Red Hat Ceph Storage vs SwiftStack comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Red Hat Logo
14,523 views|12,226 comparisons
80% willing to recommend
NVIDIA Logo
1,119 views|954 comparisons
100% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Red Hat Ceph Storage and SwiftStack 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.
To learn more, read our detailed Red Hat Ceph Storage vs. SwiftStack Report (Updated: May 2024).
771,212 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"Red Hat Ceph Storage is a reliable solution, it works well.""High reliability with commodity hardware.""The community support is very good.""Ceph was chosen to maintain exact performance and capacity characteristics for customer cloud.""We are using Ceph internal inexpensive disk and data redundancy without spending extra money on external storage.""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.""I like the distributed and self-healing nature of the product."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage Pros →

"It has helped us with the ability to distribute data to different data centers. As part of our DR strategy, we have nodes automatically replicating data from one data center to the other. This makes it easier for us to not have to shift tapes around.""The scalability is phenomenal. It seems infinite, as long as you put enough storage in place, add enough nodes.""The biggest feature, the biggest reason we went with SwiftStack, rather than deploying our own model with OpenStack Swift, was their deployment model. That was really the primary point in our purchase decision, back when we initially deployed. It took my installation time from days to hours, for deployment in our environment, versus deploying OpenStack Swift ourselves, manually.""The performance is good. It is a secondary storage platform designed for archive and backup, so performance for the right use cases is very good. We have been pretty happy in that regard.""The graphs are most valuable. They have a lot of graphs and reports that you can run to see what's happening in the background to configure OpenStack Swift.""The SwiftStack Controller, which is the web UI, provides out of band management. This has been one of the best features of it. It allows us to be able to do upgrades and look at performance metrics. It is a top feature and reason to choose the product.""In terms of the hardware flexibility, with SwiftStack not being a hardware company, I literally buy any hardware that's the least expensive, from any vendor... from a flexibility standpoint, I think it's fantastic. I can go to anybody, anywhere - any vendor - and get my hardware.""SwiftStack is also quite flexible when it comes to hardware. It depends, of course, on the use case and the kind of hardware you want to buy. But you have quite a bit of choice in hardware. The SwiftStack software itself does not impose anything on you."

More SwiftStack Pros →

Cons
"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.""The management features are pretty good, but they still have room for improvement.""The product lacks RDMA support for inter-OSD communication.""What could be improved in Red Hat Ceph Storage is its user interface or GUI.""Routing around slow hardware.""It needs a better UI for easier installation and management.""We have encountered slight integration issues.""This product uses a lot of CPU and network bandwidth. It needs some deduplication features and to use delta for rebalancing."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage Cons →

"I would like to see better client integrations, support for a broader client library. SwiftStack could be a little bit more involved in the client side: Python, Java, C, etc.""At the moment we are using Erasure coding in an 8+4 setting. What would be nice is if, for some standard configurations like 15+4 and 8+4, there were more versatility so we could, for example, select 8+6, or the like.""They should provide a more concise hardware calculator when you're putting your capacity together.""The biggest room for improvement is the maturity of the proxyFS solution. That piece of code is relatively new, so most of our issues have been around the proxyFS.""On the controller features, there needs to be a bit more clean up of the user interface. There are a lot of options available on the GUI which might be better organized or compartmentalized. There are times when you are going through the user interface and you have to look around for where the setting may be. A little bit more attention to the organization of the user interface would be helpful.""[One] thing that I've been looking for, for years as an end user and customer, for any object store, including SwiftStack, is some type of automated method for data archiving. Something where you would have a metadata tagging policy engine and a data mover all built into a single system that would automatically be able to take your data off your primary and put it into an object store in a non-proprietary way - which is key.""It's very well done for what it's supposed to do, and I don't have anything to add, but I would like them to keep it available to the public. SwiftStack is going out of the market. NVIDIA purchased SwiftStack a couple of years ago, and they won't be making it available to the public anymore. Our license is up to March 31st.""The file access needs improvement. The NFS was rolled out as a single service. It needs to be fully integrated into the proxy in a highly available fashion, like the regular proxy access is. I know it's on the roadmap."

