Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs Red Hat Ceph Storage comparison

Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Red Hat are both solutions in the File and Object Storage category. Amazon Web Services (AWS) is ranked #8 with an average rating of 8.0, while Red Hat is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.8. Amazon Web Services (AWS) holds a 0.6% mindshare in FaOS, compared to Red Hat’s 20.3% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Amazon Web Services (AWS) users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 81% of Red Hat users who would recommend it.
Sponsored
Pure Storage FlashBlade
Read 37 Pure Storage FlashBlade reviews
  • 4,252 Views
  • 3,089 Comparison Views
97% willing to recommend
Amazon EFS (Elastic File Sy...
Read 15 Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) reviews
  • 239 Views
  • 190 Comparison Views
100% willing to recommend
Red Hat Ceph Storage
Read 25 Red Hat Ceph Storage reviews
  • 12,382 Views
  • 10,906 Comparison Views
81% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 4, 2024

Red Hat Ceph Storage and Amazon EFS are competing products in the storage solutions category, each with distinct advantages. Amazon EFS seems to have the upper hand due to its scalability and seamless integration with AWS services.

Features: Red Hat Ceph Storage offers a unified and scalable storage platform with strong data redundancy, supporting block, object, and file storage with CephFS. Amazon EFS features automatic scaling, shared file storage capabilities across multiple AWS cloud instances, and seamless integration with other AWS services, which enhances its utility within cloud ecosystems.

Room for Improvement: Red Hat Ceph Storage could improve in its complexity, requiring specialized technical knowledge for setup and management. It also relies partially on third-party support. Amazon EFS might be improved by lowering initial cloud service costs and enhancing its native support options.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Amazon EFS offers simplicity in deployment with a cloud-native structure for rapid scaling and easy integration within AWS. It benefits from AWS's robust customer support. Red Hat Ceph Storage provides deployment flexibility for on-premise solutions but demands more technical expertise to manage effectively, with strong customer service often depending on third-party support.

Pricing and ROI: Red Hat Ceph Storage has lower setup costs and offers favorable ROI for on-premise environments needing extensive data management, with controllable long-term expenses. Amazon EFS, while having potentially higher initial costs due to cloud service charges, provides value through scalability and minimal maintenance, potentially offering higher ROI due to efficiency and reduced operational load in cloud-oriented infrastructures.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage Report (Updated: April 2025).
Buyer's Guide
Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage
April 2025
Download the complete report
Helped 849,686 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Pure Storage FlashBlade
Sponsored
Ranking in File and Object Storage
6th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
37
Ranking in other categories
All-Flash Storage (17th)
Amazon EFS (Elastic File Sy...
Ranking in File and Object Storage
8th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
15
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Storage (4th)
Red Hat Ceph Storage
Ranking in File and Object Storage
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
25
Ranking in other categories
Software Defined Storage (SDS) (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the File and Object Storage category, the mindshare of Pure Storage FlashBlade is 5.8%, down from 6.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is 0.6%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Ceph Storage is 20.3%, down from 22.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
File and Object Storage
 

