No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Hitachi Content Platform vs Red Hat Ceph Storage comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 4, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

Everpure FlashArray
Sponsored
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
213
Ranking in other categories
All-Flash Storage (4th)
Hitachi Content Platform
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
File and Object Storage (17th)
Red Hat Ceph Storage
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
27
Ranking in other categories
Software Defined Storage (SDS) (3rd), File and Object Storage (1st)
 

Featured Reviews

Sowjanya MV - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Lead at Wipro Limited
Has improved performance for mission-critical workloads and enabled seamless non-disruptive upgrades
The availability is 99.99%, which is the main factor any customer would need because their data should be available whenever they want to access it. This is one main critical thing. It is very easy to upgrade since Pure Storage FlashArray handles it well. Everything is non-disruptive now; previously, there were forklift shifts, but now that is not the case. Pure Storage FlashArray says no to forklift upgrades. Usually hardware requires downtime, but Pure Storage FlashArray has improved their footprint so that they are not asking for downtime; everything is just a non-disruptive activity, which is why customers are more inclined towards Pure Storage FlashArray. Customers want more of the models in their environment due to the performance they are giving, and everything is in one Pure1 Array console where we can view all the models on one page or just an orchestration tool. You don't miss anything; you have replication, notifications about replication, and details about which host groups replication is happening in and if that replication is successful or failed. On a daily basis, our purpose is to create volumes for infrastructure; our daily activities include creating volumes and mapping them to the host, doing any migrations from a VM, clearing the data stores, and carving the volumes to those VMs. One key factor is the data compression with a ratio of 5:1, focusing on space efficiency, inline deduplication, and the compression Pure Storage FlashArray works on; that is a major factor we can suggest to any customer. Analytical capabilities are crucial. Daily, we check the throughput and consumption, and Pure Storage FlashArray provides predictions for one year regarding usage. This prediction helps plan updates well ahead. For support, we just raise a case, and they follow up and get it done. There is also AI readiness, but with the model R2, we don't have much of that AI readiness. For others, we do have AI readiness that predicts capacity based on daily or monthly trends, enabling us to analyze how much space we need or if we need to expand the disk shelf. From an operational point of view, a good feature is that if you accidentally delete a volume, it will be retained in the destroyed state for the next twenty-four hours, which is not the same with any other vendor. I have worked in this storage domain for the past fifteen years, and this option is remarkable, benefiting any L1 or L2 engineer. Additionally, from a compliance perspective, Pure Storage FlashArray has REST APIs enabled. I have not explored automation much, but from a security standpoint, it is strong with encryption data. If you want to automate, you can easily integrate with all clouds and explore Pure Cloud for scheduling workloads, including volume creation. Customers find benefit in Pure Storage FlashArray's single management pane of glass due to the dual controller and active-active setup. If one of the controllers goes down, all workloads automatically shift to the other controller, ensuring their data is safe and accessible at all times. This is a highlighted feature that any customer desires because their data should always be accessible. For SAN workloads, we use Pure Storage FlashArray because for SAN FC fiber channel, we don't use it; we use NetApp for NAS activities. We have clearly split this, so SAN is for mission-critical applications, while network-attached storage handles file systems. This architecture helps us maximize the benefit from Pure Storage FlashArray due to the significant workloads from this giant retail client. From a footprint and energy consumption perspective, you can see energy consumption from the Pure1 storage portal on a daily basis, and it is very compact. The three models we use consume only three units, which is quite low. From a footprint and data center perspective, it doesn't occupy much space. As everything moves to cloud, there are requirements to avoid excess spending on data centers, and Pure Storage FlashArray is efficient in energy consumption and is environmentally friendly.
Mir Gulzar Ahmed - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Manager at Synergy Computers
Integrates well with existing systems but technical support for the platform needs improvement
