We performed a comparison between Red Hat Ceph Storage and StarWind Virtual Tape Library 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 solution is pretty stable."
"Ceph has simplified my storage integration. I no longer need two or three storage systems, as Ceph can support all my storage needs. I no longer need OpenStack Swift for REST object storage access, I no longer need NFS or GlusterFS for filesystem sharing, and most importantly, I no longer need LVM or DRBD for my virtual machines in OpenStack."
"I like the distributed and self-healing nature of the product."
"Ceph was chosen to maintain exact performance and capacity characteristics for customer cloud."
"We are using Ceph internal inexpensive disk and data redundancy without spending extra money on external storage."
"We have not encountered any stability issues for the product."
"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."
"I like the fact that we can simultaneously upload the virtual tapes to different cloud providers, and the settings can be adjusted to speed up the upload times even further."
"The most valuable feature of the StarWind Virtual Tape Library is the archiving to the AWS cloud."
"The solution made our backups way more reliable."
"StarWind VTL allowed us to back up to virtual tape that was created within Veeam and upload the tape to the cloud."
"It is a stable solution."
"This product uses a lot of CPU and network bandwidth. It needs some deduplication features and to use delta for rebalancing."
"It takes some time to re-balance the storage in case of server failure."
"If you use for any other solution like other Kubernetes solutions, it's not very suitable."
"Some documentation is very hard to find."
"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."
"Please create a failback solution for OpenStack replication and maybe QoS to allow guaranteed IOPS."
"Rebalancing and recovery are a bit slow."
"The storage capacity of the solution can be improved."
"The main thing that I felt could be improved was having an estimated time of completion for the virtual tape uploads to the cloud."
"The solution's training process and online documentation could be more thorough."
"I am not sure if this is a limitation of my physical hardware or if it is the software itself. However, I would like the throughput to be faster."
"The initial installation can be complex and should be simplified."
More StarWind Virtual Tape Library Pricing and Cost Advice →
Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 3rd in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 22 reviews while StarWind Virtual Tape Library is ranked 11th in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 6 reviews. Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 8.2, while StarWind Virtual Tape Library is rated 10.0. 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 StarWind Virtual Tape Library writes "Flexible and reliable with helpful support". Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with MinIO, VMware vSAN, Portworx Enterprise, Pure Storage FlashBlade and NetApp StorageGRID, whereas StarWind Virtual Tape Library is most compared with HPE StoreVirtual and StorMagic SvSAN. See our Red Hat Ceph Storage vs. StarWind Virtual Tape Library report.
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.