We performed a comparison between Pure Storage FlashBlade and Red Hat Ceph Storage based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two File and Object Storage solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable features of this solution are the rewrite speed and the nonstop services."
"The initial setup was straightforward. If you know how to plug in power and network you're pretty much qualified. They were on site to configure the network, the box to fit into our network architecture. Other than that, we self-managed from there."
"We have seen a reduction in the total cost of ownership by around 20%."
"It has absolutely simplified our storage because the dashboards on the consoles show a clear understanding of where you are, and it is also very easy to provision. This been a big help for our teams."
"Speed and ease of use are the two most valuable features."
"The initial setup is pretty easy and simple."
"The tool's most valuable feature is its fast performance, especially in handling snapshots. It helps during power outages when we need to quickly move data between different data centers. It ensures efficient replication and helps maintain our data centers' uptime."
"Using this solution has made our backups more reliable."
"The configuration of the solution and the user interface are both quite good."
"We are using Ceph internal inexpensive disk and data redundancy without spending extra money on external storage."
"High reliability with commodity hardware."
"Ceph’s ability to adapt to varying types of commodity hardware affords us substantial flexibility and future-proofing."
"Without any extra costs, I was able to provide a redundant environment."
"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."
"It's a very performance-intensive, brilliant storage system, and I always recommend it to customers based on its benefits, performance, and scalability."
"The community support is very good."
"The speed could be improved."
"Commvault has mainly driven the Analytics, providing data and reports. However, the product has room for improvement, especially regarding storage analytics. Upgrading firmware has caused issues, requiring feature disabling to revert to traditional backups. The firmware upgrades sometimes affect Commvault backups."
"I want efficiency. FlashBlade doesn't have efficiency now."
"It's on the expensive side, as expected for a niche product."
"I would like to see the licensing fees improved as well as the price per terabytes."
"I would like to see better integration."
"I would like to see more monitoring capability included in the next release of this solution."
"I would also like to see better support for CIFS workloads."
"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."
"What could be improved in Red Hat Ceph Storage is its user interface or GUI."
"Geo-replication needs improvement. It is a new feature, and not well supported yet."
"It needs a better UI for easier installation and management."
"Rebalancing and recovery are a bit slow."
"The product lacks RDMA support for inter-OSD communication."
"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."
Pure Storage FlashBlade is ranked 6th in File and Object Storage with 31 reviews while Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 3rd in File and Object Storage with 22 reviews. Pure Storage FlashBlade is rated 8.8, while Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Pure Storage FlashBlade writes "A high-performing and scalable solution that improves data performance for S3 workloads". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Ceph Storage writes "Provides block storage and object storage from the same storage cluster". Pure Storage FlashBlade is most compared with Dell PowerScale (Isilon), VAST Data, MinIO, Pure Storage FlashArray and Dell ECS, whereas Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with MinIO, VMware vSAN, Portworx Enterprise, NetApp StorageGRID and Dell ECS. See our Pure Storage FlashBlade vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage report.
See our list of best File and Object Storage vendors.
We monitor all File and Object Storage 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.
