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

Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure OverviewUNIXBusinessApplication

Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure is #15 ranked solution in HCI Software. IT Central Station users give Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure an average rating of 10 out of 10. Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure is most commonly compared to VMware vSAN: Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure vs VMware vSAN. The top industry researching this solution is Comms Service Provider, accounting for 34% of all views.
What is Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure?

Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure - based on our leading OpenStack and virtualization platforms - provides co-located, scalable, software-defined compute and storage, driven by Red Hat Ansible Automation on economical, industry-standard hardware.

Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure is also known as Red Hat HCI, Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure for Virtualization.

Buyer's Guide

Download the Hyper-Converged (HCI) Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: October 2021

Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure Video

Pricing Advice

What users are saying about Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure pricing:
  • "It is quite pricey."
  • "Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure is an open-sourced, low-cost solution with full features."

Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure 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
ITCS user
System Architect at a transportation company with 10,001+ employees
Reseller
Top 5
Comes in a small, compact model that does not have any separate management but it is not so stable

Pros and Cons

  • "The size of the hardware is what we need because it is very good for small configurations."
  • "This product is not so stable. Maybe it is just not mature enough in its development."

What is our primary use case?

We have a legacy application virtualized on top of the solution. It is our own product. We select what we want to run there. It is not possible to run all kinds of software because of the setup. We run a server application. For us, it is like a kind of small cloud.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature for us is the size. We have a small, compact model. It does not have any different separate management because management is built into our engine. Our product has its own problems because it has its own manager inside the cluster. That poses some limitations. It is also a problem. The size of the hardware is what we need because it is very good for small configurations. But this gives us three to six servers in principle.

What needs improvement?

This product is not so stable. Maybe it is just not mature enough in its development. When we upgrading from one version to another, there have been some hiccups. There have been a few times where upgraded features cause changes that make problems with existing implementation on the deployment side.

I'm not sure if I really need any new features in this product at this point. For us, it is a fixed solution. It's not a full-blown solution and doesn't need to be. It is not really a cloud product, but we use it like some kind of cloud in a box. It is very limited in our use case.

It has limited capability in general. You can not really have something like private security domains. Or there are so few servers that you can not really use the different kinds of applications you could with different physical servers. So you cannot select the kind of security that you can have on a cloud with separate layers.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have worked with this product for a little under two years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

New features that seem to be small improvements have caused some hiccups after upgrades. As you upgrade from version 1.5 to 1.6, the new iterations of existing features should not cause changes to existing versions of that feature that create problems in operation. It is not like when you do a full version upgrade like from version 1.6 to 2.1. Bigger changes should be expected in full version upgrades and changes in existing features would be more acceptable and may be expected. 

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Scalability for this product would be changing the storage size. They claim that the limit is quite high. We do not need storage for this solution at this point, so I cannot say from personal experience if it is really scalable. As far as I know, our setup does not scale up to more than 12 hosts, which is far beyond our needs. If our need gets bigger, then most likely we would use a totally different solution in the form of a real cloud solution. 

How are customer service and technical support?

We have had some issues which take a longer time than expected for technical support to resolve, but generally, we have a quite good relationship with technical support. For some reason, Red Hat consults with us directly. We have some kind of preferred treatment.

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

Before this solution, we used to have a totally open-source solution that we used with our previous generation of products and that caused us some hiccups. It was free so there was no support. You were totally alone when you implement it and without commercial support that might help with problems that were encountered. The idea of making our change from the open-source to this solution is that we wanted to have some kind of commercial support when we needed it and a reliable product that worked. Of course, that costs something.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is quite straightforward.

What about the implementation team?

We are using consultants to work with us on the implementation. They are helping us out but we are the ones principally doing the implementation by ourselves.

What other advice do I have?

My advice to those considering this solution is that they should get what they actually need. Red Hat is a big company and it is quite flexible in the kind of environment they support. There are other products we are aware of and tried, but they failed to support our application running on top of them. With the Red Hat KVM (Kernel-based Virtual Machine), we could play the tricks we needed to more easily to get our application to work. KVM was the key.

