Compare NetApp StorageGRID vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

NetApp StorageGRID is ranked 4th in File and Object Storage with 4 reviews while Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 1st in File and Object Storage with 9 reviews. NetApp StorageGRID is rated 8.2, while Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of NetApp StorageGRID writes "The implementation went smoothly. It is a 'setup and forget' type of appliance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Ceph Storage writes "Simplifies my storage integration by replacing multiple storage systems". NetApp StorageGRID is most compared with EMC Elastic Cloud Storage, Red Hat Ceph Storage and Cloudian HyperStore, whereas Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with VMware vSAN, ScaleIO and LizardFS. See our NetApp StorageGRID 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 NetApp StorageGRID vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage and other solutions. Updated: November 2019.
384,147 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
The ability to get to the StorageGRID from anywhere on my network. The solution is remote. You don't have to be at a physical location.The implementation with NetApp went smoothly. It is a 'setup and forget' type of appliance.It has enabled us to save money on storage costs. We removed our tape library.It has improved our operational efficiency through time consumption and logistics by 40 to 50 percent. Everything that had to do with our legacy tape solution has been improved and is now more efficient.It has awesome scalability. We consume it with storage appliance nodes, then we just plug and play as we need more.It helps automate our storage infrastructure.Right now, we have an older StorageGRID. I like that we can grow it.It improves our operational efficiency.

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
There was a small amount of confusion when working with StorageGRID and Active Directory for access. We had to do things three to four times resulting in our engineer troubleshooting a couple of things. The location of the menu, along with what is inside the menu: configurations, settings, etc., is not straightforward to users. Most users are Windows-based. So, when make logical changes to the menu which are not similar to Windows, users and administrators get confused.The redundancy and reliability are great, but I also see room for improvement there. I would like to see more efficiency in the storage and dedupe/compression solutions.I would like to see them integrate more with the monitoring platforms. It is a bit difficult to get automated monitoring of the system.The processes around installation and upgrade need improvement.It has its quirks here and there, but it is an older NetApp system.We want to move towards Azure in the cloud. Right now, the system is all physical.The only real issue that we have run into is, when we are cloning, we cannot do a thin provision clone, it has to be a full clone.

Read more »

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.Please create a failback solution for OpenStack replication and maybe QoS to allow guaranteed IOPS.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
Creating your own data stores, backups, or storage grids, helps eliminate all these costs of downloading all the data back after you downloaded to the cloud.Buying the solution is expensive, but it saves you money down the line when you factor in the logistics of not having to buy tapes.The licensing that the S3 service provides them from a FabricPool standpoint is more attractive than the licensing from AWS or Azure.We save money on storage costs from this solution since it allows us to have a source of revenue from customers consuming the service.While we have been able to save money on storage costs, it could be better.The price is attractive.We chose NetApp because of price and performance.

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 File and Object Storage solutions are best for your needs.
384,147 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
4th
Views
2,429
Comparisons
1,615
Reviews
4
Average Words per Review
677
Avg. Rating
8.3
1st
Views
25,237
Comparisons
18,663
Reviews
8
Average Words per Review
258
Avg. Rating
8.9
Top Comparisons
Compared 25% of the time.
Compared 8% of the time.
Compared 6% of the time.
Also Known As
Storage GRIDCeph
Learn
NetApp
Red Hat
Overview

Store and manage unstructured data at scale using NetApp StorageGRID for secure, durable object storage. Place content in the right location, at the right time, and on the right storage tier, optimizing workflows and reducing overall costs for globally distributed rich media. 

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 NetApp StorageGRID
Learn more about Red Hat Ceph Storage
Sample Customers
ASE, DARZ GmbHDell, DreamHost
Top Industries
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company33%
Financial Services Firm20%
Comms Service Provider13%
Manufacturing Company11%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company33%
Comms Service Provider19%
Manufacturing Company9%
Media Company6%
Find out what your peers are saying about NetApp StorageGRID vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage and other solutions. Updated: November 2019.
384,147 professionals have used our research since 2012.
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.
Sign Up with Email