We performed a comparison between Cohesity SpanFS and Oracle ZFS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two File System Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"It has snapshot capabilities. We take advantage of those."
"It is not necessarily for the fastest storage or cluster storage, but just for pure storage, it's really hard to beat. It's just been around as long as anything else."
"Oracle ZFS is very fast and it is efficient. It has outperformed any hardware array controller that I've ever come across. With Oracle ZFS on my NAS, which is running five, four terabyte drives, when I've had a drive failure and changed one out, it'll rebuild that array in two hours, or maybe less. When you think you're rebuilding almost four terabytes of data redundancy, that's pretty good using an old AMD Turion hardware, that's nothing to complain about."
"The replication capability and data security have been the most valuable features."
"The only problem is the current performance of the individual nodes. As a sale-out solution with integrated load-balancing functions, performance is in principle not a problem at all. Capacity and performance are linearly scalable over the number of nodes in the cluster. An increase in the performance of the individual nodes in future releases would be desirable."
"Its read performance can be improved. It is just slow in comparison to other file systems, but a lot of it also has to do with the fact that they have a limited number of spindles under each node."
"Oracle ZFS does what I've asked it to do, and it has done it very efficiently. The only time I'm running into issues is with Proxmox. If I run ZFS drives, I find my RAM usage is very high. However, I don't have that problem with the TrueNAS system, where I'm running an old N36 Turion with four gigabytes of RAM, and that's running 24/7. There have been no issues with such a low-powered environment there, it works fine, but with Proxmox it seems to go slow."
"When retrieving data from the replication of remote sites, it does not give you immediate results. The RPO and RTO rates could be improved."
"ZFS is great for just mass storage, but if you're trying to make fast storage – something like a SAN-type delivery network where you wanted to do any type of RAM disc over the network – it falls flat. ZFS does not do that. It is kind of limiting."
Cohesity SpanFS is ranked 5th in File System Software with 2 reviews while Oracle ZFS is ranked 3rd in File System Software with 5 reviews. Cohesity SpanFS is rated 10.0, while Oracle ZFS is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Cohesity SpanFS writes "Along with offering competitive prices, the solution can be used by small, medium, and large businesses ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle ZFS writes "Great for box storage; falls flat if you need fast storage". Cohesity SpanFS is most compared with WekaFS, Nasuni and Amazon FSx, whereas Oracle ZFS is most compared with WekaFS and Amazon FSx. See our Cohesity SpanFS vs. Oracle ZFS report.
See our list of best File System Software vendors.
We monitor all File System Software reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
