We performed a comparison between Red Hat Ceph Storage and Red Hat Gluster Storage based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about StarWind, Nutanix, Red Hat and others in Software Defined Storage (SDS)."The high availability of the solution is important to us."
"Red Hat Ceph Storage is a reliable solution, it works well."
"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."
"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."
"Most of the features are beneficial and one does not stand out above the rest."
"Most valuable features include replication and compression."
"We have not encountered any stability issues for the product."
"The technical support team is excellent."
"It's very easy to upgrade storage."
"The price tag is good compared to the amount of data and high availability provided."
"Please create a failback solution for OpenStack replication and maybe QoS to allow guaranteed IOPS."
"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."
"What could be improved in Red Hat Ceph Storage is its user interface or GUI."
"The product lacks RDMA support for inter-OSD communication."
"It takes some time to re-balance the storage in case of server failure."
"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 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."
"An area for improvement would be that it's pretty difficult to manage synchronous replication over multiple regions."
"The performance of the solution must be improved."
"The user interface could be simplified."
"The system should be more intuitive and easier to manage."
Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 3rd in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 22 reviews while Red Hat Gluster Storage is ranked 12th in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 3 reviews. Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 8.2, while Red Hat Gluster Storage is rated 7.6. 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 Red Hat Gluster Storage writes "A scalable and easy-to-implement solution that has an excellent technical support team". Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with MinIO, VMware vSAN, Portworx Enterprise, Pure Storage FlashBlade and NetApp StorageGRID, whereas Red Hat Gluster Storage is most compared with VMware vSAN, IBM Spectrum Scale, LizardFS, LINBIT SDS and NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP.
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.
