We performed a comparison between Red Hat Ceph Storage and Springpath [EOL] 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)."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."
"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."
"Ceph was chosen to maintain exact performance and capacity characteristics for customer cloud."
"I like the distributed and self-healing nature of the product."
"We have some legacy servers that can be associated with this structure. With Ceph, we can rearrange these machines and reuse our investment."
"The ability to provide block storage and object storage from the same storage cluster is very valuable for us."
"High reliability with commodity hardware."
"Integration with vCenter WebClient services and Cisco UCS Ecosystem, as it gives a Single Pane Of Management which lowers administration-cost (improving TCO)."
"What could be improved in Red Hat Ceph Storage is its user interface or GUI."
"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."
"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."
"Please create a failback solution for OpenStack replication and maybe QoS to allow guaranteed IOPS."
"An area for improvement would be that it's pretty difficult to manage synchronous replication over multiple regions."
"The storage capacity of the solution can be improved."
"Some documentation is very hard to find."
"Stability during installations/upgrades is a big issue."
Earn 20 points
Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 3rd in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 22 reviews while Springpath [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Software Defined Storage (SDS). Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 8.2, while Springpath [EOL] is rated 4.0. 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 Springpath [EOL] writes "This product has a lot of room to improve: Competitors have a much larger feature-set, stability during installations/upgrades is a big issue.". Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with MinIO, VMware vSAN, Portworx Enterprise, Pure Storage FlashBlade and NetApp StorageGRID, whereas Springpath [EOL] is most compared with .
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.
