Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for deploying servers to install Oracle Databases.

The performance that we get is very satisfactory. Usually, when you compare the results against previous databases that were run, you realize, "Oh, this is really good." But the performance depends on the hardware you put it on. If you put it on a very powerful server, the performance will be better. If you put Linux on a server that is not powerful, the performance will not be there.

All of its features are valuable. It's very good when it comes to building with a sense of assurance and for ensuring availability across different infrastructures.

Because most databases run on Linux, that's what makes this solution so important. If you install a Unix system and want to use a database, you won't have trouble finding a database to run on it. But if you are using Windows, other than using a Microsoft database, you're likely going to have problems. For example, if you want to run Oracle Database on Windows, it could be problematic. Linux, on the other hand, is wide open. People use it for development and that's why we have chosen to use it.

Also, it's great to have IP tables for firewalls in open source. That's the way things are supposed to be going. When you create a file system they ask you if you would like to encrypt the data, and that's great for securing things. 

If you download Oracle Linux, it is very easy. And when it comes to updating Oracle Linux, it does not require subscribing to the repo to do the update. When you install Oracle Linux, the repo directory contains all the files needed to run a DNS or VM update. Whereas with Red Hat, if you download the ISO and do the installation, once you finish, they force you to subscribe to their environment to do VM updates.

I understand that Red Hat would like statistics on how many people are implementing certain kinds of servers, so they force them to create an account. I agree that, when first downloading it, it makes sense that I have to provide my information. But when I want to update, it shouldn't be necessary.

Sometimes, I'm just doing a proof of concept and once I'm finished, the server is gone. In that situation, Oracle Linux doesn't ask me to subscribe for that server, because they don't need to know. The server may only be there for a second and, once I finish, I delete it. If Red Hat would remove that requirement, that would be great. If I want to download the OS, I understand that they need to know who I am, but they don't need to know that information when I'm building a server, unless it is a production server. If it's not a production server, they shouldn't force people to register.

Also, it can be difficult to find the RPMs I'm looking for. For example, if you want to recognize a Windows file system in Red Hat, you have to download a package outside of Red Hat. I searched on Google and found the RPM, but I struggled to find it. Once I put it in, everything worked fine. When Red Hat doesn't have something, and others develop it as open source, they should include that RPM in Red Hat's repo so it's not a struggle to find it.

I have been using Red Hat products for more than 20 years.

The product is very good. Very mature.

We intend to increase our use of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We are using it more for new stuff.

I barely call Red Hat when I run into problems. I Google them and find out the solution and move forward. You can find fixes for most of the issues online.

Positive

I also use Oracle Linux which is the same as Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Everywhere that I deploy Oracle Linux, if I deploy Red Hat it works fine.

I was involved in the initial testing. We tested it until we could make it work fine and then we provided documentation for the people who would put it into production. But we only did the testing. We work on how it is deployed and document any problems we run into and how to fix them.

The ease or difficulty of the setup will depend on a number of things. 

The solution is self-explanatory. Most applications run on Red Hat Linux and related products.

I use Red Hat to run applications like Apache, MySQL databases, etc. It is suitable for data storage and firewall. I can also measure performance with the SAR tools and do all I need with the Linux stack. I run several server farms, community applications, and more. Multiple teams use it. We have a hybrid setup, but we try to keep the use cases separate for each, so they're not transiting that much.

RHEL has made it easier to create, view, and update pools. We spin up a new one when necessary. We can quickly bring one down and move the traffic over, and it's a lot simpler to keep, update, and manage our application.

The solution has helped us achieve security standard certifications. Having the reporting on Ansible and other management components helps. We have a dashboard we can use and a blueprint to assist with the container. RHEL's toolkit helps us see which versions are running, so we can keep it lightweight. Also, having a newer base image ensures we have a standard. We always get what we're expecting. 

It helps us centralize development and move DevOps forward. They have a lot of support from multiple providers. I like having that standard. It makes it more straightforward for our developers to do troubleshooting here and there. The pipeline and support from the Red Hat team made a difference.

Red Hat support is pretty good. They're online, so you can look up things once you have support. Their AB integration has improved. It's easy to manage storage for moving, syncing LBM, etc.  

