We performed a comparison between Hitachi Content Platform and Red Hat Ceph Storage based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two File and Object Storage solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The product provides the fastest technology."
"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."
"Integrating Hitachi Content Platform with existing systems is not challenging."
"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."
"The Hitachi Content Platform is a stable and reliable solution."
"The features that I have found most valuable are their retention logs. The other thing I have found most valuable is the way they handle the BHEA. Basically the DNS and everything is managed by itself. It is seamless to the users."
"Feature-wise, it has a lot of features. The most valuable features include de-duplication, encryption, version controlling, support, and tamper-proof data."
"The ability to provide block storage and object storage from the same storage cluster is very valuable for us."
"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. In particular, Red Hat Ceph Storage becomes a single solution for managing the entire environment in terms of the container or the infrastructure, or the worker nodes because it all comes from a single plug."
"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."
"Red Hat Ceph Storage is a reliable solution, it works well."
"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. The solution continues working even when there are errors."
"Data redundancy is a key feature, since it can survive failures (disks/servers). We didn’t lose our data or have a service interruption during server/disk failures."
"Ceph was chosen to maintain exact performance and capacity characteristics for customer cloud."
"The community support is very good."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"They should improve the user interface. It's a little bit complex. It does not have a self-learning method. You need to know how to use it before you touch the system. The user interface is not self-explanatory."
"The only thing is that it should be more cost effective."
"What is lacking in this solution is a simple process to migrate from existing systems."
"The user interface isn't as user-friendly, and the management platform UI isn't as intuitive as others. So it can be more user-friendly."
"Some documentation is very hard to find."
"The storage capacity of the solution can be improved."
"The management features are pretty good, but they still have room for improvement."
"If you use for any other solution like other Kubernetes solutions, it's not very suitable."
"It would be nice to have a notification feature whenever an important action is completed."
"Ceph does not deal very well with, or takes a long time to recover from, certain kinds of network failures and individual storage node failures."
"It needs a better UI for easier installation and management."
"Routing around slow hardware."
Hitachi Content Platform is ranked 16th in File and Object Storage with 12 reviews while Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 3rd in File and Object Storage with 22 reviews. Hitachi Content Platform is rated 8.2, while Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Hitachi Content Platform writes " Integrates well with existing systems but technical support for the platform needs improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Ceph Storage writes "Provides block storage and object storage from the same storage cluster". Hitachi Content Platform is most compared with Dell ECS, MinIO, NetApp StorageGRID, Dell PowerScale (Isilon) and Cloudian HyperStore, whereas Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with MinIO, VMware vSAN, Portworx Enterprise, Pure Storage FlashBlade and NetApp StorageGRID. See our Hitachi Content Platform vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage report.
See our list of best File and Object Storage vendors.
We monitor all File and Object Storage 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.
