Skip to content

Cloud & Infrastructure

Red Hat OpenShift

Production OpenShift built by engineers who run it — enterprise Kubernetes with the guardrails on, and honest about when plain managed Kubernetes would cost you less.

Overview

Red Hat OpenShift is Kubernetes with an opinionated enterprise layer wrapped around it. At its core it is upstream Kubernetes, certified and supported by Red Hat, so everything you know about pods, deployments, services and the API carries across. What OpenShift adds is the part most teams end up building themselves on plain Kubernetes: a developer console and the oc CLI, integrated CI/CD through OpenShift Pipelines (Tekton) and GitOps (Argo CD), Source-to-Image builds that turn a git repository into a running container without a hand-written Dockerfile, a built-in image registry, the Operator ecosystem and OperatorHub for lifecycle-managed services, and a distinctly stricter security posture out of the box. It runs self-managed on your own hardware or cloud, and in managed forms — ROSA on AWS, ARO on Azure — where Red Hat and the cloud provider run the control plane for you.

The honest frame is that OpenShift is not free, and that single fact drives most of the decision. Upstream Kubernetes costs nothing to license; OpenShift is a paid subscription, priced per node or per core, and it earns that money by being a supported, integrated, secure-by-default platform rather than a box of parts you assemble and maintain yourself. For a large enterprise, a hybrid estate spanning on-premises and cloud, or a regulated business that values Red Hat’s support relationship and security defaults, that trade is often worth it. For a small team already on AWS or GCP, a managed cloud Kubernetes is usually simpler, cheaper and entirely sufficient — and we will tell you so.

We build and operate workloads on OpenShift: designing the projects, Security Context Constraints, network policies and pipelines; wiring in the Operators that genuinely earn their place; and running the thing in production rather than handing over a diagram. Because we carry the pager for what we build, the architecture and the subscription cost are decided by the people who live with both, not by someone who has moved on before the first renewal lands.

Best for — Enterprises, regulated businesses and hybrid or on-premises estates that want a supported, secure-by-default Kubernetes platform with commercial backing, built and run by senior engineers who will tell you honestly when plain managed Kubernetes would serve you better.

Why teams choose Red Hat OpenShift

  • A supported platform, not a pile of parts

    On plain Kubernetes you assemble ingress, CI/CD, registry, monitoring and security tooling yourself, then own every integration and upgrade forever. OpenShift ships those as an integrated, tested, supported whole with a documented lifecycle, so your team operates a product with someone to call, rather than maintaining a bespoke stack only they understand.

  • Secure by default, not secure eventually

    OpenShift’s defaults are deliberately stricter than upstream Kubernetes — Security Context Constraints stop containers running as root, projects isolate teams, and the platform pushes you toward least privilege from the first deployment. On plain Kubernetes that posture is achievable but optional, and in practice it is the work teams postpone until an audit forces it.

  • One control plane across data centre and cloud

    For estates that span on-premises and one or more clouds, OpenShift gives a single, consistent platform and operating model everywhere, so a workload built for one environment runs the same in another. For organisations that will keep hardware for real reasons — latency, regulation, sunk cost — that consistency is a concrete saving in operational effort.

Why businesses choose Red Hat OpenShift

  • You are a large enterprise or regulated business that wants a supported, secure-by-default Kubernetes platform with commercial backing and a documented lifecycle, rather than an unsupported stack you assembled and must maintain alone.
  • You have a genuine hybrid or on-premises requirement and want one consistent platform and operating model across your data centres and clouds, which is the case OpenShift answers better than anything else.
  • You want the integrated developer experience — console, S2I, Pipelines, GitOps, registry — delivered as a product, so your teams ship without first building and securing the platform plumbing themselves.
  • You want senior engineers who will tell you plainly when OpenShift is the wrong answer — when plain EKS, GKE or AKS would be simpler and cheaper, or when you do not need Kubernetes at all — and who build to control the subscription and the complexity rather than accept them.

What we build with Red Hat OpenShift

The capabilities this technology is genuinely strong at — and what we most often build with it.