While deployment is simple, it's not as simple as StorageGRID. The architecture is entirely different, even though the end product uses the same protocols. The user interface isn't as user-friendly, and the management platform UI isn't as intuitive as others. Deployment isn't as centralized either. Although I've deployed Hitachi Content myself in our production head office for the VM team, even though it's simple, it wasn't completely straightforward. They still required my help with the initial configuration environment setup. So, it's not just simple; there are some tricky aspects. The environment is tricky, but if you understand it, configuration can be done quickly.
Rifat Rahman - PeerSpot reviewer
Infrastructure Architect & CEO at Tirzok Private Limited
Offers reliable performance and availability for large deployments
I would like to see improvements in Red Hat Ceph Storage not because I necessarily think it needs improvement, but because I generally prefer to do things manually rather than following the containerization part. Current deployments are based on containers, but I deploy manually with my scripts and controls. If there are no Kubernetes-like requirements, I often prefer to deploy a whole manual process. I don't ask for improvements in the deployment model because Red Hat has its own philosophy about making things, but it's my personal choice that I prefer things manually. Some features are available only in the containerization part, so if those are also available in manual deployment, that will help.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The ease of use. That's what our customers love. They say it's very easy, they don't need special training, they don't need to call us or any other company or integrator to help them do their job. That's the main reason they purchase Pure."
"You can even review the devices from your phone. You don't need to be connected to your company's website or VPN to access alerts and reports. While you can't manage the devices using your phone, you can review all the important details about the machine."
"Even if they weren't one of the fastest arrays in the entire industry, I would use them for their support model and ease of use."
"It's extremely stable and has good performance."
"It is always out of the box, and ready to use."
"They have really good baked in analytics to show you trends for growth history, so it does help with future planning for data growth."
"We've had different types of storage, and three things of this solution are valuable. The first one is its outstanding performance. The second one is its stability. In the about three years that we've had it, we've had component failures, but we never had a service interruption or any data loss. The third one, which is really critical, is that it is super easy to use in terms of provisioning, storage, and managing the arrays. I'm able to maintain a multi-site environment with a couple of dozen arrays with a single mid-level storage admin."
"I am satisfied with this solution, and we plan to keep using this solution."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the versioning and the ransomware protection."
"The main selling point is its compatibility with different environments. It functions like an on-prem Google Drive or Dropbox built on top of the object storage."
"As an architect, I like the management features that come with Hitachi Content Platform because it makes things easy."
"We are using Content Platform for data migration, and it integrates with our HNS platform. This is good because we can integrate it with our existing HNS and SAP solutions. The GUI is also user-friendly. It doesn't take much time to do anything. If we know the architecture and the steps, we can do what we need with a few clicks."
"The product provides the fastest technology."
"One of the most hidden valuable features is ensuring that you don't have bit rot, so it will go and check every single object that's stored on the system, then ensure that if there's a problem, it'll be repaired from either a local copy or remote copy, depending upon your configuration."
"The features that I have found most valuable are their retention logs."
"Hitachi is a big company, so it's a very strong product."
"I would definitely recommend Red Hat Ceph Storage. It is a complete solution for cloud-native storage needs."
"It opens doors for completely open-source cloud."
"I can compare Red Hat Ceph Storage with products from other vendors; I explored quite a few, but I still find that Red Hat Ceph Storage is making the most disruption."
"High reliability with commodity hardware There is no cost for software"
"The product spawned a new vision of storage deployment, as well as a strong interest in reusing equipment and increasing ROI."
"It has helped to save money and scale the storage without limits."
"The scalability feature is used by all users and is critical for our operations."
"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, and the solution continues working even when there are errors."
 

