We performed a comparison between Red Hat Ceph Storage and Red Hat Gluster 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)."Without any extra costs, I was able to provide a redundant environment."
"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."
"High reliability with commodity hardware."
"The configuration of the solution and the user interface are both quite 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."
"The ability to provide block storage and object storage from the same storage cluster is very valuable for us."
"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."
"Red Hat Ceph Storage is a reliable solution, it works well."
"It's very easy to upgrade storage."
"The technical support team is excellent."
"The price tag is good compared to the amount of data and high availability provided."
"Some documentation is very hard to find."
"I would like to see better performance and stability when Ceph is in recovery."
"This product uses a lot of CPU and network bandwidth. It needs some deduplication features and to use delta for rebalancing."
"The product lacks RDMA support for inter-OSD communication."
"Routing around slow hardware."
"The storage capacity of the solution can be improved."
"We have encountered slight integration issues."
"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."
"The system should be more intuitive and easier to manage."
"The performance of the solution must be improved."
"The user interface could be simplified."
Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 3rd in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 22 reviews while Red Hat Gluster Storage is ranked 12th in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 3 reviews. Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 8.2, while Red Hat Gluster Storage is rated 7.6. 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 Red Hat Gluster Storage writes "A scalable and easy-to-implement solution that has an excellent technical support team". Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with MinIO, VMware vSAN, Portworx Enterprise, Pure Storage FlashBlade and NetApp StorageGRID, whereas Red Hat Gluster Storage is most compared with VMware vSAN, IBM Spectrum Scale, LizardFS, LINBIT SDS and NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP.
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.