On a scale from one to ten where ten is the best, I would rate this product as maybe a seven. It is not bad, but it is not perfect.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Reseller.
AmitPrasad
Head SDWAN SBU at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 10
Stable and scalable with good automation capabilities

Pros and Cons

  • "The most useful feature is the solution's automation in terms of how we are able to spin up a certain workload in real-time when we are doing R&D."
  • "The licensing policy needs to be improved. They have a licensing policy based on the number of CPU sockets. Nowadays what has happened is that the license they are trying to move is based on the number of CPU cores. With the advancement in technology there are now more cores in a single CPU. It's been very challenging in terms of managing the license around everything. Today we have a processor with 24 and 32 cores on the same physical CPU."

What is our primary use case?

We use the solution as a part of our in-house use in our R&D department. We use it mainly as a desktop as a service.

What is most valuable?

The most useful feature is the solution's automation in terms of how we are able to spin up a certain workload in real-time when we are doing R&D.

What needs improvement?

The licensing policy needs to be improved. They have a licensing policy based on the number of CPU sockets. Nowadays what has happened is that the license they are trying to move is based on the number of CPU cores. With the advancement in technology there are now more cores in a single CPU. It's been very challenging in terms of managing the license around everything. Today we have a processor with 24 and 32 cores on the same physical CPU.

I would like to see the inter-operative ability of different hyper-converged platforms. For example, Nutanix came out with a VM platform where you would be able to manage a couple of workloads on the cloud as well. I would like to see the same from Red Hat where users could not only manage direct hyper-convergence from their end but at the same time have a couple of workloads on AWS, Azure, and/or Google. 

Seamless migration of one workload to another would be ideal.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using the solution for a couple of years. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability of the solution is good. We haven't experienced any bugs or glitches. We've been satisfied so far.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability of the solution is good. We can scale up to a 32 or 64 load.

We have about 800 to 1,000 people in R&D using the solution. Mostly they are architects, programmers and virtualization engineers.

How are customer service and technical support?

We often use technical support. We've been satisfied with their responses and their turnaround times.

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

We also use Zero Stack, which is an open stack platform. Zero Stack is a very simplified version of Red Hat. In Red Hat, you get a wider variety of choice and the stability is superior.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is straightforward.

We had a very small cluster for the hyper-converged, so it took a few days to a week to deploy. We only had three or four nodes, and that was it. For us, it was quite simple.

What about the implementation team?

We handled the implementation ourselves with the assistance of three experts within our organization.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We evaluated Zero Stack as well and we ultimately ended up using both in our organization.

We were using an app as well, which is built on OpenStack, so it was a cloud hyper-converged solution. However, we saw there were certain challenges in terms of scalability and that was an issue so we moved to Zero Stack, and then finally to the Red Hat. Zero Stack a year back got acquired or they closed down. Ultimately, all the staff left in December of 2018. We found it a huge challenge because we no longer had support, so we moved to the Red Hat almost a year later.

What other advice do I have?

I have been using Red Hat and there is a small hyper-converged solution called Zero Stack which I also use.

We're in discussions with Red Hat in India to have some sort of enterprise agreement with them in the future.

I'd recommend Red Hat to others. I'd rate it 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.
Find out what your peers are saying about Red Hat, Sangfor, Hewlett Packard Enterprise and others in Hyper-Converged (HCI). Updated: October 2021.
543,424 professionals have used our research since 2012.
PaulSorelli
Senior IT Architect at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Reseller
Top 10
Consolidated management and good documentation but very complex and difficult to operate

Pros and Cons

  • "The consolidation of the management in one control point is the most valuable. The whole infrastructure management is consolidated in just one console point. The documentation is also pretty good."
  • "It is not user-friendly, and it is very difficult to operate. You have to have a deep understanding of the technical details of the infrastructure to implement it. When you compare it with VMware, it is totally different because the graphical user interface is not that easy to understand. It is not intuitive. To use it, you have to read a lot of documentation and even understand what is going on behind the solution. It is not for someone who has a little bit of knowledge. Currently, it is too complex. I need something that is easy to implement. It should have a basic configuration as well as a complex configuration."