More SwiftStack Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "The other big advantage is that Ceph is free software. Compared to traditional SAN based storage, it is very economical."
  • "There is no cost for software."
  • "Most of time, you can get Ceph with the OpenStack solution in a subscription​​ as a bundle.​"
  • "We never used the paid support."
  • "If you can afford a product like Red Hat Ceph Storage then go for it. If you cannot, then you need to test Ceph and get your hands dirty."
  • "The price of this product isn't high."
  • "The price of Red Hat Ceph Storage is reasonable."
  • "The operational overhead is higher compared to Azure because we own the hardware."
  • More Red Hat Ceph Storage Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "All in, with hardware and everything else - and I hate to say a dollar amount because it's been awhile since I computed it - I know I'm under the $300 to $500 per terabyte mark. I call that my "all in" price, which has replications built in and protections built in."
  • "One of their advantages of being a commercial open source platform is, for the scale that they offer, the pricing is pretty competitive."
  • "The annual support and maintenance costs compared to our old solution for backups had about a two-thirds savings, so about a 60% annual savings on our support and maintenance contract. That savings funded additional expansion for what it was costing us for the support and maintenance contracts on old solution."
  • "The pricing and licensing are capacity-based, so it's hard to put my finger on them, because so many different vendors charge in different ways. We are still saving significantly over any of the other options that we evaluated because we can choose the best hardware at the best price, then put SwiftStack software on it. So, it's hard to complain, even though a part of me goes, "It would be nicer if it were less expensive.""
  • "We have had a 40 to 50 percent reduction in CAPEX on the acquisition of new hardware, which is probably conservative."
  • "COST_SAVING; We have had a 40 to 50 percent reduction in CAPEX on the acquisition of new hardware, which is probably conservative."
  • "We find the pricing rather steep. Of course, you get quality for your money, that's absolutely true... [But] when you look at the prices of the licensing and the prices of your hardware, it's quite substantial."
  • "We are able to dynamically grow storage at a lower cost. We can repurpose hardware and buy commodity hardware. There is a huge cost savings, on average $100,000 a year compared to traditional storage for what we have at our size."
  • More SwiftStack Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which File and Object Storage solutions are best for your needs.
    771,212 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:Red Hat Ceph does well in simplifying storage integration by replacing the need for numerous storage solutions. This solution allows for multiple copies of replicated and coded pools to be kept, easy… more »
    Top Answer:The high availability of the solution is important to us.
    Top Answer:Some documentation is very hard to find. The documentation must be quickly available.
    Ask a question

    Earn 20 points

    Ranking
    3rd
    Views
    14,523
    Comparisons
    12,226
    Reviews
    9
    Average Words per Review
    330
    Rating
    7.7
    18th
    Views
    1,119
    Comparisons
    954
    Reviews
    0
    Average Words per Review
    0
    Rating
    N/A
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Ceph
    Learn More
    NVIDIA
    Video Not Available
    Overview
    Red Hat Ceph Storage is an enterprise open source platform that provides unified software-defined storage on standard, economical servers and disks. With block, object, and file storage combined into one platform, Red Hat Ceph Storage efficiently and automatically manages all your data.
    SwiftStack enables you to do more with storage. Store more data, enable more applications and serve more users. We do this by delivering a proven object storage solution that's built on an open-source core and is fully enterprise ready. Our object storage software is an alternative to complex, expensive, on-premises hardware-based storage solutions. SwiftStack delivers the features and flexibility you need to easily manage and scale object storage behind your firewall. Customers are demanding storage where they can pay as they grow, find it is easier to consume, and can infinitely scale. Today, our customers use SwiftStack for archiving active data, serving web content, building private clouds, sharing documents and storing backups.
    Sample Customers
    Dell, DreamHost
    Pac-12 Networks, Georgia Institute of Technology, Budd Van Lines
    Top Industries
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company18%
    Manufacturing Company10%
    Financial Services Firm9%
    Government7%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company20%
    Manufacturing Company15%
    Financial Services Firm10%
    Government7%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business37%
    Midsize Enterprise15%
    Large Enterprise48%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business25%
    Midsize Enterprise15%
    Large Enterprise60%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business43%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise43%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business20%
    Midsize Enterprise12%
    Large Enterprise69%
    Buyer's Guide
    Red Hat Ceph Storage vs. SwiftStack
    May 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Red Hat Ceph Storage vs. SwiftStack and other solutions. Updated: May 2024.
    771,212 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 3rd in File and Object Storage with 22 reviews while SwiftStack is ranked 18th in File and Object Storage. Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 8.2, while SwiftStack is rated 8.6. 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 SwiftStack writes "It has helped us with the ability to distribute data to different data centers". Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with MinIO, VMware vSAN, Portworx Enterprise, Pure Storage FlashBlade and NetApp StorageGRID, whereas SwiftStack is most compared with MinIO, Dell ECS and Cloudian HyperStore. See our Red Hat Ceph Storage vs. SwiftStack 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.