I've been looking into the costs associated with deploying OpenShift on-premises compared to using AWS EKS with c8gd.metal-48xl instances. It seems like OpenShift's licensing fees are quite high, possibly even more than the costs for the actual server hardware itself. Can anyone clarify if my understanding is correct? Specifically, is the per worker node CPU cost for OpenShift licensing higher than just running comparable instances on AWS EKS for a similar timeframe? I'm really struggling to justify the price point and understand why anyone would opt for OpenShift in a new deployment.
6 Answers
Choosing OpenShift boils down to preferences and needs. For businesses that rely heavily on RHEL for various reasons, it’s not so bad cost-wise, especially when compared to competitors like SUSE. But generally, cloud solutions can be more cost-effective, especially if you're looking for premium support.
I think you're misunderstanding the price difference. One license might cover 4 vCPUs, which actually makes it cheaper than a 48XL instance when you break it down. OpenShift offers a lot of packaged features, while EKS is more bare-bones Kubernetes. We use OpenShift mainly because it can run in a disconnected mode, which is crucial for our setups.
If you're comparing OpenShift directly to vanilla EKS, you might be missing the bigger picture. They're not really apples to apples.
True, but if all you need is scheduling, basic Kubernetes could be sufficient without all the extras OpenShift provides.
If you're willing to forego some of RedHat's features, you might consider OKD (the community version of OpenShift). It's a lot more affordable, and the pricing is definitely the main selling point for many.
Yeah, there's also a lot of free operators out there. Just keep an eye on the version compatibility since the free ones can sometimes be outdated.
You might need to clarify your comparison a bit. EKS is pretty much just Kubernetes, but OpenShift has a lot of added functionality that can be a game-changer in enterprise setups. If you're looking for a more integrated solution that works out-of-the-box, OpenShift is a solid choice.
Licenses have always been pricier than hardware; that's the trend! As for your question about managing VMs, metal instances do cost more than standard ones, but it's increasingly viable compared to traditional VM setups. Some of our quotes have been surprisingly low.
Last I checked, the licensing for Azure OpenShift was indeed more expensive, particularly for on-prem. However, you might find that the overall costs end up being lower when you factor in everything (though I didn't consider hardware costs). Just food for thought!
I’ve noticed OpenShift’s pricing shifted from per-socket to per-core, and it’s left me a bit shocked! Just wanted to check if I'm getting this right.
Yeah, SUSE's pricing can be quite steep!