What is our primary use case?

It was implemented in a solution center for our land environments. We had three x86 servers interconnected with 10 gigabytes network.

What is most valuable?

The consolidation of the management in one control point is the most valuable. The whole infrastructure management is consolidated in just one console point. The documentation is also pretty good.

What needs improvement?

It is not user-friendly, and it is very difficult to operate. You have to have a deep understanding of the technical details of the infrastructure to implement it. When you compare it with VMware, it is totally different because the graphical user interface is not that easy to understand. It is not intuitive. To use it, you have to read a lot of documentation and even understand what is going on behind the solution. It is not for someone who has a little bit of knowledge.

Currently, it is too complex. I need something that is easy to implement. It should have a basic configuration as well as a complex configuration.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have recently started to use it. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I cannot say about its stability because I only have experience in installing it.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Scalability should be good. You can increment the components for your installation. I don't have that much experience, but it seems to be good. My clients are small, medium, and large businesses.

How are customer service and technical support?

I didn't use their technical support.

How was the initial setup?

It was complex. In general, it took me two months but not just because of Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure. I also had some other issues.

What other advice do I have?

Currently, we are using just three machines at our site, and I don't know if my company is using it at other sites or planning to increase its usage. It seems very complex to manage the infrastructure.

I would rate Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure a seven out of ten because of the implementation and integration issues.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Reseller
AM
Product Manager at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Reseller
Top 5Leaderboard
Stable, scalable, and good support but needs better pricing and ease of use

Pros and Cons

  • "It is stable and scalable."
  • "The main issue is the initial investment. It is an expensive product, and it should be cheaper. It should also be easier to use and manage. The professional service for this solution is quite complex and expensive."

What is our primary use case?

It has storage and Hypervisor from Red Hat. It is used for computing and the virtualization workload for databases and other things.

What is most valuable?

It is stable and scalable.

What needs improvement?

The main issue is the initial investment. It is an expensive product, and it should be cheaper.

It should also be easier to use and manage. The professional service for this solution is quite complex and expensive.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using this solution for more than two years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It has good stability.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It is scalable.

How are customer service and technical support?

Their technical support is amazing in general.

How was the initial setup?

It isn't complex.

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

It is quite pricey.

What other advice do I have?

I would not recommend this solution. There are a couple of other solutions that are easy to manage and install, and they are also not expensive. We plan to keep selling this solution, but we are not 100% sure.

I would rate Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure a four out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Reseller
RA
Senior Product Manager at a tech vendor with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 10
An open-source tool that encompasses the whole spectrum of vertical solutions

What is our primary use case?

We use this solution for verticals like banking, robo, oil and gas, retail — It could be pretty much anything. It encompasses the whole gamut of vertical solutions.

What needs improvement?

The cloud deployment could be improved. I also don't believe there is VDS support either. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using this solution for around six to eight months.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Both the scalability and stability of this solution are excellent.

How are customer service and technical support?

Red Hat's customer support is excellent.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was fairly straightforward; it's not super complicated.

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

What is our primary use case?

We use this solution for verticals like banking, robo, oil and gas, retail — It could be pretty much anything. It encompasses the whole gamut of vertical solutions.

What needs improvement?

The cloud deployment could be improved. I also don't believe there is VDS support either. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using this solution for around six to eight months.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Both the scalability and stability of this solution are excellent.

How are customer service and technical support?

Red Hat's customer support is excellent.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was fairly straightforward; it's not super complicated.

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

Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure is an open-sourced, low-cost solution with full features.

What other advice do I have?

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner