We performed a comparison between Red Hat Ceph Storage and Scality RING 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."radosgw and librados provide a simple integration with clone, snapshots, and other functions that aid in data integrity."
"Ceph was chosen to maintain exact performance and capacity characteristics for customer cloud."
"Most valuable features include replication and compression."
"The community support is very good."
"We have not encountered any stability issues for the product."
"It's a very performance-intensive, brilliant storage system, and I always recommend it to customers based on its benefits, performance, and scalability."
"What I found most valuable from Red Hat Ceph Storage is integration because if you are talking about a solution that consists purely of Red Hat products, this is where integration benefits come in. In particular, Red Hat Ceph Storage becomes a single solution for managing the entire environment in terms of the container or the infrastructure, or the worker nodes because it all comes from a single plug."
"We use the solution for cloud storage."
"Another feature I like is the life cycle management that helps me with data storage efficiency."
"The most valuable feature of Scality RING8 is its performance and good interface."
"I think it's the economic factor. This solution has the lowest cost for storage systems."
"The product lacks RDMA support for inter-OSD communication."
"Geo-replication needs improvement. It is a new feature, and not well supported yet."
"Rebalancing and recovery are a bit slow."
"It would be nice to have a notification feature whenever an important action is completed."
"The management features are pretty good, but they still have room for improvement."
"This product uses a lot of CPU and network bandwidth. It needs some deduplication features and to use delta for rebalancing."
"An area for improvement would be that it's pretty difficult to manage synchronous replication over multiple regions."
"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."
"When we used this solution in 2015, it was not scalable at all. I don't know if they have improved on that, but at the time, scalability was just horrible."
"Scality RING is not easy to learn for someone new. It is a little bit difficult. There are a lot of components to it, and you also need to understand them to work with it effectively."
"Scality RING8 could improve by having more features. We have to use two automation tools to meet our needs. We would prefer to use only one."
Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 3rd in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 22 reviews while Scality RING is ranked 16th in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 4 reviews. Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 8.2, while Scality RING is rated 7.8. 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 Scality RING writes "Offers UTIPI (Unified Tiered Infrastructure Per IOPS) feature in billing but lacks extensive testing ". Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with MinIO, VMware vSAN, Portworx Enterprise, Pure Storage FlashBlade and Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct, whereas Scality RING is most compared with Dell ECS, MinIO, Qumulo, Cloudian HyperStore and NetApp StorageGRID. See our Red Hat Ceph Storage vs. Scality RING report.
See our list of best Software Defined Storage (SDS) vendors and best File and Object Storage 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.
