I've been looking into the licensing costs for OpenShift on-premises and they seem to be higher than the actual server hardware itself. Am I correct in thinking that the price per CPU for OpenShift licenses is more than just using c8gd.metal-48xl instances on AWS EKS over the same period? I'm struggling to wrap my head around the costs and why anyone would choose OpenShift for a fresh deployment. What are the advantages, if any?
11 Answers
To your point about rationalizing the costs, some organizations still prefer on-prem for reliability reasons. Sure, you might find cheaper options like SUSE, but for many, RHEL remains a solid choice. With Kubernetes and VMs, cloud options are often more cost-effective than on-prem if you’re looking for top-tier support.
I can't comment on AWS pricing, but from my experience, OpenShift licensing can be pricier for on-prem, though when you add everything up, including server costs, it might be lower overall. It's tough to gauge without specific numbers to compare.
Right? They switched from charging based on sockets to charging per core, and it's definitely a sticker shock situation if you haven’t been keeping up!
Going with Harvester + RKE2 could be a better choice for on-prem; their pricing model is per node, which tends to be more predictable. We came in around $100k for 12 nodes with great support included.
OpenShift Kubernetes Engine (OKE) is usually cheaper than OCP but still offers enterprise support. It can be a better financial fit depending on your needs.
Are you asking about utilizing Red Hat Virtualization with OpenShift? By the way, aren't metal instances notoriously pricey compared to standard ones?
Surprisingly, they turned out to be cheaper than our VMware quotes. Since we only need VM functionality, the OpenShift Virtualization Engine’s pricing is very competitive.
It's important to clarify what you're comparing. OpenShift Container Platform (OCP) offers a lot more features than something like EKS, especially for enterprises. If you want a fully integrated solution that functions out-of-the-box, OpenShift has a lot going for it. On the other hand, if you’re fine with customizing each part, EKS could work for you.
Don't forget that there are additional costs for developer licenses to access proprietary base images. From my perspective, OpenShift can seem like a pretty aggressive vendor lock-in considering what I've seen.
I think comparing the two isn’t entirely fair. Prices vary and OpenShift has a lot packed in. While EKS is fundamentally just Kubernetes, OpenShift offers more functionality. That said, we opt for OpenShift since we need to operate in a disconnected environment on-prem.
Exactly! If someone is looking at OpenShift versus plain EKS, that's not a fair comparison at all.
Honestly, for the basic need of running workflows and avoiding pet nodes, OpenShift might not add much beyond Kubernetes itself.
If you can manage without some of the RedHat operators, consider checking out OKD instead. The price difference is really the biggest selling point for many people.
There are actually quite a few operators that are available for free on alternative hubs. Just keep versions in mind; sometimes the free ones are outdated.
Licenses have historically been more costly than the hardware; that's just the way it is. It's not surprising at all.
If you're deciding on a solution, consider sticking to a straightforward Kubernetes distribution without modifications. Rancher is free, while the Nutanix Kubernetes Platform comes with licensing costs.
Totally! SUSE pricing is just wild.