Red Hat excels at built-in security. There are lots of new security features in terms of profiles, email, using satellite, and disabling root login. They've got modules and built-in Ansible features. You can customize how it remediates, and Ansible will tell you what's out of compliance as you add rules.

Their container platforms are among the easiest to manage. Once you're done pre-testing, it is easy to migrate after you deploy in a sandbox. They have their inbox IDE and the like. 

I also think it's great that you can use one payment management system if it works correctly. You can see your overall footprint from both sides together on one screen.

I would like Insight to include some features from OpenSCAP, which they offer for compliance services. I played with it a little bit, but haven't gotten the updated setup to get that. It creates excellent documentation.

I have been using RHEL for 10 to 15 years.

RHEL is one of the more stable Linux platforms. 

RHEL is pretty scalable and easily rentable.

I rate RHEL support a nine out of ten. We can do captures to easily show them the issues we're having, and their response times are above average.

Positive

We had some smaller setups with this where we had some room for development, but now we're trying to standardize everything using smaller footprints, and not having to manage more workspace stuff. Now we're pretty much in RHEL and working on that.

RHEL was already there when I joined the organization, so I inherited it. In terms of maintenance, we try to keep it up to date. 

RHEL's price seems to be consistently changing, depending on what you're after. We might need a more extended license to lock in a price if it keeps changing. It would be nicer if it stayed steady within a specific range, but it's negotiable. We try to negotiate, and maybe a more extended contract would be better. 

When comparing to other solutions, you must consider the reporting and security features. It's an expense that we need to pay in terms of compliance. When you talk with your partner companies or potential customers, they need to know that we're on the ball and keeping up.

We have considered other solutions, but we see the added value from Red Hat, and there are many more features, so we must have support. I'd say we didn't do too much evaluation. We liked Red Hat from the get-go because they've got backing from IBM now. Also, they have started their own server- or container-oriented stuff. It helps to consider if we'll ever work with just Red Hat on AWS, given the ease of spinning things up.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a nine out of ten overall. I don't think RHEL is exactly perfect, but it's a trusted, easy and well-supported solution. They are constantly improving and trying to make it easier. 

We use it for core infrastructure services, like package mirrors, configuration management hosts, and proxy requests going to the Internet or as reverse proxies in front of our applications. Our campus management software is delivered via RHEL and applications like Wikis learning platforms.

Almost all machines are running on virtualization. Only a few bare-metal systems exist today. Currently, we are not engaged in any kind of public or hybrid cloud environment.

One of the most important features is the package manager. It provides the ability to very easily roll back transactions when something has gone wrong. It is an easy-to-use tool that helps me in situations where something unexpected has happened. I found that this was one of the solution's major advantages over other distributions.

Another point that I really like is the ecosystem around RHEL. Red Hat provides security and bug-fix Erratas for every single update out there. Thus, I have a lot of pretty sophisticated information so I can inform myself about what an update is for, what could happen when I install it, or what would happen if I don't install it. The value added by the information Red Hat provides for its distribution is pretty good.

RHEL provides features that help speed deployment. We use Ansible in our environment, which is the free version that is usable with a RHEL subscription. It is pretty easy to set up a baseline configuration for each system as well as deploying our applications and configuring them.

Ansible and RHEL integrate pretty well. You see pretty quickly that Red Hat has a huge engagement in RHEL as well as in Ansible. They work very well together. This integrated approach decreases the time that we need to set up configuration jobs. It helps us to have faster deployments as well as make configuration changes faster and more secure. It is a tool for everyday use.

We use the solutions AppStream repository at some points. Compared to earlier versions of RHEL, we like that it is now easier to use the newer versions of run times, e.g., Python. 

We use RHEL to run multiple versions of the same application or database on a specific operating system. For example, we run several versions of the MediaWiki platform on the same system. We usually have one version of a database management system per host. If we need another version, we deploy it on another host.

RHEL's feature for managing multiple versions of packages is getting better. In earlier versions, when I think about the Red Hat software collections, it was sometimes pretty hard to set them up and use them on a daily basis. With AppStreams, it got easier. What could still be improved is the lifecycle information about AppStream versions. Usually, when doing a major release, I have 10 years of support divided in different support phases, but a lot of applications from the AppStream repository have a completely different lifecycle so you need to check it separately. For example, a certain node.js version will be at the end of support in 10 months. I must make a note to update to a new version before it reaches the end of support. It would be awesome if the end of support date of the application streams would follow a stricter lifecycle with aligning end dates.

