We performed a comparison between Pure Storage FlashBlade 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 initial setup is pretty easy and simple."
"I would rate this solution an eight plus. It has has good flexibility and stability, it's easy to manage and the response time is good."
"It uses the same platform for connectivity so integration is seamless."
"The main feature I have found to be product replication."
"The initial setup was straightforward. If you know how to plug in power and network you're pretty much qualified. They were on site to configure the network, the box to fit into our network architecture. Other than that, we self-managed from there."
"The snapshots, replication, and the ability to have immutable blades are the most valuable features. You're putting data snapshots out in those blades, and they cannot be touched. Its performance is great."
"We can capacity plan at a greater level than we used to."
"Using this solution has made our backups more reliable."
"Without any extra costs, I was able to provide a redundant environment."
"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."
"The solution is pretty stable."
"We use the solution for cloud storage."
"The high availability of the solution is important to us."
"I like the distributed and self-healing nature of the product."
"The community support is very good."
"The most valuable feature is the stability of the product."
"I would like to have Snapshots and Snapmail in the next release. People who came from a NetApp background, especially expect these features."
"It would be beneficial if the layer could support the S3 protocol and be container ready in the next release."
"In terms of scalability, it doesn't expand out quite as robustly as some of the others, but it covers 90% of the market in what it does."
"I have not seen ROI."
"An area for improvement in Pure Storage FlashBlade is its price. It could be reduced. The technical support for Pure Storage FlashBlade also needs improvement. It used to be good, with more experienced engineers. Nowadays, it isn't, and it takes longer for support to solve problems."
"Compared to, for example, Hitachi NAS, the solution is not mature at all. It's just in its infancy as far as technology goes."
"I want efficiency. FlashBlade doesn't have efficiency now."
"It's on the expensive side, as expected for a niche product."
"The management features are pretty good, but they still have room for improvement."
"Routing around slow hardware."
"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."
"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."
"It takes some time to re-balance the storage in case of server failure."
"What could be improved in Red Hat Ceph Storage is its user interface or GUI."
"Rebalancing and recovery are a bit slow."
Pure Storage FlashBlade is ranked 6th in File and Object Storage with 31 reviews while Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 3rd in File and Object Storage with 22 reviews. Pure Storage FlashBlade is rated 8.8, while Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Pure Storage FlashBlade writes "A high-performing and scalable solution that improves data performance for S3 workloads". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Ceph Storage writes "Provides block storage and object storage from the same storage cluster". Pure Storage FlashBlade is most compared with Dell PowerScale (Isilon), VAST Data, MinIO, Pure Storage FlashArray and Dell ECS, whereas Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with MinIO, VMware vSAN, Portworx Enterprise, NetApp StorageGRID and Dell ECS. See our Pure Storage FlashBlade 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.