Cons

"Just some nit picky stuff, like allowing servers and volumes to be grouped. Therefore, it would easier to work with them in the GUI."
"The solution is expensive."
"The scalability of the solution is not as good as it probably could be."
"The connectivity needs improvement. You do not have the possibility to have a file and block connectivity at the same time on the same machine."
"Once, before Pure went public, we were a member of their customer advisory board and beta tested replication. One requested enhancement yet to manifest is the scheduling of snapshot replications."
"There are a lot of things to improve."
"CIFS and SMB Shares cannot be mounted directly."
"What it needs to do is work a little closer with solutions, like VMware, so it understands the particular workloads that are on it."
"What is lacking in this solution is a simple process to migrate from existing systems."
"In terms of the customer support, I can say it's a mixed reaction depending on the country."
"The solution could use more integration with clouds."
"The only thing is that it should be more cost effective."
"Although they claim to provide NFS, the actual implementation requires an additional gateway, which makes it a costly solution."
"This product's ability to track logs for access could be differentiating and still needs to be improved, but that probably doesn't exist on any product in its class either."
"When you want to replace a disk, we need to start the maintenance from the S nodes. We have to automate maintenance so any onsite engineer can replace it after that, but we don't need to do this on VSP platforms. An engineer can come in and replace that specific disk. If also we could do that on Hitachi Content Platform, it would be great for us."
"This product's ability to track logs for access still needs to be improved."
"I've heard the integration with OpenShift is great, however, the licensing cost is excessively high."
"I would like to see better performance and stability when Ceph is in recovery."
"The management features are pretty good, but they still have room for improvement."
"An area for improvement would be that it's pretty difficult to manage synchronous replication over multiple regions."
"Routing around slow hardware."
"An area for improvement would be that it's pretty difficult to manage synchronous replication over multiple regions."
"Areas of Red Hat Ceph Storage that have room for improvement include more promotion. Many people do not know about the Stratus case, which is one of the most reliable systems available in the world, but they are not aware that a system can keep working even if there is a hardware failure."
"The licensing cost is excessively high. This is a significant issue from my perspective."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"In the beginning, we saw that the price is not very good. When we made some compilations about the deduplication and the compression and what the equipment does, including the differentiation of upper management of the storage, the price was not so bad. However, in the beginning, the price was very difficult to justify."
"Our licensing is on a yearly basis. So, every year, we renew. We could do a three-year contract, but right now, we only do a one-year."
"They have a standardized fee; it's been the same price for 10 years straight. I am happy with the price — I think it's good."
"We would like them to improve the pricing, so we could put them to use some more product, like backup or long-term storage. In the future, if the price goes down, then we could buy different types of products."
"For pricing, you have to take into account their performance on deduplication and compression in a $/GB comparison."
"It is a cheaper solution."
"We have seen a reduction in the TCO, because Pure Storage is partnering with Belfrics. This partnership reduces our latency and space."
"The licensing is $100,000."
"Hitachi is more expensive than StorageGRID."
"The pricing could be better."
"The product’s cost is average."
"Overall, it's costly."
"I think the ROI for this solution is very good because the pricing for it is in between other solutions."
"The price of the Hitachi Content Platform is very high."
"Pricing is comparable to other solutions in the market."
"The price of Red Hat Ceph Storage is reasonable."
"There is no cost for software."
"I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten."
"The price of this product isn't high."
"The operational overhead is higher compared to Azure because we own the hardware."
"The other big advantage is that Ceph is free software. Compared to traditional SAN based storage, it is very economical."
"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."
"We never used the paid support."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which File and Object Storage solutions are best for your needs.
891,869 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
9%
Construction Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
19%
Government
10%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Comms Service Provider
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business64
Midsize Enterprise36
Large Enterprise149
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise4
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business13
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise15
 

Questions from the Community

Which should I choose: HPE 3PAR StoreServ or Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform F Series?
Both are great platforms, but if you are considering all flash solutions, I would recommend you to consider Pure Stor...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Pure Storage FlashArray?
I don't really know much about the pricing for Pure Storage FlashArray in terms of the absolute cost. Regarding Everg...
What needs improvement with Pure Storage FlashArray?
Despite liking Pure Storage FlashArray, there is room for improvement in automation. Pure Storage FlashArray needs to...
What needs improvement with Hitachi Content Platform?
In comparison to competitors like Huawei, which can use all storage protocols in the same platform, Hitachi Content P...
What is your primary use case for Hitachi Content Platform?
Mainly, from my project, Hitachi Content Platform is used for archiving. The customer is in banking, so they need to ...
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 ...
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?
Areas of Red Hat Ceph Storage that have room for improvement include more promotion. Many people do not know about th...
 

Also Known As

Pure Storage FlashArray
HCP, Hitachi Vantara Content Platform, Hitachi Vantara HCP
Ceph
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Nielsen, Lamar Advertising, LinkedIn, Betfair, UT-Dallas
Rabobank, Xinhua News Agency, Kremsm'ller Industrieanlagenbau KG, KSC Commercial Internet, AIS Group, Shanghai Interactive Television Co. Ltd (SiTV), China Telecom, Spin Master
Dell, DreamHost
Find out what your peers are saying about Hitachi Content Platform vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
891,869 professionals have used our research since 2012.