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."Pure Storage FlashBlade is user-friendly. It's replication feature is great because it has active replication and active DR. That's the beauty of the product. It's a perfect solution for block storage."
"We can capacity plan at a greater level than we used to."
"The main feature I have found to be product replication."
"It helps simplify our storage, because the user interface is very simple and the installation is easy."
"The most valuable features are the Metro clustering, and disaster recovery."
"The solution provides many controllers."
"I would rate this solution an eight plus. It has has good flexibility and stability, it's easy to manage and the response time is good."
"The onboarding and integrated monitoring tools are pretty good."
"Ceph has simplified my storage integration. I no longer need two or three storage systems, as Ceph can support all my storage needs. I no longer need OpenStack Swift for REST object storage access, I no longer need NFS or GlusterFS for filesystem sharing, and most importantly, I no longer need LVM or DRBD for my virtual machines in OpenStack."
"We use the solution for cloud storage."
"I like the distributed and self-healing nature of the product."
"The community support is very good."
"What I found most valuable from Red Hat Ceph Storage is integration because if you are talking about a solution that consists purely of Red Hat products, this is where integration benefits come in. In particular, Red Hat Ceph Storage becomes a single solution for managing the entire environment in terms of the container or the infrastructure, or the worker nodes because it all comes from a single plug."
"It's a very performance-intensive, brilliant storage system, and I always recommend it to customers based on its benefits, performance, and scalability."
"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."
"It has helped to save money and scale the storage without limits."
"I would like to see more monitoring capability included in the next release of this solution."
"An area for improvement in Pure Storage FlashBlade is its price. It could be reduced. The technical support for Pure Storage FlashBlade also needs improvement. It used to be good, with more experienced engineers. Nowadays, it isn't, and it takes longer for support to solve problems."
"They need better integration with public clouds along with a better hybrid solution."
"The Pure Storage Orchestrator is our biggest pain point at the moment. If we can have more say in future developments of feature sets that we will need to support for our use case, that would be pretty beneficial to us."
"The features provided for SMB customers are limited."
"The feature that we're waiting on is better integration with the cell services."
"I want efficiency. FlashBlade doesn't have efficiency now."
"It usually comes down to just what you hit and the value you're getting when you spend the money and license the products. I would always go, "If you want to make things better, lower your price and make your licensing simpler." There's always an opportunity around that."
"Geo-replication needs improvement. It is a new feature, and not well supported yet."
"It takes some time to re-balance the storage in case of server failure."
"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."
"What could be improved in Red Hat Ceph Storage is its user interface or GUI."
"If you use for any other solution like other Kubernetes solutions, it's not very suitable."
"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."
"Rebalancing and recovery are a bit slow."
Pure Storage FlashBlade is ranked 7th in File and Object Storage with 31 reviews while Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 2nd 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.
