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 solution provides many controllers."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the rewrite speed and the nonstop services."
"We can capacity plan at a greater level than we used to."
"The solution is able to handle workloads and is easy to use. It allows us to actually manage the boxes in less time."
"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."
"The product is scalable and easy to expand."
"It uses the same platform for connectivity so integration is seamless."
"What I like best about Pure Storage FlashBlade is its object storage functionality, plus it has fast underlying hardware. Pure Storage FlashBlade is also very stable. I find its stability one of its valuable features."
"The community support is very good."
"We have not encountered any stability issues for the product."
"I like the distributed and self-healing nature of the product."
"We have some legacy servers that can be associated with this structure. With Ceph, we can rearrange these machines and reuse our investment."
"Ceph’s ability to adapt to varying types of commodity hardware affords us substantial flexibility and future-proofing."
"We use the solution for cloud storage."
"The high availability of the solution is important to us."
"The ability to provide block storage and object storage from the same storage cluster is very valuable for us."
"I would like to have Snapshots and Snapmail in the next release. People who came from a NetApp background, especially expect these features."
"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."
"There could be improvements in public cloud integration."
"In terms of scalability, it doesn't expand out quite as robustly as some of the others, but it covers 90% of the market in what it does."
"We haven't been able to use much of the cloud area of Pure Storage. We have a storage server and it would be better if it could integrate with other cloud features of this solution."
"I would like to see more deduplication."
"Compared to, for example, Hitachi NAS, the solution is not mature at all. It's just in its infancy as far as technology goes."
"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."
"It would be nice to have a notification feature whenever an important action is completed."
"An area for improvement would be that it's pretty difficult to manage synchronous replication over multiple regions."
"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."
"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."
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.
