We performed a comparison between Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) and Red Hat Ceph Storage based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about MinIO, Dell Technologies, Red Hat and others in File and Object Storage."The solution's technical support is good."
"Its elasticity and flexible pricing are the most valuable. For Amazon EFS, you are charged based on the storage. It is also very fast and stable with a very simple and intuitive interface."
"We can run code and deploy it whenever we want."
"EFS is flexible."
"We are not that big of a cloud user. We just use it for the storage of our bytes. The most valuable aspect is the storage."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"The most beneficial feature of the product for data storage stems from the fact that it serves as a shared file storage."
"The solution is scalable."
"Most valuable features include replication and compression."
"We have not encountered any stability issues for the product."
"Ceph’s ability to adapt to varying types of commodity hardware affords us substantial flexibility and future-proofing."
"The most valuable feature is the stability of the product."
"Without any extra costs, I was able to provide a redundant environment."
"Ceph was chosen to maintain exact performance and capacity characteristics for customer cloud."
"The configuration of the solution and the user interface are both quite good."
"We are using Ceph internal inexpensive disk and data redundancy without spending extra money on external storage."
"Around 80 percent of the features of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) are available on Linux and not in Windows, making it a major drawback of the product."
"The user activity needs to be more connected."
"The lack of transparency in the costs attached to the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"It should be simplified. There are people who don't have cloud experience. It should be storage that we are able to just connect to."
"Its deployment process could be faster while installing the Python package directly into the environment."
"It could be better in connecting with Windows Server instances."
"When we faced some issues, the support team took a lot of time to resolve them."
"Specifically, when it comes to the file system for the learning system, we encountered performance issues with both Azure and AWS."
"If you use for any other solution like other Kubernetes solutions, it's not very suitable."
"Geo-replication needs improvement. It is a new feature, and not well supported yet."
"I would like to see better performance and stability when Ceph is in recovery."
"Some documentation is very hard to find."
"The storage capacity of the solution can be improved."
"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."
"We have encountered slight integration issues."
More Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is ranked 9th in File and Object Storage with 9 reviews while Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 3rd in File and Object Storage with 22 reviews. Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is rated 8.6, while Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) writes "With an easy setup phase in place, it offers great integration capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Ceph Storage writes "Provides block storage and object storage from the same storage cluster". Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is most compared with Microsoft Azure File Storage, Google Cloud Storage, NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP, Amazon S3 Glacier and Azure NetApp Files, whereas Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with MinIO, VMware vSAN, Portworx Enterprise, Pure Storage FlashBlade and NetApp StorageGRID.
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.
