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

HGST ActiveScale vs Red Hat Ceph Storage comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

Scalability Issues

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
6.4
Red Hat Ceph Storage scales well with user feedback, though latency and planning challenges require consideration and deployment tools.
 

Valuable Features

No sentiment score available
No sentiment score available
Red Hat Ceph Storage provides scalable, reliable, and flexible storage solutions with self-healing architecture and easy integration for various needs.
 

Room For Improvement

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
4.1
Red Hat Ceph Storage faces challenges in performance, usability, documentation, integration, and resource optimization, needing various improvements.
 

Stability Issues

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
8.7
Red Hat Ceph Storage is highly reliable and stable, with minor issues in data rebalancing, latency, and recovery.
 

Customer Service

No sentiment score available
No sentiment score available
Opinions on Red Hat Ceph Storage support vary; some value it, others prefer community forums or internal solutions.
 

Setup Cost

No sentiment score available
No sentiment score available
Enterprise buyers appreciated Red Hat Ceph Storage's reasonable pricing and flexible licensing, with the option for support depending on expertise.
 

Categories and Ranking

HGST ActiveScale
Ranking in File and Object Storage
32nd
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Red Hat Ceph Storage
Ranking in File and Object Storage
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
Software Defined Storage (SDS) (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the File and Object Storage category, the mindshare of HGST ActiveScale is 0.0%, down from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Ceph Storage is 22.7%, down from 23.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
File and Object Storage
 

Featured Reviews

Use HGST ActiveScale?
Share your opinion
Soner BÜYÜKATALAY - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides efficient stability and archive storage features, but its maintenance process needs improvement
Red Hat Ceph Storage is difficult to maintain. We use CLI tools for maintenance, and the concept seems challenging. Additionally, it is difficult to expand the product due to balancing errors. It takes some time to re-balance the storage in case of server failure. They could improve the speed of the process.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which File and Object Storage solutions are best for your needs.
816,636 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Computer Software Company
19%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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

Active Archive System, ActiveScale P100, ActiveScale X100
Ceph
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

EPFL, Illumination Mac Guff
Dell, DreamHost
Find out what your peers are saying about MinIO, Red Hat, Dell Technologies and others in File and Object Storage. Updated: October 2024.
816,636 professionals have used our research since 2012.