We performed a comparison between NetApp StorageGRID 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 ability to get to the StorageGRID from anywhere on my network. The solution is remote. You don't have to be at a physical location."
"The backup features are valuable. I've heard from our backup and data protection people that our clients are very satisfied with the performance in junction with the backup, which they archive on this type of object storage."
"It improves our operational efficiency."
"The most valuable feature is tiering."
"The feature of StorageGRID that I find most valuable for ensuring data durability and protection is its Information Lifecycle Management functionality."
"It has enabled us to save money on storage costs. We removed our tape library."
"Right now, we have an older StorageGRID. I like that we can grow it."
"The management portals have most significantly improved our data retrieval times. They've made it much easier to restore data compared to our previous methods."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Red Hat Ceph Storage is a reliable solution, it works well."
"The most valuable feature is the stability of the product."
"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."
"The only real issue that we have run into is, when we are cloning, we cannot do a thin provision clone, it has to be a full clone."
"The redundancy and reliability are great, but I also see room for improvement there. I would like to see more efficiency in the storage and dedupe/compression solutions."
"Improvements need to be made in the support area."
"The processes around installation and upgrade need improvement."
"The price is something that NetApp could improve, as with most companies. NetApp is known for not being the cheapest storage option, which is also valid for StorageGRID. There are other storage options on the market which we are aware of and have done proofs of concept for, but you cannot really compare the list prices because, as a big user of NetApp storages, we have totally different prices than some list prices. Still, the price information we got for other options are almost always less expensive than StorageGRID."
"There was a small amount of confusion when working with StorageGRID and Active Directory for access. We had to do things three to four times resulting in our engineer troubleshooting a couple of things. The location of the menu, along with what is inside the menu: configurations, settings, etc., is not straightforward to users. Most users are Windows-based. So, when make logical changes to the menu which are not similar to Windows, users and administrators get confused."
"Data retrieval speed could be better."
"The integration with more apps has room for improvement."
"The storage capacity of the solution can be improved."
"Routing around slow hardware."
"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."
"An area for improvement would be that it's pretty difficult to manage synchronous replication over multiple regions."
"If you use for any other solution like other Kubernetes solutions, it's not very suitable."
"Rebalancing and recovery are a bit slow."
"I would like to see better performance and stability when Ceph is in recovery."
"The product lacks RDMA support for inter-OSD communication."
NetApp StorageGRID is ranked 7th in File and Object Storage with 12 reviews while Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 3rd in File and Object Storage with 22 reviews. NetApp StorageGRID is rated 8.4, while Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of NetApp StorageGRID writes "Scalable object storage with robust data durability with efficient geo-distribution and comprehensive lifecycle management ensuring managing of large volumes of unstructured data". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Ceph Storage writes "Provides block storage and object storage from the same storage cluster". NetApp StorageGRID is most compared with MinIO, Dell ECS, Scality RING, Cloudian HyperStore and Hitachi Content Platform, whereas Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with MinIO, VMware vSAN, Portworx Enterprise, Pure Storage FlashBlade and Dell ECS. See our NetApp StorageGRID 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.
