We performed a comparison between Red Hat Ceph Storage and VMware vSAN 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."The high availability of the solution is important to us."
"Without any extra costs, I was able to provide a redundant environment."
"The configuration of the solution and the user interface are both quite good."
"Most of the features are beneficial and one does not stand out above the rest."
"High reliability with commodity hardware."
"The most valuable feature is the stability of the product."
"Ceph’s ability to adapt to varying types of commodity hardware affords us substantial flexibility and future-proofing."
"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 most valuable features are productivity and data storage."
"The most important feature to me, in my role, is cost. In the renewal cycle for storage, it was about a 40 percent saving compared to going to an all-flash array, which is what we first looked at doing. Secondly, performance: we need clinical data access in five seconds and need to do everything we can to retain that metric. Thirdly, I was really pleasantly surprised during the data migration across to vSAN, that it happened almost instantly whereas, in the past, migrating from array to array was an arduous and fraught process."
"vSAN is one of the easiest implementations of any VMware product. It's almost like click it to enable it, then you're almost done."
"The scalability has been quite good."
"The most valuable features are the encryption, deduplication, compression, and the ability to manage all of your storage within your server rack."
"I have found that the multi-homing feature is very valuable in VMware vSAN. It is an easy-to-use solution."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is that it is stable."
"It scales well. We have plenty of room to grow."
"Geo-replication needs improvement. It is a new feature, and not well supported yet."
"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."
"If you use for any other solution like other Kubernetes solutions, it's not very suitable."
"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."
"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 management features are pretty good, but they still have room for improvement."
"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."
"The product lacks RDMA support for inter-OSD communication."
"This is quite an expensive solution."
"The big thing is pricing, and the rest of it is mostly good. From a scalability point of view, scaling the storage from network or compute should be easier. It is again all around the cost, and it would be good if it was easier to scale your storage separately from your compute."
"They should make the software updates easier. We should be able to upgrade it more easily."
"vSAN itself is a great storage platform, but one of the issues with it is that you have to be fully locked into the VMware package to use it. We're going to be deploying 72 Kubernetes nodes, and we're not going to buy VMware licenses for 72 of them, just so they can access vSAN. That's what we're using the Pure for. Opening it up so you could have vSAN as a data store, use it as a data lake, hit it with an NFS, S3 from outside the VMware ecosystem, would be great."
"Hackers are able to manage to leak information or data from the product using some corrupt files, making it an area of major concern where improvements are required."
"When you upgrade the vSAN, there are some issues like lost data and problems with the log. The log disappears. When you upgrade the solution, you must have several logs, so if you have some problems, you can check the log server to find them."
"I would like more integration with the hardware when it comes to disc types and supporting the newer types of storage."
"VMware vSAN needs to improve its features because other solutions have more advanced features."
Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 3rd in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 22 reviews while VMware vSAN is ranked 2nd in HCI with 227 reviews. Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 8.2, while VMware vSAN is rated 8.4. 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 VMware vSAN writes "Very stable, easy to set up, and easy to use". Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with MinIO, Portworx Enterprise, Pure Storage FlashBlade, NetApp StorageGRID and Dell ECS, whereas VMware vSAN is most compared with VxRail, Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct, HPE SimpliVity, Dell PowerFlex and Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI). See our Red Hat Ceph Storage vs. VMware vSAN report.
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.
