Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs Red Hat Ceph Storage comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 4, 2024
 

Categories and Ranking

Amazon EFS (Elastic File Sy...
Ranking in File and Object Storage
9th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
12
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Storage (6th)
Red Hat Ceph Storage
Ranking in File and Object Storage
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
Software Defined Storage (SDS) (2nd)
 

Featured Reviews

Shailesh Tripathi - PeerSpot reviewer
Useful for storing details of projects and has an easy configuration
I will recommend the product to others. We are partners. Our clients moved from on-premise setup to the cloud. We suggested AWS to them. We have configured the product based on the best practices. We also monitor the solution for recommendations in the Security Hub. We try to get the data encrypted properly within our repository. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.
Prajwal Kabbinale - PeerSpot reviewer
Overall satisfied , with easy implementation ,having a notification feature would be helpful
Our primary use case is for integration with OpenStack for block and object storage We use both Red Hat Ceph and Azure storage, for all staging and non-production. Most of the features are beneficial and one does not stand out above the rest. The operational overhead is higher compared to Azure…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The first valuable thing is it is scalable."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"I appreciate Amazon's extensive range of services, which makes it a favorable choice."
"Elastic File Systems allow me to share data, provision, and manage capacity and performance in AWS."
"The solution's technical support is good."
"We can run code and deploy it whenever we want."
"The platform is highly scalable."
"The solution is scalable."
"The community support is very good."
"Most of the features are beneficial and one does not stand out above the rest."
"We are using Ceph internal inexpensive disk and data redundancy without spending extra money on external storage."
"High reliability with commodity hardware."
"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."
"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 ability to provide block storage and object storage from the same storage cluster is very valuable for us."
"We use the solution for cloud storage."
 

Cons

"Around 80 percent of the features of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) are available on Linux and not in Windows, making it a major drawback of the product."
"Its deployment process could be faster while installing the Python package directly into the environment."
"The product's stability has some shortcomings where improvements are required."
"There are challenges related to AWS, such as ensuring proper security measures with IMS code and encryption."
"Elastic File Systems can be expensive due to the nature of data transfer costs, using services like SSTP, and potentially being costly in a rate-shift context."
"The platform's connectivity could be improved to be more comparable to S3 buckets, which offer better API availability."
"The lack of transparency in the costs attached to the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Specifically, when it comes to the file system for the learning system, we encountered performance issues with both Azure and AWS."
"Routing around slow hardware."
"I have encountered issues with stability when replication factor was not 3, which is the default and recommended value. Go below 3 and problems will arise."
"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."
"Rebalancing and recovery are a bit slow."
"Geo-replication needs improvement. It is a new feature, and not well supported yet."
"The management features are pretty good, but they still have room for improvement."
"What could be improved in Red Hat Ceph Storage is its user interface or GUI."
"An area for improvement would be that it's pretty difficult to manage synchronous replication over multiple regions."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product charges are based on the amount of data stored."
"I would rate the pricing 7 out of 10."
"It has flexible pricing. You are charged based on your storage."
"The product's price depends on the services and the size and capacity at which it is used in a business environment."
"The solution's price is mid-ranged."
"Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) offers a pay-as-you-go model, so whenever you use its services, you need to pay."
"The price of Red Hat Ceph Storage is reasonable."
"If you can afford a product like Red Hat Ceph Storage then go for it. If you cannot, then you need to test Ceph and get your hands dirty."
"The other big advantage is that Ceph is free software. Compared to traditional SAN based storage, it is very economical."
"The price of this product isn't high."
"We never used the paid support."
"Most of time, you can get Ceph with the OpenStack solution in a subscription​​ as a bundle.​"
"The operational overhead is higher compared to Azure because we own the hardware."
"I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which File and Object Storage solutions are best for your needs.
824,067 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
18%
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Computer Software Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Which file storage system is better - Amazon EFS (elastic file storage) or Azure File Storage?
Amazon EFS is easy to set up: you can use the AWS management console, API, or command-line. Amazon EFS can grow to petabytes and deliver consistent low latencies and high levels of throughput. This...
What do you like most about Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)?
The product's initial setup phase is easy, as per the configurations.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)?
The product charges are based on the amount of data stored, with different hot and cold storage costs. Cold storage is inexpensive but slower to access.
How does Red Hat Ceph Storage compare with MiniO?
Red Hat Ceph does well in simplifying storage integration by replacing the need for numerous storage solutions. This solution allows for multiple copies of replicated and coded pools to be kept, ea...
What do you like most about Red Hat Ceph Storage?
The high availability of the solution is important to us.
What needs improvement with Red Hat Ceph Storage?
Some documentation is very hard to find. The documentation must be quickly available.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Ceph
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Arcesium, Atlassian, Seeking Alpha, Zend
Dell, DreamHost
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage and other solutions. Updated: December 2024.
824,067 professionals have used our research since 2012.