The Authselect tool needs improvement. This tool is used to connect your system to an identity provider or directory service, e.g., openLDAP. There is documentation and descriptions. While there are a few use cases and examples described, it is sometimes hard to use these tools to set up the configuration that we need for our specific environment. I would like it if there was more general information about the tool, not just describing a use case. For example, here is how to do it and how to connect to some kind of openLDAP service as well as more information about when you need to configure certificate services and mutual authentication. There is room for improvement, but it is more room for improvement in the documentation area than the RHEL system itself.

We have been using RHEL since 2016. 

The stability is awesome because we have had only a few issues in operations. Once it is set up, tested, and ready for production, it just runs. For the usual maintenance tasks, like updating the system and making configuration changes, there are almost no disruptions or issues in our environment.

The availability is great. We usually don't have big issues in our day-to-day operations.

When it comes to increasing memory, CPU count, or deploying more RHEL instances, the scalability is good. We don't have any issues. However, I would guess it would be the same with another distribution.

I would rate Red Hat's technical support for RHEL very differently. It depends on the area that you are looking for support. For example, when I have an issue with a RHEL core platform, there are a lot of good support engineers available to help with my issue. There have been phases where one could get the idea that they are short on staff with Ansible experience, but it is now getting better again. However, the average experience and response times are good. Their responses are also good. When you have a difficult case, they are able to escalate it quickly. Therefore, you get an engineer with the appropriate background to help solve your issue. I would rate the technical support as a solid eight out of 10.

Positive

I was part of a working group who decided which major enterprise distributions we would introduce into our organization. Before 2016, we only used a very small number of Linux installations and different distributions. As an outcome of this working group, we decided to use RHEL and have used it since as the only distribution in our data center. We migrated from other distributions, such as SUSE Linux Enterprise or openSUSE, to RHEL.

While all distributions share a Linux kernel, there are differences in how to manage the distribution itself. A very important part is the package management. When you have to deal with tasks like updating packages, downgrading packages, and repairing damaged package databases, you want to have one package management tool that you know very well, not three different package managers where you only know the basics. To ease the management of multiple hosts, we decided to migrate to only one distribution. We hoped that we would have an advantage in consolidation. 

The complexity of the initial setup will depend on the requirements of your organization. Generally, I find it pretty straightforward. There is good documentation for it. The installer works great. I haven't had any issues.

There are special academic offerings for academic institutes, which is pretty good. We need these offerings. In my personal opinion, the prices are okay. However, for educational purposes, they could be lower. For example, in Germany, the budget in the education sector for IT is lower compared to the huge universities in the US.

When you are only using the RHEL subscription system, it is okay. It can get complicated very quickly when you need multiple different subscriptions with a lot of SKUs. 

When someone is going to look into RHEL, I suggest starting with an individual developer subscription, which everyone can get for free. With developer subscriptions, you won't be able to contact support, but you have almost all of the important applications and features of RHEL for free. You are not allowed to build your whole production on it, but you are able to develop applications, test configurations, test the platform, and try out almost everything.

In our IT environment, we were running Solaris and Microsoft Windows. It was decided that we wanted to move away from Solaris to some Linux distributions. In the process, we looked at distributions, like RHEL, Oracle Linux, Debian, SLES, and Ubuntu. We looked at all of these points: 

• What are the management tools? 
• How does it look in the ecosystem? 
• How many packages are available and the distribution repositories? 

We created huge metrics to score all these different points. There were over 200 points to score for the different distributions. In the end, RHEL was our winner.

Red Hat’s open-source approach was an important factor when choosing this solution. For example, let's say I won't use OpenStack from Red Hat anymore. There are other OpenStack distributors out there who know the application and can help us in the migration process. It is the same with the platform. At the core, the Linux distributions are pretty similar. We believe it would be easier to move to other solutions from other vendors compared to operating systems or software from proprietary vendors.

We have plans to increase usage. Every new application that supports running on Solaris or Linux is going to be deployed on RHEL these days. I hope it will be our major operating system in the data center. So, in the foreseeable future, there would only be two operating systems: RHEL and Microsoft Windows.

