We performed a comparison between Red Hat Ceph Storage and Tintri VMstore 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)."Ceph was chosen to maintain exact performance and capacity characteristics for customer cloud."
"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."
"Most of the features are beneficial and one does not stand out above the rest."
"The configuration of the solution and the user interface are both quite good."
"It has helped to save money and scale the storage without limits."
"We use the solution for cloud storage."
"The community support is very good."
"The ability to provide block storage and object storage from the same storage cluster is very valuable for us."
"Performance, cost, and ease of storage management."
"Among the most valuable features are its granular replication, the ability to define asynchronous or synchronous replication, which gives us very definable RTOs and RPOs around that type of service, and granular quality-of-service configuration, which allows for cases where you've got multiple customers on a single Tintri, but you want to be able to offer strong quality-of-service metrics and KPIs."
"The data encryption feature adds a valuable security enhancement with no impact on performance."
"The ease and use and the great performance are why we went with our 2nd Tintri VMstore."
"The Deduplication feature in VDI environments. If Tintri says we can host 3000 VMs in our storage, I know we can host 3000 VMs there. Believe the results."
"The cloning is very fast... Another aspect I like is that it's very simple. It's an easy GUI to use."
"Its speed has been absolutely fantastic."
"Simplicity of installation and management, high IOPS, management per VM, QoS, power and space saving."
"Routing around slow hardware."
"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."
"It needs a better UI for easier installation and management."
"Some documentation is very hard to find."
"This product uses a lot of CPU and network bandwidth. It needs some deduplication features and to use delta for rebalancing."
"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."
"The product lacks RDMA support for inter-OSD communication."
"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."
"I would like it to have the ability to store data other than virtual machines. At the moment, you can only connect VMs to it, and that’s a bit disappointing."
"I think with the world soon becoming only SSD, possibly NVMe, and 3D Xpoint. It would make sense for Tintri to drop the hybrid array down the line."
"Their current replication is really just enough to "check the box" that they do replication. We'll probably implement Actifio, Zerto or EMC RecoverPoint for VMs for more critical data replication."
"Active/active cluster between two Tintris on Hyper-V cluster."
"Technical support is an area where we had several issues, and it was hard to get some support in a specific case we had. I'm not very satisfied with them."
"Their support staff just doesn't have the experience with all of the products that we're running. They don't know the 850 series like we do because it's five years old. There is a little bit of a gap, and that may just be because we're an old customer running on platforms that their staff hasn't seen. I would like to see an improvement in their in-depth knowledge of their older products."
"More cloud integration."
"The solution is already good but the brand name is not so popular here."
Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 3rd in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 22 reviews while Tintri VMstore is ranked 15th in All-Flash Storage with 61 reviews. Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 8.2, while Tintri VMstore is rated 9.4. 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 Tintri VMstore writes "We were able to push a button—it really is that simple—and flip primary and secondary storage locations". Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with MinIO, VMware vSAN, Portworx Enterprise, Pure Storage FlashBlade and NetApp StorageGRID, whereas Tintri VMstore is most compared with Pure Storage FlashArray, Dell PowerStore, HPE Nimble Storage, VMware vSAN and NetApp AFF.
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.
