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."The configuration of the solution and the user interface are both quite good."
"Most valuable features include replication and compression."
"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 have not encountered any stability issues for the product."
"The ability to provide block storage and object storage from the same storage cluster is very valuable for us."
"High reliability with commodity hardware."
"radosgw and librados provide a simple integration with clone, snapshots, and other functions that aid in data integrity."
"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."
"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."
"StarWind VTL allowed us to back up to virtual tape that was created within Veeam and upload the tape to the cloud."
"The solution made our backups way more reliable."
"It is a stable solution."
"The most valuable feature of the StarWind Virtual Tape Library is the archiving to the AWS cloud."
"It would be nice to have a notification feature whenever an important action is completed."
"Routing around slow hardware."
"Please create a failback solution for OpenStack replication and maybe QoS to allow guaranteed IOPS."
"Some documentation is very hard to find."
"The management features are pretty good, but they still have room for improvement."
"If you use for any other solution like other Kubernetes solutions, it's not very suitable."
"The storage capacity of the solution can be improved."
"It takes some time to re-balance the storage in case of server failure."
"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 initial installation can be complex and should be simplified."
"The main thing that I felt could be improved was having an estimated time of completion for the virtual tape uploads to the cloud."
"The solution's training process and online documentation could be more thorough."
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. 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.