We performed a comparison between Red Hat Ceph Storage and Red Hat Gluster Storage based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about StarWind, Nutanix, Red Hat and others in Software Defined Storage (SDS)."radosgw and librados provide a simple integration with clone, snapshots, and other functions that aid in data integrity."
"The most valuable feature is the stability of the product."
"We have some legacy servers that can be associated with this structure. With Ceph, we can rearrange these machines and reuse our investment."
"We use the solution for cloud storage."
"We are using Ceph internal inexpensive disk and data redundancy without spending extra money on external storage."
"It's a very performance-intensive, brilliant storage system, and I always recommend it to customers based on its benefits, performance, and scalability."
"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."
"Red Hat Ceph Storage is a reliable solution, it works well."
"The price tag is good compared to the amount of data and high availability provided."
"It's very easy to upgrade storage."
"The technical support team is excellent."
"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."
"The storage capacity of the solution can be improved."
"The product lacks RDMA support for inter-OSD communication."
"Rebalancing and recovery are a bit slow."
"Ceph is not a mature product at this time. Guides are misleading and incomplete. You will meet all kind of bugs and errors trying to install the system for the first time. It requires very experienced personnel to support and keep the system in working condition, and install all necessary packets."
"This product uses a lot of CPU and network bandwidth. It needs some deduplication features and to use delta for rebalancing."
"Ceph does not deal very well with, or takes a long time to recover from, certain kinds of network failures and individual storage node failures."
"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."
"The performance of the solution must be improved."
"The system should be more intuitive and easier to manage."
"The user interface could be simplified."
Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 3rd in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 22 reviews while Red Hat Gluster Storage is ranked 12th in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 3 reviews. Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 8.2, while Red Hat Gluster Storage is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Red Hat Ceph Storage writes "Provides block storage and object storage from the same storage cluster". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Gluster Storage writes "A scalable and easy-to-implement solution that has an excellent technical support team". Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with MinIO, VMware vSAN, Portworx Enterprise, Pure Storage FlashBlade and NetApp StorageGRID, whereas Red Hat Gluster Storage is most compared with VMware vSAN, IBM Spectrum Scale, LizardFS, LINBIT SDS and NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP.
See our list of best Software Defined Storage (SDS) 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.
