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

IBM Spectrum Scale vs Red Hat Ceph Storage comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 5, 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

IBM Spectrum Scale
Ranking in Software Defined Storage (SDS)
7th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Software Defined Storage (3rd)
Red Hat Ceph Storage
Ranking in Software Defined Storage (SDS)
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
File and Object Storage (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Software Defined Storage (SDS) category, the mindshare of IBM Spectrum Scale is 4.9%, down from 7.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Ceph Storage is 20.2%, up from 20.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Software Defined Storage (SDS)
 

Featured Reviews

JanithRanasinghe - PeerSpot reviewer
Parallel file access efficiency and good file management with good scalability
We are using GPFS Scale for parallel file access. It's primarily for file management We use GPFS Scale for parallel file access, the file management, and it's an essential part of our operations. It's the only feature we are using since we have not explored other options. I wish there were some…
ANDRE VINICIUS HAMERSKI - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers cost-effective scalability through open-source storage integration
Ceph Storage allows us to add value related to cost and offers a unique experience compared to traditional storage. We appreciate the scalability of the open-source solution, allowing us to address our growing data needs without encountering major issues. Having used it as a pilot system in Brazil, we gained significant knowledge and the ability to manage our infrastructure as code.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We use GPFS Scale for parallel file access, the file management, and it's an essential part of our operations."
"The high performance of the solution is its most valuable aspect. If you compare it to other storage solutions, it's much better."
"Technical support has been very helpful. They provide us with pretty good solutions that we can implement moving forward."
"It is a scalable solution."
"We can have multiple systems within the same file system."
"GPFS monitoring is the best feature."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to share files across different platforms."
"Its great servicing high availability. That is what it is used for."
"It has helped to save money and scale the storage without limits."
"I like the distributed and self-healing nature of the product."
"Ceph’s ability to adapt to varying types of commodity hardware affords us substantial flexibility and future-proofing."
"The configuration of the solution and the user interface are both quite good."
"The high availability of the solution is important to us."
"The most valuable feature is the stability of the product."
"Ceph Storage allows us to add value related to cost and offers a unique experience compared to traditional storage."
"Ceph has simplified my storage integration. I no longer need two or three storage systems, as Ceph can support all my storage needs. I no longer need OpenStack Swift for REST object storage access, I no longer need NFS or GlusterFS for filesystem sharing, and most importantly, I no longer need LVM or DRBD for my virtual machines in OpenStack."
 

Cons

"Maybe it needs integration with HA."
"They should probably simply the Red Hat implementation portion. This portion was not as straightforward as I would like it to be."
"I believe there is no graphic user interface, so they should include it."
"The pricing and licensing model for this solution are complex and it is sometimes difficult to explain it to customers."
"The biggest problem is that it is not able to provide block storage."
"The main issue that we have now is with the encryption. They want to use more metrics in encryption, which is not working very well."
"I wish there were some graphical user interface to access the GPFS file system creation and monitoring."
"This is probably the biggest challenge, getting everything upgraded, because it just takes time. We wish it was a faster solution to be able to do everything at once, but you have do each node individually. The more nodes, the longer it takes."
"If you use for any other solution like other Kubernetes solutions, it's not very suitable."
"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."
"It takes some time to re-balance the storage in case of server failure."
"It needs a better UI for easier installation and management."
"While the documentation for Ceph Storage is helpful, it could be improved."
"Geo-replication needs improvement. It is a new feature, and not well supported yet."
"Routing around slow hardware."
"It took me a long time to get the storage drivers for the communication with Kubernetes up and running. The documentation could improve it is lacking information. I'm not sure if this is a Ceph problem or if Ceph should address this, but it was something I ran into. Additionally, there is a performance issue I am having that I am looking into, but overall I am satisfied with the performance."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The licensing is based on the number of terabytes."
"The solution is costly but reliable."
"The licensing model is complex and depends on factors such as the number of processing cores and the amount of storage."
"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."
"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."
"The price of Red Hat Ceph Storage is reasonable."
"I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Software Defined Storage (SDS) solutions are best for your needs.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
20%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
15%
Educational Organization
6%
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

What needs improvement with IBM Spectrum Scale?
I wish there were some graphical user interface to access the GPFS file system creation and monitoring.
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?
While the documentation for Ceph Storage is helpful, it could be improved. There are instances where we needed to consult additional online forums and communities for solutions to particular issues.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Ceph
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Dell, DreamHost
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Spectrum Scale vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.