Compare IBM Spectrum Virtualize vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

IBM Spectrum Virtualize is ranked 7th in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 6 reviews while Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 3rd in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 9 reviews. IBM Spectrum Virtualize is rated 9.2, while Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of IBM Spectrum Virtualize writes "Seamlessly moves hardware in and out as we refresh technology". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Ceph Storage writes "Simplifies my storage integration by replacing multiple storage systems". IBM Spectrum Virtualize is most compared with VMware vSAN, EMC ViPR and EMC VPLEX , whereas Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with VMware vSAN, ScaleIO and LizardFS. See our IBM Spectrum Virtualize vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Spectrum Virtualize vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage and other solutions. Updated: January 2020.
389,722 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
It has the ability to seamlessly move hardware in and out as we refresh technology.It provides transparency, because of its advanced copy features.The SVC gives excellent performance with tiered storage behind it.It lowers cost. It does so by getting more efficient use out of the technology behind it.The scalability is very good. It can handle anywhere from very small to large enterprise class.When we add storage behind it, the product is good for the customers because their customers do not notice that anything is happening due to the virtualization.The abstraction flair and the abstraction layer. We had a mixture of different storage arrays, and the wonderful thing about SVC is is that it normalizes all it into a single driver. A single view that all hosts see simultaneously.We acquire companies (and things), so we end up with odd hardware. We bring it behind the SVC and it allows us to migrate stuff off of it seamlessly. SVC can also cover up a host of defects of the underlying storage.

Read more »

The configuration of the solution and the user interface are both quite good.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.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.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.We are using Ceph internal inexpensive disk and data redundancy without spending extra money on external storage.Without any extra costs, I was able to provide a redundant environment.The community support is very good.It has helped to save money and scale the storage without limits.

Read more »

Cons
Tighter integration with cloud storage might be useful as a target for a variety of use cases.The Storwize port is not so stable.The disk reliability is not that good.There are big arrays now, and if a customer wants add more disks to it, you have to have another array. Adding disks to existing arrays is one of the most demanded things from our customers.NBME support and support for a higher Fibre Channel lengths could be improved, but those are already on the roadmap.Anything which improves performance and the ability of our systems would be a nice.In general, the migration is complicated. Though, it is case-by-case.Level 1 technical support needs improvement.

Read more »

The management features are pretty good, but they still have room for improvement.It needs a better UI for easier installation and management.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.Rebalancing and recovery are a bit slow.This product uses a lot of CPU and network bandwidth. It needs some deduplication features and to use delta for rebalancing.Geo-replication needs improvement. It is a new feature, and not well supported yet.In the deployment step, we need to create some config files to add Ceph functions in OpenStack modules (Nova, Cinder, Glance). It would be useful to have a tool that validates the format of the data in those files, before generating a deploy with failures.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.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
It has a lot of advanced functions for a reasonable price.Do a proof of concept, if you are not comfortable jumping in, but do it.We would like the CPU cycle to save more on the licensing costs for us.We have struggled with Pure Storage, but people are understanding that much of Pure has been consumer grade SSDs. Therefore, when the customer is really understands what they are getting, they realize that IBM presents the same sort of value as existing vendors.

Read more »

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.We never used the paid support.Most of time, you can get Ceph with the OpenStack solution in a subscription​​ as a bundle.​

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Software Defined Storage (SDS) solutions are best for your needs.
389,722 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
Views
2,276
Comparisons
1,223
Reviews
6
Average Words per Review
537
Avg. Rating
9.2
Views
25,590
Comparisons
18,915
Reviews
9
Average Words per Review
255
Avg. Rating
8.7
Top Comparisons
Compared 14% of the time.
Compared 10% of the time.
Compared 25% of the time.
Compared 8% of the time.
Compared 6% of the time.
Also Known As
Ceph
Learn
IBM
Red Hat
Overview

IBM Spectrum Virtualize is a dependable solution that improves data value, security, and simplicity for new and existing storage infrastructure. Proven over 12 years in thousands of deployments, its innovative virtualization capabilities help organizations achieve better data economics by supporting new workloads that are critical to their success. IBM Spectrum Virtualize software helps make new and existing storage more effective and standardizes functions traditionally deployed separately in disk systems for greater flexibility and potentially lower costs.

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.
Offer
Learn more about IBM Spectrum Virtualize
Learn more about Red Hat Ceph Storage
Sample Customers
Pelephone, Sprint IT Enterprise ServicesDell, DreamHost
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Healthcare Company20%
University13%
Financial Services Firm13%
Manufacturing Company13%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company26%
Financial Services Firm12%
Logistics Company10%
Government9%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company33%
Comms Service Provider18%
Manufacturing Company9%
Media Company6%
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Spectrum Virtualize vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage and other solutions. Updated: January 2020.
389,722 professionals have used our research since 2012.
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.