  • Projects and Security Context Constraints

    OpenShift wraps namespaces as projects with their own access model and, crucially, enforces Security Context Constraints that stop containers running as root by default. We design these deliberately — which workloads genuinely need elevated privileges, which do not — so the cluster is least-privilege from the start rather than loosened later to make an image built for plain Docker actually run.

  • Source-to-Image (S2I) builds

    S2I turns a source repository into a running container image without a hand-written Dockerfile, using language-specific builder images. We use it where it earns its place — standard application stacks where consistency and speed matter — and are equally willing to say when a purpose-built Dockerfile or an external build pipeline gives you more control, because S2I is a convenience, not an obligation.

  • OpenShift Pipelines (Tekton) and GitOps (Argo CD)

    Integrated CI/CD runs on Tekton for build-and-test pipelines and Argo CD for GitOps-driven delivery, where the cluster’s desired state lives in git and drift is corrected automatically. We build these so deployments are reviewable, reproducible and auditable — the same discipline we apply on any platform — rather than clicked into the console and forgotten.

  • Operators and OperatorHub

    Operators encode the operational knowledge for running a service — a database, a message broker, a certificate manager — as software that handles installation, upgrades and recovery. We select from OperatorHub carefully: a good Operator removes real toil, a poorly maintained one becomes a dependency you regret, so we treat each as an operational decision, not a one-click install.

  • Integrated registry, routes and console

    OpenShift ships its own image registry, a Route abstraction for exposing services (its own take on ingress), and a developer and administrator console that makes the cluster legible without the CLI. We use these as the integrated defaults they are meant to be, while keeping manifests portable enough that a future move off OpenShift is a decision rather than a rebuild.

  • Self-managed, ROSA and ARO

    OpenShift runs self-managed on your own hardware or cloud, and as a managed service — ROSA on AWS, ARO on Azure — where the control plane is run for you. We help choose honestly between them: self-managed for maximum control and on-premises estates, managed for teams who want OpenShift without operating the control plane, and we cost both against plain managed Kubernetes before recommending either.

Use cases

  • Regulated enterprise platform

    A finance or healthcare organisation standardising its container workloads on one supported, secure-by-default platform — Security Context Constraints and project isolation enforcing separation, Red Hat’s support and lifecycle satisfying audit, and a consistent operating model across teams that would otherwise each build their own Kubernetes.

  • Hybrid and on-premises modernisation

    Moving legacy applications off ageing on-premises infrastructure onto OpenShift while keeping some workloads in the data centre for latency or regulatory reasons — one control plane across on-premises and cloud, so the estate modernises without splitting into two operating models.

  • Internal developer platform

    Giving product teams a self-service platform — S2I or pipeline builds, GitOps delivery, the console for visibility — so they ship services without each reinventing CI/CD, registry and security plumbing, with guardrails set centrally rather than left to every team’s discretion.

  • Migrating from bespoke Kubernetes

    A team drowning in the maintenance of a self-assembled Kubernetes stack — mismatched tools, postponed upgrades, undocumented glue — consolidating onto OpenShift for a supported, integrated platform, where that maintenance burden genuinely outweighs the subscription cost.

When Red Hat OpenShift is the right choice

  • Right for large enterprises and regulated industries — finance, healthcare, government — that value Red Hat’s commercial support, a secure-by-default posture, and a single supported platform with a documented lifecycle, and where a subscription line item is far cheaper than the risk of running unsupported infrastructure yourself.
  • Right for genuine hybrid and on-premises estates where workloads must run across your own data centres and one or more clouds under one consistent control plane — this is OpenShift’s strongest case, and where plain managed cloud Kubernetes has nothing equivalent to offer.
  • Right when you want the integrated developer platform — console, S2I builds, Pipelines and GitOps — as a product rather than a collection of tools you must select, integrate, secure and maintain across a fleet of clusters yourself.
  • Wrong for a small team already living on a single cloud with no on-premises requirement — EKS, GKE or AKS give you managed Kubernetes without a separate subscription, less to learn, and none of OpenShift’s opinionation, and choosing OpenShift anyway means paying for enterprise features you will not use.
  • Wrong when the real answer is that you do not need Kubernetes at all — many workloads run perfectly well on a managed container platform or plain VMs, and putting them on OpenShift is over-engineering dressed up as future-proofing. We would rather talk you out of it than sell you a cluster you will resent operating.

