We performed a comparison between Red Hat Ceph Storage and Red Hat Gluster Storage 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."
"I like the distributed and self-healing nature of the product."
"The ability to provide block storage and object storage from the same storage cluster is very valuable for us."
"It's a very performance-intensive, brilliant storage system, and I always recommend it to customers based on its benefits, performance, and scalability."
"The most valuable feature is the stability 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."
"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."
"The configuration of the solution and the user interface are both quite good."
"The technical support team is excellent."
"It's very easy to upgrade storage."
"The price tag is good compared to the amount of data and high availability provided."
"What could be improved in Red Hat Ceph Storage is its user interface or GUI."
"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."
"It needs a better UI for easier installation and management."
"We have encountered slight integration issues."
"Geo-replication needs improvement. It is a new feature, and not well supported yet."
"Some documentation is very hard to find."
"Routing around slow hardware."
"If you use for any other solution like other Kubernetes solutions, it's not very suitable."
"The user interface could be simplified."
"The system should be more intuitive and easier to manage."
"The performance of the solution must be improved."
Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 3rd in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 22 reviews while Red Hat Gluster Storage is ranked 12th in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 3 reviews. Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 8.2, while Red Hat Gluster Storage is rated 7.6. 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 Red Hat Gluster Storage writes "A scalable and easy-to-implement solution that has an excellent technical support team". Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with MinIO, VMware vSAN, Portworx Enterprise, Pure Storage FlashBlade and NetApp StorageGRID, whereas Red Hat Gluster Storage is most compared with VMware vSAN, IBM Spectrum Scale, LizardFS, LINBIT SDS and NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP.
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.