We performed a comparison between Red Hat Ceph Storage and VMware vSAN based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Software Defined Storage (SDS) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We have not encountered any stability issues for the product."
"radosgw and librados provide a simple integration with clone, snapshots, and other functions that aid in data integrity."
"Most valuable features include replication and compression."
"High reliability with commodity hardware."
"We use the solution for cloud storage."
"Ceph was chosen to maintain exact performance and capacity characteristics for customer cloud."
"Replicated and erasure coded pools have allowed for multiple copies to be kept, easy scale-out of additional nodes, and easy replacement of failed hard drives. The solution continues working even when there are errors."
"The community support is very good."
"The solution is simple to use compared to other solutions, such as Hyperflex, VxRail, and Nutanix"
"I like that we could choose whatever hardware we wanted, rather than having to use one particular vendor."
"VMware vSAN is easy to implement in a VMware environment and it is not expensive."
"I like the scalability and the fact that it reduces your total cost for storage over several years."
"The vSAN features we've found most helpful are live application migrations and storage policies. It has storage, policies, application, and DRS policies. Automation is there."
"The performance has exceeded our expectations and exceeded our traditional converged infrastructure."
"The solution's unified administration is its most valuable aspect."
"The high availability is very good."
"It takes some time to re-balance the storage in case of server failure."
"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 management features are pretty good, but they still have room for improvement."
"This product uses a lot of CPU and network bandwidth. It needs some deduplication features and to use delta for rebalancing."
"An area for improvement would be that it's pretty difficult to manage synchronous replication over multiple regions."
"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."
"Geo-replication needs improvement. It is a new feature, and not well supported yet."
"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."
"vSAN does not have online dedup. When opening the inline dedupe, the performance will be lower than off inline."
"This solution would benefit from better collaboration with Cisco for driver updates."
"One area that could be improved is the management feature."
"The big thing is pricing, and the rest of it is mostly good. From a scalability point of view, scaling the storage from network or compute should be easier. It is again all around the cost, and it would be good if it was easier to scale your storage separately from your compute."
"The only negative point relates to the licensing. If you want multiple, different servers, it costs money, but you have all the capacity for vSAN. You do not reach the data, but the processor arrays and the current architecture."
"The upgrading process could be simplified."
"It could be more robust. The latency is also an issue for us, and the reliability. I would like it to be faster and a little more flexible."
"There is room for improvement in vSAN's ability to debug. When it's not working well, debugging becomes quite challenging. Identifying issues when it's lagging or not functioning properly can be difficult."
Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 3rd in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 22 reviews while VMware vSAN is ranked 2nd in HCI with 226 reviews. Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 8.2, while VMware vSAN is rated 8.4. 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 vSAN writes "Very stable, easy to set up, and easy to use". Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with MinIO, Portworx Enterprise, Pure Storage FlashBlade, NetApp StorageGRID and Dell ECS, whereas VMware vSAN is most compared with VxRail, Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct, HPE SimpliVity, Dell PowerFlex and Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI). See our Red Hat Ceph Storage vs. VMware vSAN report.
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.
