Compare Red Hat Ceph Storage vs. Red Hat Gluster Storage

Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 3rd in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 8 reviews while Red Hat Gluster Storage is ranked 14th in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 2 reviews. Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 8.8, while Red Hat Gluster Storage is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Red Hat Ceph Storage writes "Simplifies my storage integration by replacing multiple storage systems". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Gluster Storage writes "The price tag is good compared to the amount of data and high availability provided". Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with VMware vSAN, ScaleIO and IBM Spectrum Scale, whereas Red Hat Gluster Storage is most compared with VMware vSAN, IBM Spectrum Scale and Red Hat Ceph Storage. See our Red Hat Ceph Storage vs. Red Hat Gluster Storage report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Red Hat Ceph Storage vs. Red Hat Gluster Storage and other solutions. Updated: March 2020.
406,860 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 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 »

It's very easy to upgrade storage.The price tag is good compared to the amount of data and high availability provided.

Read more »

Cons
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 »

The user interface could be simplified.The system should be more intuitive and easier to manage.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
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 »

If you need cheap storage, but still need high availability, it's a good product to look at.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Software Defined Storage (SDS) solutions are best for your needs.
406,860 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
Views
26,797
Comparisons
19,740
Reviews
8
Average Words per Review
277
Avg. Rating
8.8
Views
5,321
Comparisons
4,085
Reviews
2
Average Words per Review
284
Avg. Rating
7.5
Top Comparisons
Compared 26% of the time.
Compared 6% of the time.
Also Known As
CephRed Hat Gluster, Red Hat Storage Server
Learn
Red Hat
Red Hat
Overview
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.

Red Hat Gluster Storage (formerly known as Red Hat Storage Server) is a software-defined storage (SDS) platform designed to handle the requirements of traditional file storage—high-capacity tasks like backup and archival as well as high-performance tasks of analytics and virtualization. But unlike traditional storage systems, Red Hat Gluster Storage isn’t rigid and expensive. It easily scales across bare metal, virtual, container, and cloud deployments.

Offer
Learn more about Red Hat Ceph Storage
Learn more about Red Hat Gluster Storage
Sample Customers
Dell, DreamHostNTT Plala, McMaster University, University of Basque Country, Goodtech ASA, Cox Automotive, Raidió Teilifís Éireann (RTÉ), SaskTel, Glashart Media, Casio
Top Industries
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company38%
Comms Service Provider17%
Manufacturing Company7%
Media Company5%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company51%
Retailer8%
Comms Service Provider8%
Government4%
Find out what your peers are saying about Red Hat Ceph Storage vs. Red Hat Gluster Storage and other solutions. Updated: March 2020.
406,860 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.