needs to improve the support they provide to my company since the support we currently receive depends on the support package we have from the ones that OpenShift offers, like platinum, gold, or silver. OpenShift's technical support team is good, but it takes time for them to find the root cause of a particular issue. One of the clients of my company doesn't face many issues with the product, so we don't use much of the technical support. I can say that OpenShift's technical support team is okay in general.
I have experience with the product, but I don't possess a large amount of technical knowledge to comment on what functionalities need to be added to the product.
CB
reviewer2062821
Senior Manager - Cloud at a tech consulting company with 10,001+ employees
One glaring flaw is how OpenShift handles operators. Sometimes operators are forced to go into a particular namespace. When you do that, OpenShift creates an installation plan for everything in that namespace.
These operators may be completely separate from each other and have nothing to do with each other, but now they are tied at the hip. You can't upgrade one without upgrading all of them. That's a huge mistake and highly problematic. They shouldn't be linked together so that when you upgrade one, you must also upgrade the other. It doesn't make sense if they aren't related as operators.
The flexibility is nice, yet comes with great sacrifice. It's much more complicated in general. We'd like the flexibility on offer to be simplified a bit so that we don't have to do so many workarounds.
The interface could be simplified a bit more.
View full review »Some things need to be improved in the solution. Some of the storage services and integrations with third-party tools should be made possible.
I think some more things will come in, like the projects of CNCFs. I think that verified CNCF projects will be integrated into OpenShift.
SK
reviewer2021424
Tech Lead at a tech vendor with 1,001-5,000 employees
The latest 4.0 version of OpenShift disabled a few of the features we previously made use of, although this wasn't a huge deal.
There is no orchestration platform in OpenShift, but we do in Kubernetes. So, it'll be great to get an orchestration platform like Rancher or Kubernetes.
The monitoring part could be better to monitor the performance. The automation part could also be better because we had a hard time integrating our application with OCP.
PR
Pawan Ramekar
Software engineer at ACI Worldwide
The metrics in OpenShift can use improvement. There are vast metrics and if OpenShift can provide the geometric thread that would be helpful.
View full review »KA
reviewer1929324
Head of Architecture at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
We experienced issues around desktop security, which stopped us from implementing a new feature that had been developed. This needs to be improved in order to expand the usage of the product.
View full review »We need some kind of a multi-cluster management solution from the Red Hat site. With that, we have got some problems; however, right now, we can manage to run the solution without any problems.
View full review »SP
reviewer2021331
Director at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
This solution could be improved by offering best practices on standardization and additional guidance on how to use this solution.
AD
Anubhav Dhingra
Solution Architect at a manufacturing company with 11-50 employees
The product’s integration with Windows containers and other third-party products needs improvement.
View full review »OpenShift can improve monitoring. Sometimes there are issues. Additionally, the solution could benefit from protective tools if something was to happen in our network.
In a new release of OpenShift, they should add Kibana, Grafana, and Elasticsearch.
View full review »The solution encounters lengthier downtime issues for virtual upgrades. In this case, we have to opt for alternative upgrade strategies. This area needs improvement. Also, they should release its serverless version.
View full review »The tool lacks some features to make it compliant with Kubernetes.
View full review »GR
reviewer2336730
QA Lead at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
There are challenges related to additional security layers, connectivity compliance for endpoints, and integration. Additionally, it needs a little training to understand the process.
View full review »EA
EmyAbraham
Software Engineer at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
OpenShift's storage management could be better. In the next release, OpenShift should include a console for running scripts.
View full review »Buyer's Guide
OpenShift
March 2024
Learn what your peers think about OpenShift. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: March 2024.
763,955 professionals have used our research since 2012.