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
224
Ranking in other categories
All-Flash Storage (4th)
Hitachi Content Platform
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.0
Number of Reviews
15
Ranking in other categories
File and Object Storage (15th)
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.
EB
Storage Enginner at BNP Paribas
Archive data reliably for years and have trusted support simplifying complex deployments
An application that can do the monitoring and reporting interface for Hitachi Content Platform would be beneficial. Hitachi Content Platform monitor or intelligent monitoring is known, and deployment of this was attempted, but it appears that Hitachi abandoned this project, so it is not in use. The potential of that application was great, but it does not cover everything. When Hitachi was asked about it, they indicated there is no application in the project they will start to develop for this purpose, and they redirected to Prometheus. They shared some Prometheus metrics that can be integrated with Grafana to get some metrics on Hitachi Content Platform, but having a dedicated interface from Hitachi itself would be great, similar to what other vendors provide. The upgrade process for Hitachi Content Platform is too long. When upgrading for just two mandatory versions, it took weeks because all nodes had to be restarted. A hardware support tool is necessary every time upgrading to another version, and it is not practical for the production environment. A large downtime must be predicted and the application team must be asked to stop and suspend their technical batches, which takes a lot of time to do.
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

"Provides fast access and is user-friendly."
"The all-flash disc is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"This is a very good product at a very good price, with very good support."
"The stability is perfect. The reliability is 100% and the latency is always lower than 1 millisecond."
"The tool has reduced our power consumption."
"This is the best all-flash storage array on the market."
"It's very fast, easy to use, and the cloud-based management is good."
"After moving to Pure Storage, I have noticed that our databases are considerably faster and our performance has improved by at least four times."
"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."
"Integrating Hitachi Content Platform with existing systems is not challenging."
"Companies can scale the solution."
"The Hitachi Content Platform is a stable and reliable solution."
"This solution has a ton of valuable features, including a hidden capability that ensures you don't have bit rot by checking every single object stored on the system and repairing any problems from either a local copy or remote copy, depending upon your configuration."
"Hitachi is a big company, so it's a very strong product."
"The way that they handle the DR is very good because when there is a failover, it is seamless to the users."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the versioning and the ransomware protection."
"I like the distributed and self-healing nature of the product."
"It opens doors for completely open-source cloud."
"The scalability feature is used by all users and is critical for our operations."
"Most valuable features include replication and compression."
"Ceph Storage allows us to add value related to cost and offers a unique experience compared to traditional storage."
"The product allows our OpenStack environment to move away from the classic network type of backend storage and enables increased resilience using commodity hardware pricing, which is a major benefit."
"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."
 

Cons

"The only thing is that we've had to upgrade controllers a few times because we ended up wanting to use more stuff on here."
"The latest release contains bugs that shouldn't be in a production environment. Two incidents impacted our client, including hardware-related bugs. They need to be more cautious in testing before they release."
"The 3PAR SSD arrays that we have are still failing a lot so even though we're under warranty, we still have to get someone out and usually have someone troubleshoot so that usually adds onto the cost. With Pure, we've had a disc fail and we pop it out and you pop it in and it's good to go."
"Most of our upgrades have not been as smooth as they should have been."
"Pure Storage FlashArray could improve some aspects. There are certain features that are good and there are some features that I see some issues with at the technical level. Those issues are related to replication. They need to resolve those issues, which I have already highlighted to the Pure team. Additionally, there are some issues in the active cluster that could improve."
"For scalability, I rate it a six out of ten. We reach a limit. We never reached this limit, however, the architecture allows you to go until a certain size, and after that, you have to buy another array."
"The overall scalability for this product could be improved as well as having a single console to management multiple arrays."
"The pricing and licensing of Everpure FlashArray is a problem because Everpure is considered more expensive than competitors."
"The upgrade process for Hitachi Content Platform is too long. When upgrading for just two mandatory versions, it took weeks because all nodes had to be restarted."
"Overall, it's costly."
"What is lacking in this solution is a simple process to migrate from existing systems."
"Two things that can be improved are pricing and configuration. Mostly the pricing is an issue."
"The pricing of the solution could be better."
"Hitachi Content Platform is a complicated solution. You need to put several pieces of the hardware together in order to achieve the capacity or the performance needed."
"At present, it is complicated to use the CLI command."
"What is lacking in this solution is a simple process to migrate from existing systems."
"The product lacks RDMA support for inter-OSD communication."
"An area for improvement would be that it's pretty difficult to manage synchronous replication over multiple regions."
"Ceph Storage lacks RDMA support for inter-OSD communication. That is a huge loss in terms of performance."
"I would like to see better performance and stability when Ceph is in recovery."
"The licensing cost is excessively high. This is a significant issue from my perspective."
"The storage capacity of the solution can be improved."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The best features come included without any additional cost."
"Pure Storage is all-flash, so this sometimes tends to make it a bit more expensive in the beginning."
"It is light years beyond anything else with the same price point."
"Once you purchase Pure Storage FlashArray it is all-inclusive, you receive all the licenses needed."
"It's a good price point and it's a solid product for the price."
"When I last looked, the prices were reasonable, and we could get an excellent array for about $60,000."
"In comparison to the competitors, Pure is very price-competitive for the future functionality that it provides."
"Cost-wise, I imagine that the product's price would probably give you a nosebleed if you were a younger company."
"Pricing is comparable to other solutions in the market."
"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."
"The pricing could be better."
"The product’s cost is average."
"Hitachi is more expensive than StorageGRID."
"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 price of Red Hat Ceph Storage is reasonable."
"The price of this product isn't high."
"The other big advantage is that Ceph is free software. Compared to traditional SAN based storage, it is very economical."
"I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten."
"There is no cost for software."
"Most of time, you can get Ceph with the OpenStack solution in a subscription​​ as a bundle.​"
"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.
896,202 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Construction Company
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
17%
Comms Service Provider
11%
Government
10%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Comms Service Provider
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business69
Midsize Enterprise37
Large Enterprise157
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise5
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 needs improvement with Pure Storage FlashArray?
I do not have any improvements at the moment; I like how it is. I have nothing to add about needed improvements.
What needs improvement with Hitachi Content Platform?
An application that can do the monitoring and reporting interface for Hitachi Content Platform would be beneficial. H...
What is your primary use case for Hitachi Content Platform?
Hitachi Content Platform's metadata search feature is not used in any case. It was only used in one tenant designed f...
What advice do you have for others considering Hitachi Content Platform?
Multitenancy is not understood or the term is not known in English. The overall review rating for this product is an ...
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 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...
What advice do you have for others considering Red Hat Ceph Storage?
I do not have experience working with solutions such as Red Hat Ceph Storage and StorPool. I have plenty of experienc...
 

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.
896,202 professionals have used our research since 2012.