Red Hat OpenShift: pros and cons

Strengths

  • It is real Kubernetes underneath, certified and supported by Red Hat, so you keep the ecosystem, the API and the portability while gaining commercial support and a documented, predictable upgrade path rather than chasing upstream releases yourself.
  • A genuinely integrated developer platform — the web console, oc CLI, Source-to-Image builds, OpenShift Pipelines and GitOps, and a built-in registry — that removes a large amount of the glue work teams otherwise build and maintain around bare Kubernetes.
  • A stronger secure-by-default posture through Security Context Constraints, project isolation and sensible restrictions, which shortens the distance between a running cluster and one that will survive a security review.
  • One coherent platform across self-managed on-premises, self-managed cloud, and managed forms (ROSA on AWS, ARO on Azure), which is the most credible hybrid Kubernetes story available and a strong fit for regulated estates.

Trade-offs

  • It is a paid subscription, not free like upstream Kubernetes — priced per node or per core — and for a small team on a single cloud that cost frequently buys enterprise features you will never use. The licensing is the first thing to be honest about, not the last.
  • It is heavier and more opinionated than plain Kubernetes. There is more platform to learn and operate, and OpenShift does some things its own way — Security Context Constraints, routes, S2I, its own defaults — so knowledge and manifests do not always transfer cleanly to and from vanilla Kubernetes.
  • It carries real resource overhead. The integrated platform components — monitoring, logging, registry, ingress, Operators — consume CPU and memory before you run a single workload, so small clusters spend a disproportionate share of their capacity on the platform itself.
  • It ties you to Red Hat’s way of doing things. The value comes from the opinionated, integrated layer, but that same layer is a form of lock-in: moving off OpenShift to plain Kubernetes means unpicking the pieces you came to rely on, and that is a cost you should price in before you commit.

Architecture

We design an OpenShift estate around the decisions that are expensive to reverse: the projects and their access model, the Security Context Constraints each workload actually needs, the network policies that isolate teams and tiers, and — before any of that — whether OpenShift is the right platform at all rather than plain managed Kubernetes. On the platform side we decide self-managed versus ROSA or ARO deliberately, because who runs the control plane changes the operational burden more than any other single choice.

The workloads themselves we keep as close to standard Kubernetes as OpenShift allows, so manifests stay portable and a future move is a decision rather than a rewrite, while using the integrated layer — Routes, the internal registry, Pipelines, GitOps — where it removes real work. Everything is defined declaratively and delivered through GitOps, so the cluster’s desired state lives in git, is reviewable, and is reconciled automatically rather than assembled by hand in the console. We are deliberate about which Operators we adopt, because each one is a long-lived operational dependency, not a convenience to be clicked in and forgotten.

Performance

Performance on OpenShift is, underneath, Kubernetes performance: right-sizing requests and limits so the scheduler places pods sensibly, setting horizontal pod autoscaling against real metrics rather than guesses, and keeping workloads close to their data. We size clusters and node pools to measured load, separate platform components from application workloads so neither starves the other, and instrument everything so tuning is driven by evidence rather than intuition.

The honest OpenShift-specific caveat is overhead. The integrated platform — monitoring, logging, the registry, ingress, the Operators you run — consumes CPU and memory before your applications get any, so a small OpenShift cluster spends a larger share of its capacity on itself than a lean managed Kubernetes cluster would. We account for that when sizing, keep the platform footprint proportionate to the estate, and are candid that for very small workloads this overhead is one of the reasons OpenShift may simply be the wrong tool.

Security

OpenShift’s strongest argument is that it is secure by default in ways plain Kubernetes leaves optional. Security Context Constraints stop containers running as root unless you explicitly and deliberately allow it, projects isolate teams, and the platform pushes least privilege from the first deployment rather than after an audit. We design SCCs and RBAC around what each workload genuinely requires, treating a request for elevated privileges as a decision to justify rather than a default to grant.

