Likelihood to Recommend RHEV is well suited for organizations that need a cost-effective and flexible solution for their environment. As its vendor-independent software, easily install on any type of hardware. RHEV provides a GUI interface to manage the software, which makes the management of the software easier for the end-user. RHEV is best for non-production or less critical applications. RHEV can be easily integrated with other REDHAT software.
Read full review SUSE Rancher as a management tool becomes useful on a larger scale. Small deployments not so much. If someone also requires Kubernetes capacity or storage, Rancher is an excellent choice. Also, without Kubernetes' skills, it is unlikely that Rancher deployment is going to be a success. Then again if someone else is managing your Kubernetes capacity, setting up the software's capacity will yield greater control. Rancher is not a very integrated solution similar to others in the market.
Read full review Pros RHV issues/bugs can be reported via Bugzilla to RH support. The service is great and typically responds soon. Red Hat distribution integration is seamless as it is integrated into the kernel. OpenStack support enables more customized VM templates and network configuration control. Read full review Public and private cloud infrastructure providers based on K8s CAPI REST API that can be used to integrate company services with Rancher GUI that is easy to learn and use in daily operations Builtin GitOps automation solution based on Fleet project It is fully open source Szymon Madej DevOps Architect for Containerization Platforms and Microservices
Read full review Cons 1- RHVM API is pretty slow, especially after creating a VM it is not possible to retrieve the VM details (i.e VM's MAC Address) fast enough, where we need to place a pause in our Ansible Playbook, make the automation process slow. 2- RHV is still using collected to monitor the hypervisors which is deviating from Red Hat policy for other RHEL based applications to use PCP to monitor, which is richer in features. 3- It will be great if it is possible to patch the hypervisors using other tools such as satellite and not only via RHVM. 4- In the past Red Hat used to present patches in the z release (i.e. 4.3.z), and features in the y release (i.e 4. y), but starting from 4.4 that is mixed together wherein the Z release you get both patches and features, that is not good because that requires a lot of time to test when we patch as it includes features as well. 5- Engineering team has to be more reactive when new feature is requested. Read full review No possibility to snapshot Projects. You can snapshot and restore the whole Kubernetes cluster, but not a Project or Namespace. For this, you have to use external tools. You cannot detach the Rancher-created Kubernetes clusters from Rancher management. Read full review Usability The usability and user experience are good in general, although sometimes some errors can cause confusion, especially for those users who are not experts.
Read full review Support Rating Use cases can be complex hence support as well. Problems have been solvable, but not always easily. It's great that there is support!
Read full review Alternatives Considered RHEV is an excellent product, includes more features, is less expensive, and has rock solid reliability and is backed with the best Red Hat Support in the industry. RHEV uses KVM under the hood which is used by all the big players in the industry (AWS, Rackspace, etc) to lower their overall costs and improve efficiency and profits and that's why RHEV is an excellent solution!
Read full review As we use only AWS EKS Clusters originally we were using the AWS Console and CLI but that is too limited in scope. Also, we were using AWS IAM roles to provide access to users but that was lots of extra work to have them integrated into SSO while on Rancher we have just connected our GitHub login with the Alfresco organization and that uses, in turn, Okta for SSO so provisioning for access is automatic for any developer who has been assigned to GitHub.
Read full review Contract Terms and Pricing Model The investment for small environments is quite significant. There has to be a compelling case to enhance the areas where SUSE Rancher brings in value to make such a financial leap. There is also a free version to test the value propositions, which will help support the user's buying decisions. More clusters, more volume, more tasks and more complexity in the environment equals more value that Rancher can provide.
Read full review Return on Investment RHEV has provided a positive ROI as our customers are not experiencing as many outages during maintenances. We have not experienced any catastrophic failures as a result of vsphere losing connection to the ntp. There has been a level of stability in our environment that was not previously experienced with our previous vendor. Read full review Shortens "Time-to-Market" factor for new business applications or implementing new functionalities. From 1 to 50 microservices-based business applications in 6 years. 24/7 availability, generates more money. There are many infrastructure components that are regularly powered-off for maintenance or upgrade, bur we rarely are turning off our downstream Kubernetes clusters where our business applications lives. Single Point of Contact with platform maintenance and development Team, eases implementation of new business applications Szymon Madej DevOps Architect for Containerization Platforms and Microservices
Read full review ScreenShots