We performed a comparison between Hitachi Content Platform 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."Hitachi is a big company, so it's a very strong product."
"Integrating Hitachi Content Platform with existing systems is not challenging."
"The product provides the fastest technology."
"Feature-wise, it has a lot of features. The most valuable features include de-duplication, encryption, version controlling, support, and tamper-proof data."
"The way that they handle the DR is very good because when there is a failover, it is seamless to the users."
"One of the most hidden valuable features is ensuring that you don't have bit rot, so it will go and check every single object that's stored on the system, then ensure that if there's a problem, it'll be repaired from either a local copy or remote copy, depending upon your configuration."
"The features that I have found most valuable are their retention logs. The other thing I have found most valuable is the way they handle the BHEA. Basically the DNS and everything is managed by itself. It is seamless to the users."
"The Hitachi Content Platform is a stable and reliable solution."
"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."
"radosgw and librados provide a simple integration with clone, snapshots, and other functions that aid in data integrity."
"Ceph’s ability to adapt to varying types of commodity hardware affords us substantial flexibility and future-proofing."
"Most of the features are beneficial and one does not stand out above the rest."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the stability of the product."
"The only thing is that it should be more cost effective."
"What is lacking in this solution is a simple process to migrate from existing systems."
"The user interface isn't as user-friendly, and the management platform UI isn't as intuitive as others. So it can be more user-friendly."
"Two things that can be improved are pricing and configuration. Mostly the pricing is an issue. And if I were to add anything, I would say more integration with backup solutions such as Veeam Backup."
"In terms of the customer support, I can say it's a mixed reaction depending on the country."
"This product's ability to track logs for access still needs to be improved."
"When you want to replace a disk, we need to start the maintenance from the S nodes. We have to automate maintenance so any onsite engineer can replace it after that, but we don't need to do this on VSP platforms. An engineer can come in and replace that specific disk. If also we could do that on Hitachi Content Platform, it would be great for us."
"They should improve the user interface. It's a little bit complex. It does not have a self-learning method. You need to know how to use it before you touch the system. The user interface is not self-explanatory."
"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."
"Geo-replication needs improvement. It is a new feature, and not well supported yet."
"Some documentation is very hard to find."
"The management features are pretty good, but they still have room for improvement."
"This product uses a lot of CPU and network bandwidth. It needs some deduplication features and to use delta for rebalancing."
"Rebalancing and recovery are a bit slow."
"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."
"If you use for any other solution like other Kubernetes solutions, it's not very suitable."
Hitachi Content Platform is ranked 16th in File and Object Storage with 12 reviews while Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 2nd in File and Object Storage with 22 reviews. Hitachi Content Platform is rated 8.2, while Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Hitachi Content Platform writes " Integrates well with existing systems but technical support for the platform needs improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Ceph Storage writes "Provides block storage and object storage from the same storage cluster". Hitachi Content Platform is most compared with Dell ECS, MinIO, NetApp StorageGRID, Dell PowerScale (Isilon) and Cloudian HyperStore, whereas Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with MinIO, VMware vSAN, Portworx Enterprise, Pure Storage FlashBlade and NetApp StorageGRID. See our Hitachi Content Platform 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.