I would rate this solution as nine out of 10.

Our use case is mostly for application servers. We are not really using it for any of our file servers. We have a storage department who usually just deals with NAS and things like that. However, this solution is primarily for application servers.

The biggest benefit is from a security standpoint. As the product progresses and they come up with new versions, the new security features are addressing vulnerabilities. From that perspective, it has worked well.

We use Red Hat Satellite. The integration between Satellite and RHEL works well. Satellite is mostly used to manage the repositories from a secure standpoint. We also use IBM, which is for identity management and user access, and that also works well. From an operational standpoint, it works great. We are able to manage user access with IBM, and there has not been an issue. We make role and user groups as well as host groups so different groups have access to different servers, for whichever servers are in different host groups. For example, the database team may have a user group who has access to all the database servers listed in a host group. So, the access works well.

The best feature is its dependability. We have had some situations where some RHEL servers have been up and running for five years. So, it provides reliability and dependability. It stays up.

It provides flexibility for us to come up with solutions to speed up deployment, which is great. It allows us to use it in different environments and works well with different applications. For our virtualization platform, we will just probably deploy through VMware. We are able to script and code all of the hardening procedures. If we wanted certain applications installed for deploying images, it just gives us the flexibility.

The deployment and management interfaces for non-Linux users and Linux beginners are pretty robust. It works pretty well. I know the servers themselves have a UI that is a management front-end, where you can basically do everything using the UI rather than doing anything with the command line. That is definitely good for non-Linux users and Linux beginners.

The consistency of application and user experience, regardless of the underlying infrastructure, is great. It works well. The more that they add to make it a little simpler to work with the tools and applications that they provide, the better.

The solution enables me to deploy current applications and emerging workloads across bare-metal, virtualized, hybrid cloud, and multi-cloud environments. If it was a scale of one to 10, 10 being the best, I would say nine because there is always room for improvement. It is definitely up there as far as its reliability.

In the past and with older versions, you couldn't expand the root file system without rebooting the server or restarting the operating system. That is something that they have actually corrected now, which is great. They corrected that issue somewhere around RHEL 7. 

Since 2005, I have worked at various companies who have used this solution.

My current company was using it even before I came.

Once it is up and running, it is solid and stable. It has a stable OS. I haven't had any issues with it.

Usually, if there is any particular issue and it gets to a point where we need to open a ticket, then we will open a ticket and just generate a dump file. We then upload it and wait for them to respond.

The technical support has been great and awesome. They have been able to assist, provide solutions, and root cause analysis for different issues. I would rate the technical support as nine out of 10. There is always room for improvement.

Positive

Before 2005, I worked as a Unix engineer for Solaris and Sun Microsystems. Once I left that company who was working with Solaris, that is when I started being more like an administrator for Red Hat Linux for different companies.

Most companies go with some sort of way to deploy an image. I have done standard, straight installs, installing the solution to laptops. That would be the equivalent of installing it to bare-metal.

It takes maybe 15 to 20 minutes to deploy a server. That is just with all the automation that we have added as well as having to deploy a base OS image, hardening, and adding all the software that we want. For a company-base installation, it takes about 20 minutes.

This solution is definitely one of the best versions of Linux out there to use, especially if you are looking to use Linux in an Enterprise fashion. This is mainly because it has the best support out there. It is also stable and dependable.

We use outside monitoring tools, not the ones that come with RHEL.

We are using other tools to deploy base images to our private cloud. So, we're not exactly using Red Hat tools for this use case.

They are a great company overall. It is hard to say where they could improve. They have user groups. They put out a lot of messaging and information. The solution is easy to learn and get to know their products and what they do. From a personal standpoint, I have everything that I need.

If I wanted to run multiple versions of Node.js, there are ways to do that without using AppStream. More recently, I have been working with different versions of Node.js, having it in different versions on one machine. It works well. Just the fact that I have the capability is great.

Among the other distributions of Linux out there, I would rate it as 10 out of 10. If I have to compare this solution against everything else out there, this solution is at the top of the list.

We have almost thirteen servers. There are SaaS applications installed on this server. We leverage Java and the functionality during installation. We install it on the platform and configure it there. Some are custom applications. Our database is also in the Red Hat Linux environment. 

