4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Dec 6, 2016
Good partner, like the open environment and the willingness to partner.
The price is worth looking into.
Lack of adoption
They were great to work with.
Provide more time to test other options.
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Dec 5, 2016
Overall experience has been positive with Red Hat
Consider this solution for stable open source environments
We liked its support capabilites
Develop a better strategy to take advantage of offerings
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Jul 28, 2016
Redhat provides timely support, however, the follow and the sun support model can be tedious at a time resulting in abrupt transitions at the end of a shift.
Linux is rock solid for most Enterprise level loads.
Quick response. Good open source base for training outside of work.
It seems that there is not enough focus on scanning the code prior to release for "day one" vulnerabilities.
Adopt a policy to better transition support when something does go wrong.
Ask Microsoft to get rid of their event loop. Alternative OS's need to be used.
For core OS functions, no real integration was needed. For KVM and an Open Stack implementation, there were too many stability and security risks to really leverage the solution. It's better every year and time to re-evaluate, but no focus on the risk which puts everyone at risk.
3 out of 5.0, Reviewed Jan 14, 2016
The product is good and the vendor professional.
Push hard to get a better cost, consider all options.
Service is good.
Cost is high.
Cost, the vendor does not seem to have too much room to negotiate. A la carte support pricing.
We could have mapped out our landscape prior to contracting with the supplier years ago so that we maintained flexibility in movement.
Product is well vetted, patches, upgrades are included.
The quality of support is great, just cost is not the best.
Excellent integration and timing.
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Dec 9, 2015
Good vendor support.
Good support over the phone and through the account team.
No issues with implementation. Expertise was available inhouse.
2 out of 5.0, Reviewed Dec 8, 2015
Product was not easy to use and was hard to configure.
Look at 3rd party hypervisor management platforms.
Proprietary, complex and unstable.
Suggested their Cloudforms product instead.
Manage a KVM outside of RHEV and keep multi-hypervisor management approach to a separate orchestration tool.
Product didn't match up to 3rd party management tools or Vmware.
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Dec 8, 2015
Works as sold, but still green around edges.
Make sure that all of the linux engineers buy into the product and take full ownership.
The efficiency we got from running Red Hat VMs. RHEV + RHEV VMs + Docker = one very efficient infrastructure. Then again, that pretty much sums up openstack.
The clunkiness and lack of external vendor buy in. For example, Symantec and Veeam giving fully and robust support for the product sooner.
QA'd the product a little more before launching. It always seemed that we'd find a new "hidden charm" with each release. Two steps forward, one back.
If we were to do this agian, I think we'd consider OpenStack more strongly over just using RHEV. While RHEV is a solid product, it seems not be getting as much focus as the whole openstack initiative.
1 of 1 peer(s) found this review helpful.
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Dec 7, 2015
Satisfied with the vendor.
Make sure to perform due diligence and design a holistic implementation.
Linux based OS.
Site license not available for Redhat.
Site licensing for Red Hat.
Would have designed the implementation with a little better DR strategy in mind.
deployment went fairly smooth.