We changed our name from IT Central Station: Here's why

What needs improvement with Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure?

Please share with the community what you think needs improvement with Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure.

What are its weaknesses? What would you like to see changed in a future version?

ITCS user
55 Answers

author avatar
Top 5LeaderboardReseller

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.

author avatar
Top 10Reseller

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.

author avatar
Top 10Real User

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

author avatar
Top 10Real User

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.

author avatar

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.

Find out what your peers are saying about Red Hat, Sangfor, VMware and others in Hyper-Converged (HCI). Updated: January 2022.
564,643 professionals have used our research since 2012.