We performed a comparison between Red Hat Ceph Storage and VMware vSAN 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."Red Hat Ceph Storage is a reliable solution, it works well."
"Most of the features are beneficial and one does not stand out above the rest."
"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 some legacy servers that can be associated with this structure. With Ceph, we can rearrange these machines and reuse our investment."
"Ceph was chosen to maintain exact performance and capacity characteristics for customer cloud."
"Ceph’s ability to adapt to varying types of commodity hardware affords us substantial flexibility and future-proofing."
"Without any extra costs, I was able to provide a redundant environment."
"radosgw and librados provide a simple integration with clone, snapshots, and other functions that aid in data integrity."
"I like that we could choose whatever hardware we wanted, rather than having to use one particular vendor."
"VMware vSAN has greatly reduced refresh spending."
"You get the benefit of local storage, but you have the protection of shared storage."
"Its ease of use is most valuable. It is easy to configure, and there is a unified interface, which makes things slightly easier."
"The deduplication and compression are excellent."
"Instead of going for SAN storage, customers can use the scale-up and scale-out features of VMware vSAN."
"vSAN is very integrated."
"The most valuable thing about vSAN is that all of its features have been working well for us for the past two years. We haven't had an issue with them."
"We have encountered slight integration issues."
"What could be improved in Red Hat Ceph Storage is its user interface or GUI."
"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."
"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 would be nice to have a notification feature whenever an important action is completed."
"An area for improvement would be that it's pretty difficult to manage synchronous replication over multiple regions."
"The management features are pretty good, but they still have room for improvement."
"They can package it in a way that is specific to the hardware infrastructure and the hardware platform. It should stay fairly up to date with the drivers and the manufacturer issues. The problem with uncoupling the proprietary technology and component capabilities is that by uncoupling them, you run into some concerns or challenges over the poor performance model. These concerns really come when you start talking about high performance, high bandwidth, and high availability types of environments. While vSAN is a leader, in a critical view, it is not about being cost-effective. It is more about the immediate impact of money loss to the business in critical applications where we want to maintain a continuous operational 59 model. It is, however, good for QA/QC tasks. I don't necessarily know how it works in regards to VDI or virtual desktop infrastructure."
"The ability to access SAN environments with fiber channels (or even NVMe) would be a good addition."
"It should be easier to use."
"The only thing that can be improved is the cost."
"vSAN itself is a great storage platform, but one of the issues with it is that you have to be fully locked into the VMware package to use it. We're going to be deploying 72 Kubernetes nodes, and we're not going to buy VMware licenses for 72 of them, just so they can access vSAN. That's what we're using the Pure for. Opening it up so you could have vSAN as a data store, use it as a data lake, hit it with an NFS, S3 from outside the VMware ecosystem, would be great."
"In a future release, they can bring in the object storage capabilities to this solution. Currently, there is not any compatibility."
"The UI falls short compared to other solutions. It needs some development to make it more user-friendly."
"Integration could be better."
Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 3rd in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 22 reviews while VMware vSAN is ranked 2nd in HCI with 227 reviews. Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 8.2, while VMware vSAN is rated 8.4. 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 VMware vSAN writes "Very stable, easy to set up, and easy to use". Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with MinIO, Portworx Enterprise, Pure Storage FlashBlade, NetApp StorageGRID and Dell ECS, whereas VMware vSAN is most compared with VxRail, Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct, HPE SimpliVity, Dell PowerFlex and Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI). See our Red Hat Ceph Storage vs. VMware vSAN report.
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.
