We performed a comparison between Red Hat Ceph Storage and VMware Software Defined 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)."We have not encountered any stability issues for the product."
"I like the distributed and self-healing nature of the product."
"The ability to provide block storage and object storage from the same storage cluster is very valuable for us."
"The configuration of the solution and the user interface are both quite good."
"Most of the features are beneficial and one does not stand out above the rest."
"High reliability with commodity hardware."
"We have some legacy servers that can be associated with this structure. With Ceph, we can rearrange these machines and reuse our investment."
"We use the solution for cloud storage."
"This is an easy-to-use product for adding flexibility to your storage solution."
"VMware Software Defined Storage gives higher availability against data corruption."
"The single management panel is the main feature that is wonderful for the customer."
"The best part of the solution is that you can actually scale up to a large number of operating systems without additional hardware."
"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."
"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 needs a better UI for easier installation and management."
"This product uses a lot of CPU and network bandwidth. It needs some deduplication features and to use delta for rebalancing."
"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."
"Ceph is not a mature product at this time. Guides are misleading and incomplete. You will meet all kind of bugs and errors trying to install the system for the first time. It requires very experienced personnel to support and keep the system in working condition, and install all necessary packets."
"The storage capacity of the solution can be improved."
"It would be nice to have a notification feature whenever an important action is completed."
"VMware Software Defined Storage should include a shared database on a standard version."
"The performance is not as good as some competing products and reporting can be improved."
"I'd like to see improved hardware compatibility"
"It doesn't have the ability to be deployed on any kind of hardware and network connectors."
More VMware Software Defined Storage Pricing and Cost Advice →
Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 3rd in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 22 reviews while VMware Software Defined Storage is ranked 15th in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 4 reviews. Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 8.2, while VMware Software Defined Storage is rated 8.0. 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 VMware Software Defined Storage writes "A stable solution that can be used for database applications and virtualization for multiple locations". Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with MinIO, VMware vSAN, Portworx Enterprise, Pure Storage FlashBlade and NetApp StorageGRID, whereas VMware Software Defined Storage is most compared with .
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.