We performed a comparison between Nutanix Unified Storage and Red Hat Ceph Storage based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Software Defined Storage (SDS) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Nutanix's analytics provide better insights into all of our files."
"The management interface is great and you have handy access to several details about your file shares."
"We can utilize mixed storage block-sized objects and combine various databases within a unified interface."
"What I like most about Nutanix Files Storage is the way it makes copies of the data. The solution also has high availability, which is excellent. Another valuable feature of Nutanix Files Storage is self-service, so users won't have to depend on the IT team much."
"Nutanix Unified Storage is a simple, user-friendly, and stable solution."
"The most important point is the simplicity of the API integration. We can leverage the API integrations and connect our hybrid-cloud network environment with Nutanix's cloud storage."
"The solution is very easy to manage."
"I like Nutanix Prism Central. The primary benefit is that we can manage everything from the same page."
"Data redundancy is a key feature, since it can survive failures (disks/servers). We didn’t lose our data or have a service interruption during server/disk failures."
"What I found most valuable from Red Hat Ceph Storage is integration because if you are talking about a solution that consists purely of Red Hat products, this is where integration benefits come in. In particular, Red Hat Ceph Storage becomes a single solution for managing the entire environment in terms of the container or the infrastructure, or the worker nodes because it all comes from a single plug."
"The ability to provide block storage and object storage from the same storage cluster is very valuable for us."
"Red Hat Ceph Storage is a reliable solution, it works well."
"The configuration of the solution and the user interface are both quite good."
"Replicated and erasure coded pools have allowed for multiple copies to be kept, easy scale-out of additional nodes, and easy replacement of failed hard drives. The solution continues working even when there are errors."
"The community support is very good."
"It's a very performance-intensive, brilliant storage system, and I always recommend it to customers based on its benefits, performance, and scalability."
"The graphical user interfaces could benefit from more attention to detail."
"The solution should keep adding new features to be competitive in the market."
"The implementation is a little bit complex and should be made easier."
"If they can add an integrated DLP feature, it would be great."
"The current hardware is not as dense as it could be. In our deployment, we have 2 PB per site, and we have to have 24 nodes. That's a lot of cabling and network ports that we use up. More dense nodes would be better."
"Allowing the use of the Gflag compromises the integrity of the Nutanix system and its established standards."
"We have some problems with Nutanix Unified Storage's support because they asked us to change our hardware."
"Customer service is more difficult to call and they do not responding as much as, for example, DataCore. It's not the same level of satisfaction compared to DataCore. Responses could be faster."
"Some documentation is very hard to find."
"In the deployment step, we need to create some config files to add Ceph functions in OpenStack modules (Nova, Cinder, Glance). It would be useful to have a tool that validates the format of the data in those files, before generating a deploy with failures."
"We have encountered slight integration issues."
"It needs a better UI for easier installation and management."
"I have encountered issues with stability when replication factor was not 3, which is the default and recommended value. Go below 3 and problems will arise."
"Routing around slow hardware."
"I would like to see better performance and stability when Ceph is in recovery."
"It took me a long time to get the storage drivers for the communication with Kubernetes up and running. The documentation could improve it is lacking information. I'm not sure if this is a Ceph problem or if Ceph should address this, but it was something I ran into. Additionally, there is a performance issue I am having that I am looking into, but overall I am satisfied with the performance."
Nutanix Unified Storage is ranked 5th in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 39 reviews while Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 3rd in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 22 reviews. Nutanix Unified Storage is rated 9.0, while Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Nutanix Unified Storage writes "Provides good performance, longer uptime, and an easy way to manage our data". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Ceph Storage writes "Provides block storage and object storage from the same storage cluster". Nutanix Unified Storage is most compared with Dell PowerScale (Isilon), MinIO, Dell ECS, Qumulo and VAST Data, whereas Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with MinIO, VMware vSAN, Portworx Enterprise, Pure Storage FlashBlade and NetApp StorageGRID. See our Nutanix Unified Storage vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage report.
See our list of best Software Defined Storage (SDS) vendors and best File and Object Storage vendors.
We monitor all Software Defined Storage (SDS) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