On top of that baseline we apply network policies so pods talk only to what they should, manage secrets properly rather than baking them into images, integrate image scanning into the pipeline so vulnerable images are caught before deployment, and use GitOps so every change to the cluster is reviewed and auditable. OpenShift gives you a stronger starting posture than upstream Kubernetes, but a strong default is not a finished security model — the difference is in the explicit decisions, and those are the ones we own on your behalf rather than inherit from the platform.

Scalability

OpenShift scales the way Kubernetes does: horizontal pod autoscaling adds replicas against CPU, memory or custom metrics, and cluster autoscaling adds and removes nodes as demand moves. We design workloads to be stateless so scaling out is safe, push shared state into a database or cache rather than the pod, and decouple producers from consumers with a message broker so traffic spikes queue rather than topple the system.

As on any platform, the component that scales worst is usually the stateful one — the database — so we design its capacity, replication and caching early rather than discovering the ceiling under load. We also scale the subscription, not just the capacity: because OpenShift is licensed per node or per core, careless autoscaling can grow the bill as fast as it grows the cluster. We set autoscaling bounds and cost visibility deliberately, so growth in traffic reflects decisions you made rather than a subscription quietly expanding underneath you.

Red Hat OpenShift integrations & ecosystem

The technologies we most often pair with it — each links to how we work with it.

How we work

We start with the decision that saves the most money: whether you should be on OpenShift at all, or whether plain managed Kubernetes — or no Kubernetes — would serve you better and cheaper. If OpenShift is the right answer, we settle the foundations that are painful to change later: self-managed versus ROSA or ARO, the project and access model, Security Context Constraints, and network policy. Then we define the estate declaratively and deliver through GitOps from day one, so the cluster is reproducible and reviewable rather than a console full of manual changes.

The engineers who design the platform are the ones who run it, which is what we mean by operating what we build. Security posture, autoscaling bounds, Operator choices and subscription cost are set by people who will be on call for the incident and the renewal alike, so we favour durable, well-understood patterns over whatever is quickest to demonstrate. You get a supported platform your own team can understand and run, honest advice about where OpenShift fits and where it does not, and manifests kept portable enough that you are never trapped.

The service behind it

Delivered throughCloud Engineering

What we build with Red Hat OpenShift

The disciplines this technology most often shows up in — from a first build to taking over and stabilising an existing one.

How we deliver

  1. 01

    Discover

    We map the system, the constraints and the business it serves — including the parts nobody documented.

    Architecture brief

  2. 02

    Architect

    Decisions get made, written down and defended before a line of production code exists.

    Decision records

  3. 03

    Build

    Short cycles against working software. You see progress in the product, not in a status deck.

    Shipping increments

  4. 04

    Operate

    Monitoring, incident response and iteration. The system is alive, so the engagement is too.

    Runbooks & SLOs

Industries we use Red Hat OpenShift in

Domain knowledge changes what gets built. A few of the sectors we know before the first meeting.

Also in Cloud & Infrastructure

Why teams choose us for Red Hat OpenShift

  • Senior engineers only

    OpenShift rewards judgement and punishes cargo-culting — knowing which Operators earn their place, when a Security Context Constraint should be tightened rather than loosened, and whether the subscription is buying you anything you will use. The people making those calls on your project have made them before and lived with the consequences. No juniors learning the platform on your bill.

  • We operate what we build

    We run the platforms we design, so security posture, autoscaling bounds and Operator choices are set for the on-call and renewal reality, not the demo. That means least-privilege SCCs from day one, GitOps rather than console drift, and a platform your own team can genuinely understand after we hand it over.

  • Honest about when OpenShift is wrong

    We will tell you plainly when plain EKS, GKE or AKS would be simpler and cheaper, when you do not need Kubernetes at all, or when the subscription is buying features you will never touch. We would rather lose the OpenShift engagement than sell you a platform you will resent paying for and operating.

  • Cost discipline built in

    OpenShift is licensed per node or per core, so capacity and cost are the same decision. We size the platform to real need, set autoscaling bounds that do not quietly grow the subscription, and keep the footprint proportionate — so the invoice reflects choices you made rather than defaults that expanded underneath you.

Typical timeline

  1. 01

    Assessment and platform decision

    One to two weeks agreeing whether OpenShift is the right fit against plain managed Kubernetes, then settling self-managed versus ROSA or ARO, the project and security model, and the delivery approach — the foundations that are cheap to get right early and painful to retrofit.