The solution offers users easy access. It's very simple to have and use, from an admin perspective. 

The offering provides me with all I need to serve the operation in terms of usage and capabilities. 

The general user commands are good. They are helpful for starting and stopping applications and restarting and editing files. The maintenance of user-level processes is easy. 

We're not using it in a graphical environment, we're only using command line mode. There may be a lot of features, however, I don't use everything since I don't need to. 

There are millions of commands you can use, although we use only five or ten.

Likely the solution has helped our organization save on costs. I'm not sure by how much, as I don't have visibility into that aspect.

It's very easy to use across physical, virtual, and cloud infrastructure. Specifically, on the cloud side, I have noted it's quite easy. Also, on a virtual machine, you can create a cloud version of your infrastructure in a minute. 

For my work, the solution is not missing any features. We;re only using the command line and that is enough for us. 

Maybe they need to make it easier to apply patches from different resources. That said, at my level of usage, I never have to apply patches. 

I've used the solution for almost ten years. 

It's a stable product.

While I'm maintaining 30 servers, there are hundreds of servers in use. 

The scalability is good. We are able to increase capacity and functionality based on our demands. 

I'm not sure if the company has plans to increase usage in the future.

I don't directly deal with technical support. I might send a ticket to my side, and if they have to, they would be the ones to reach out to Red Hat. 

We used Oracle Linux before we moved over to Red Hat Linux. We likely switched due to costs and licensing. We also use Windows extensively. Since we used the same architecture, we didn't need to use any third-party applications.

As an admin, I was not involved in the setup process. 

If there is any maintenance needed, we get support from the Red Hat team.  If anything comes up on the operating side, our team will take care of it. 

I'm only using this solution as an admin and, therefore, have no visibility on costs. 

We did not evaluate other options before choosing this solution.

I'm an end-user of the solution. I had admin-level access to the product.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux does not enable us to achieve security standard certification.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. 

My primary use case is for web applications and database applications. I've come across quite a few use cases at different companies.

The most valuable feature is the package management. It helps a lot. I also like the support. 

Red Hat is a Linux-supportive and well-managed offering. It helps a lot in terms of when we're working in production, it gives us the confidence that our packages are legitimate and genuine and we always have support available. It helps a lot. Red Hat Enterprise Linux gives peace of mind compared to other unsupported Linux distributions. 

I also like Red Hat Satellite. 

I haven't used Insights yet but it seems interesting. 

The ability to patch Red Hat Enterprise Linux through Satellite is a huge contributor to mitigating all of the compliance requirements.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has absolutely affected our security's uptime. None of the other distributions are nearly close to what you can get with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is something that helps a lot in ensuring that your secure application is up all the time and that you're not getting hit by vulnerabilities. It is an easier way for you to mitigate vulnerabilities when they're around.

The knowledge base is very useful. The only thing is that you need to have an account to get access. In terms of the content, the relevance, and being able to use the knowledge base to address things I've needed to deal with, it's awesome. For example, I was trying to add proxy configuration to the package manager once and if it wasn't for the knowledge base, I wouldn't have been able to do it.

I like it the way it is. 

It's getting easier for the community to use it free of charge. If you have an account, you get to use it. It would be better if the community could use it on their own for lab projects.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since 2011. It's been 12 years. 

On the few occasions I needed to reach out to support, I was very satisfied.  

Positive

I have used Linux distributions but when it comes to the work I'm doing at my company, we always use Red Hat Enterprise Linux. 

The biggest differences between Red Hat Enterprise Linux and the other OS' are the support, Satellite, Insights, and the fact that Ansible was acquired by Red Hat so you can use all its automation and toolings. The entire ecosystem works very well together.

Red Hat has not personally enabled me to achieve security standard certifications in the projects I've worked on but I could see how it would help. 

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a ten out of ten. I really like it. 

We do a lot of patching and upgrading with Ansible and we keep the host up to date all the time.

My primary use case for it is to run Jenkins servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is critical for our operations. We use it for all of our Linux servers. 

It works. It's consistent. It's well-documented. These are valuable aspects to me. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 updates the Cipher Suites and the security proceeds it. I wasn't pleasantly surprised because a bunch of our server communication didn't work. Having the Cipher Suites updated is a good thing but was not convenient.

