Red Hat Ceph Storage Reviews

I am involved with Ceph and OpenStack as an integrator. I set it up or consult with clients for private cloud deployments. Ceph is my storage of choice for OpenStack and general object-storage needs.

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.

The ability to present Rest API, POSIX filesystem, and block devices from the same distributed object storage back-system (RADOS) is of major value to me.

Ceph lacks a little bit only in performance. It needs to scale a lot and needs very fast and well-orchestrated/configured hardware for best performance. This not a downside though, it is a challenge. Ceph only improves the given 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 has no issues with scalability but needs proper planning regarding the hardware.

Technical support from the mailing lists is very good but you always need to get your hands dirty. However, if you pay for a product like Red Hat Ceph Storage, support is a big advantage.

I have used many solutions but not as extensively as Ceph. I switched to Ceph because of its architecture and because it is a one-stop shop when it comes to storage.

Ceph is complex, as with all distributed systems. It has a long learning curve but it pays for itself after that.

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.

I have been using Ceph since 2015, in both SOHO and bigger private cloud installations.

Ceph, as a distributed storage solution, is amazing and I can only rate it a 10 out of 10. However, being distributed and complex, Ceph needs engineers with a good understanding of its internals and Linux, for it to shine.

Overall, it is a great product.

We’re using Ceph storage to provide allocation space to instances (VMs) in an OpenStack environment.

The product spawned a new vision of storage deployment, as well as a strong interest in reusing equipment and increasing ROI. We have some legacy servers that can be associated with this structure. With Ceph, we can rearrange these machines and reuse our investment.

• We can reuse servers of any type and include them in the deploy of the solution.
• radosgw and librados provide a simple integration with clone, snapshots, and other functions that aid in data integrity.

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.

No current issues. Almost all our difficulties were related to implementation. After that, everything ran well.

Most times that I have implemented Ceph, I have used some type of deployment tool, like RDO (Red Hat Director). With these tools, I can make the environment scale in or out without issues. An attention point is looking for a journal and disk separation on the YAML file.

It is possible that you only have support if you partner with a vendor like Red Hat. However, you can find many articles in forums or GitHub.

We had no previous solution. My first contact with ephemeral storage is through Ceph.

My first deployment was complex, connecting Ceph with all OpenStack modules, but that was  before I was testing Ceph and doing installations manually and with hard coding.

It is not a complex implementation, but you need to look into all the structure requirements and OSDS division.

Most of time, you can get Ceph with the OpenStack solution in a subscription as a bundle.

No.

I rate it at nine out of 10. It is a product which is constantly undergoing improvements.

We use this as an OpenStack storage back-end of Nova/Glance/Cinder.

• High reliability with commodity hardware

• There is no cost for software

I would like to see better performance and stability when Ceph is in recovery.

Latency increases abruptly when conducting recovery. This impacts the upper application.

It is OK to add a node or a disk, but it may impact the latency of read/write of the application which is running.

The level of technical support is acceptable.

The initial setup was straightforward without much effort.

People can try the vanilla Ceph, if they are confident with their technical skills.

We evaluated VMware vSAN.

It is easy to set up.

I use Ceph as OpenStack and Kubernetes storage back-end solution.

It has helped to save money and scale the storage without limits. 

We did not depend on expensive hardware to start using it and can upgrade it if our demand grows.

Its reliability. I have experienced failures and human mistakes. However, Ceph was able to recover automatically the data with a special procedure.

Geo-replication needs improvement. It is a new feature, and not well supported yet. 

No stability issues.

No scalability issues.

The community support is very good. I have never used the paid support.

The initial setup is very straightforward. We used the tool ceph-deploy, which is simple to use. The manual procedure is time consuming, but well-documented.

No advice, as we never used the paid support.

We evaluated GlusterFS (POCs), but Ceph provides better block device storage.

I would recommend the product.

It's possible that we should have used the solution a long time ago as it appears to cost the business less money to run some of our data systems using it. We're definitely seeing cost savings since we've implemented it.

The configuration of the solution and the user interface are both quite good.

The management features are pretty good, but they still have room for improvement.

The solution needs to offer support for the fiber channel as a protocol.

I've been using the solution for six months.

The solution has been quite stable for us.

I've not tested the scalability of the solution; our company doesn't have too much capacity.

The initial setup is straightforward.

We didn't look at other vendors. We went straight to this solution as we were already using the brand for our operating system as well.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

Cloud. 

• Speed of storage
• Flexible

• RADOS
• Swift
• S3
• Replication
• Compression

Please create a failback solution for OpenStack replication and maybe QoS to allow guaranteed IOPS.

Everything is perfect.