We performed a comparison between Red Hat Ceph Storage and StarWind Virtual Tape Library based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Software Defined Storage (SDS) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Most valuable features include replication and compression."
"Red Hat Ceph Storage is a reliable solution, it works well."
"Ceph’s ability to adapt to varying types of commodity hardware affords us substantial flexibility and future-proofing."
"The community support is very good."
"High reliability with commodity hardware."
"Most of the features are beneficial and one does not stand out above the rest."
"The high availability of the solution is important to us."
"Without any extra costs, I was able to provide a redundant environment."
"I like the fact that we can simultaneously upload the virtual tapes to different cloud providers, and the settings can be adjusted to speed up the upload times even further."
"The solution made our backups way more reliable."
"StarWind VTL allowed us to back up to virtual tape that was created within Veeam and upload the tape to the cloud."
"It is a stable solution."
"The most valuable feature of the StarWind Virtual Tape Library is the archiving to the AWS cloud."
"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."
"It takes some time to re-balance the storage in case of server failure."
"Ceph does not deal very well with, or takes a long time to recover from, certain kinds of network failures and individual storage node failures."
"Routing around slow hardware."
"What could be improved in Red Hat Ceph Storage is its user interface or GUI."
"It would be nice to have a notification feature whenever an important action is completed."
"If you use for any other solution like other Kubernetes solutions, it's not very suitable."
"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."
"The initial installation can be complex and should be simplified."
"The solution's training process and online documentation could be more thorough."
"I am not sure if this is a limitation of my physical hardware or if it is the software itself. However, I would like the throughput to be faster."
"The main thing that I felt could be improved was having an estimated time of completion for the virtual tape uploads to the cloud."
More StarWind Virtual Tape Library Pricing and Cost Advice →
Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 3rd in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 22 reviews while StarWind Virtual Tape Library is ranked 11th in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 6 reviews. Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 8.2, while StarWind Virtual Tape Library is rated 10.0. 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 StarWind Virtual Tape Library writes "Flexible and reliable with helpful support". Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with MinIO, VMware vSAN, Portworx Enterprise, Pure Storage FlashBlade and NetApp StorageGRID, whereas StarWind Virtual Tape Library is most compared with HPE StoreVirtual and VMware vSAN. See our Red Hat Ceph Storage vs. StarWind Virtual Tape Library report.
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.