  2. 02

    First workload in production

    Two to three weeks deploying one real workload end to end through GitOps, with Security Context Constraints, network policy, pipeline builds and monitoring in place, proving the architecture against reality rather than a diagram.

  3. 03

    Iterative build or migration

    Workload-by-workload delivery in short, shippable cycles — for a migration, moving applications in a deliberate order with security, cost and rollback checked as we go rather than in a big-bang cutover.

  4. 04

    Hardening and handover

    Security review across SCCs, RBAC and image scanning, subscription and capacity review so cost reflects real need, load testing where it matters, and documentation so your team can own and run the platform.

How pricing works

  • Platform architecture engagements — deciding OpenShift versus plain managed Kubernetes, self-managed versus ROSA or ARO, and designing the projects, security and delivery model — quoted once we understand the workloads, the compliance needs and the existing estate.
  • Migration and modernisation work moving applications onto OpenShift, priced against an upfront assessment of the workloads, their containerisation readiness, and the order in which they should move.
  • Monthly senior engagement for ongoing platform and product work on OpenShift, where scope evolves and you want continuity of the same engineers running what they built.
  • Focused audits and rescues for existing OpenShift estates — security posture, runaway subscription cost, an over-built cluster, or a stalled migration — priced by the assessment.

Hire Red Hat OpenShift engineers

Need Red Hat OpenShift capacity on your own team? We embed named senior engineers into your existing team — reporting to your leads, working in your rituals — so you add capacity without a hiring cycle.

Hire Red Hat OpenShift engineers

Common questions

Should we use OpenShift or plain managed Kubernetes like EKS, GKE or AKS?

It depends on your size, your estate and your appetite for operating a platform. If you are a large enterprise, a regulated business, or you have a genuine hybrid or on-premises requirement, OpenShift’s supported, secure-by-default, integrated platform often earns its subscription. If you are a smaller team already on a single cloud with no on-premises need, plain EKS, GKE or AKS is usually simpler, cheaper and entirely sufficient, and we will say so rather than sell you a cluster you do not need.

Is OpenShift free like Kubernetes?

No, and this is the first thing to be clear about. Upstream Kubernetes costs nothing to license; OpenShift is a paid Red Hat subscription, priced per node or per core. What you pay for is a supported, integrated, secure-by-default platform with a documented lifecycle rather than a stack you assemble and maintain yourself. That trade is worth it for many enterprises and pointless for many small teams, and the honest answer for you depends entirely on which you are.

What does OpenShift actually add over vanilla Kubernetes?

The parts most teams otherwise build themselves: a developer console and the oc CLI, integrated CI/CD through Pipelines and GitOps, Source-to-Image builds, a built-in registry, the Operator ecosystem, and a stricter security posture through Security Context Constraints and project isolation — all supported by Red Hat as one platform. The cost is a subscription, more to learn, real resource overhead, and some divergence from vanilla Kubernetes. Whether that bundle is worth it is exactly the question we help you answer honestly.

Are we locked in to Red Hat if we choose OpenShift?

Partly, and it is worth pricing in. OpenShift is real Kubernetes underneath, so your core workloads stay portable, but the value comes from the opinionated integrated layer — Routes, S2I, the registry, Operators, SCCs — and leaning on those is a form of lock-in. We deliberately keep manifests as close to standard Kubernetes as OpenShift allows, so a future move off the platform is a decision you can make rather than a rebuild you are trapped into.

Should we run OpenShift ourselves or use ROSA or ARO?

Self-managed OpenShift gives you maximum control and is the right answer for on-premises and hybrid estates, but you own operating the control plane. ROSA on AWS and ARO on Azure run the control plane for you, which suits teams that want OpenShift without that operational burden. We help you choose based on where your workloads live, how much you want to operate, and — always — whether plain managed Kubernetes on the same cloud would meet the need for less.

Building on Red Hat OpenShift?

A technical conversation with the engineers who would do the work. If we are not the right fit, we will say so on the call.

Prefer to book a call?Or email support@yarqat.com

Two fields required. We reply to real enquiries — no list, no sequence.