I feel positive about the built-in security features when it comes to simplifying the risk and reduction and maintaining compliance. I'm also a Windows Server administrator so, compared to my Windows Server experience, I have very positive feelings about Red Hat Enterprise Linux security based on how easy it is to keep things patched, up-to-date, and compliant.

Some of the repositories and some of the DNS versions are very old. I just deployed something using Ruby and the DNS stable repository was sufficiently old that the Ruby project I was using didn't work. 

I would like more transparency and better options other than using something like Ruby Version Manager. I'd rather be able to get modern, up-to-date versions from the base repositories.

We have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for ten years. We're on a bunch of different versions. We're anywhere between version six and nine. My personal project is on nine.

We still have Windows servers.  

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very resource-intensive, and it's hard to secure because Windows, the base use case, is all things to all people. 

I generally like Linux server products. I like the way they specialize, and I like the default security posture.

We have a hybrid environment. We do have some things in the cloud. We're using both Azure and AWS as our cloud providers.

I was involved in the process of migrating our Jenkins servers to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9. It was not straightforward or complex because we changed a lot of things about our deployment. We tried to improve and streamline, and in the process, we broke some of our pipelines. 

It was not smooth, but that was not necessarily because of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, except for some of the security upgrades. We could not use the old RSA keys that we were using with RHEL 6 with RHEL 9. This meant that we either had to loosen our security by allowing legacy keys or tighten things down. We chose to tighten things down.

Another challenge is that we have some old Red Hat Enterprise Linux applications that are running on very old versions. We are trying to get everything off of RHEL 6 and 7 and onto RHEL 9, but there are a few applications that are stuck on RHEL 6 for various reasons.

We are getting rid of all of our Linux servers, so the biggest challenge right now is migrating our applications to RHEL 9.

When it comes to provisioning and patching, it is pretty manual. The company uses VMware, and the process is pretty manual and involves a certain number of shell scripts. I know we're trying to adopt Ansible, but we're not very far along.

I've had a very positive experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. My only point of comparison is Ubuntu, which I use for personal projects. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a solid enterprise product with a greater emphasis on security. However, Ubuntu Server is easier to use in many ways compared to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. This may just be a matter of familiarity, but I find it easier to get current versions of Ruby with Ubuntu than with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. 

This is based on my somewhat limited use, but it's my impression nonetheless. That's what keeps it from being a ten out of ten.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for off-the-shelf applications and Oracle databases. 

The tool is simple and easy to use. It has good support and doesn't have many outages due to the OS. 

The cockpit server doesn't work and is useless. I don't like the images shown in GCP. I prefer the ones in AWS. It seems like the solution is in tune with what we deploy on the private cloud. 

I have been using the solution for ten years. 

We open a case whenever we need support. Whenever I need support, I contact the technical guy assigned to us and provide him with the documentation. 

Positive

I have used different OS like Motorola, Unix Flavors, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, DG/UX, and Sonos OS. Unix is dying, and everything is moving to Linux. Linux is open-source and easier to use. 

We build our own deployment method. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is expensive. We have changed the cloud provider's subscription to a pay-as-you-go model. 

We use the on-premise, cloud, and hybrid versions. We have deployed it on AWS, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud. Most of our infrastructure is in the Azure cloud. I work in the server infrastructure team, and other data collectors work on AWS and GCP. We haven't used the tool's features like the image builder. 

The product supports our hybrid cloud strategy. We have been migrating using tools from Microsoft Azure. Its knowledge base is good. Sometimes, finding an article is difficult. However, once I reach them, it contains good information. 

We used Azure's tools for migration to the cloud. It is straightforward. We have no problems deploying the servers. Our main strategy focused on data centers.

We use the Leapp tool to manage the upgrades. It works smoothly on our Oracle databases. Leapp is straightforward to use. 

We use Red Hat Insights quite a bit. I have not explored all the features yet. We use it to look for events our monitoring hasn't picked up. It also helps us with tips and hints for fine-tuning applications like SAP and Oracle. We go by these recommendations and follow them to put the applications in place. I have downloaded the Playbooks for remediation. 

I use system rules for SAP tuning in Oracle. I do not use the image builder since we already have a process to do the server builds. I use the web console once in a while. 

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a nine out of ten.