Featured Reviews

Eric Black - PeerSpot reviewer
The ability to leverage multi-tenancy along with immutability is a huge benefit for us
The only thing I feel FlashBlade is missing is the SOS API. If it had SOS API, that would put it well over the top. Veeam Backup specifically has started to streamline their API, and they are doing that with SOS API. They have optimized it. Any of the S3 devices out there that support this SOS API can have far more API calls at once. On our side, that translates to better restoration. With SOS API, it can leverage far more restorations at a single given time or read from the device in simple terms. That results in maximizing the output and throughput from the device itself.
Read full review
MuhammadAzhar Khan - PeerSpot reviewer
Auto-scaling capabilities enhance file management while reducing downtime
The most valuable feature of Amazon EFS is its auto-scaling capability. It's really easy to configure EFS by just creating it and running a command to directly configure it with my servers. It supports unlimited use, and charges are applied based on the file usage at the end of the month. The solution offers reduced downtime and increased durability through its auto-scaling features.
Read full review
ANDRE VINICIUS HAMERSKI - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers cost-effective scalability through open-source storage integration
Ceph Storage allows us to add value related to cost and offers a unique experience compared to traditional storage. We appreciate the scalability of the open-source solution, allowing us to address our growing data needs without encountering major issues. Having used it as a pilot system in Brazil, we gained significant knowledge and the ability to manage our infrastructure as code.
Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"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."
"The initial setup is pretty quick."
"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."
"It's very easy-to-use."
"It performs well and it is also very fast."
"We can capacity plan at a greater level than we used to."
"The tool's most valuable feature is its fast performance, especially in handling snapshots. It helps during power outages when we need to quickly move data between different data centers. It ensures efficient replication and helps maintain our data centers' uptime."
"What I like best about Pure Storage FlashBlade is its object storage functionality, plus it has fast underlying hardware. Pure Storage FlashBlade is also very stable. I find its stability one of its valuable features."
More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros
"Amazon EFS offers the flexibility of scaling as needed without requiring pre-provisioned storage."
"We haven't seen any downtime or challenges when using the services."
"The product's initial setup phase is easy, as per the configurations."
"Elastic File Systems allow me to share data, provision, and manage capacity and performance in AWS."
"Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is secure as it is used under VPC."
"The most beneficial feature of the product for data storage stems from the fact that it serves as a shared file storage."
"Amazon EFS offers the flexibility of scaling as needed without requiring pre-provisioned storage."
"I appreciate Amazon's extensive range of services, which makes it a favorable choice."
More Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) pros
"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 community support is very good."
"Most valuable features include replication and compression."
"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."
"We are using Ceph internal inexpensive disk and data redundancy without spending extra money on external storage."
"The high availability of the solution is important to us."
"The most valuable feature is the stability of the product."
"Ceph’s ability to adapt to varying types of commodity hardware affords us substantial flexibility and future-proofing."
More Red Hat Ceph Storage pros
 

Cons

"The technical support needs to improve. When we open a case, it is auto assigned to a support tech person. Nine out of ten times, we get an email right back saying that person is off until tomorrow. I cannot handle that. They just did this over the weekend to us, too. I had to call our rep and have them do something about it."
"In the realm of micro-services, I think that Pure Storage can do well if they start getting in there and making their arrays more micro-services ready."
"The features provided for SMB customers are limited."
"There is some room for new features related to authentication and integration with Kubernetes, and other solution using S3 Bucket."
"Compared to, for example, Hitachi NAS, the solution is not mature at all. It's just in its infancy as far as technology goes."
"It would be beneficial if the layer could support the S3 protocol and be container ready in the next release."
"Recently, while upgrading the version code, one of the controllers failed. Replacing the controller took between 14 to 20 days."
"File storage needs a lot of improvement. Mainframe connectivity also needs improvement because it requires additional components to be integrated with Pure Storage FlashBlade. If you want to keep your backup data, then this becomes an even more expensive solution because Pure Storage FlashBlade will not be able to meet your backup needs."
More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons
"There are challenges related to AWS, such as ensuring proper security measures with IMS code and encryption."
"The product's stability has some shortcomings where improvements are required."
"Amazon EFS is more costly compared to other storage options available from AWS."
"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."
"Specifically, when it comes to the file system for the learning system, we encountered performance issues with both Azure and AWS."
"The platform's connectivity could be improved to be more comparable to S3 buckets, which offer better API availability."
"The main challenge with EFS is its cost, which is slightly higher compared to EBS or S3."
"I don't have notes on improvements."
More Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) cons
"It takes some time to re-balance the storage in case of server failure."
"I would like to see better performance and stability when Ceph is in recovery."
"We have encountered slight integration issues."
"I've heard the integration with OpenShift is great, however, the licensing cost is excessively high."
"Ceph is not a mature product at this time. Guides are misleading and incomplete. You will meet all kind of bugs and errors trying to install the system for the first time. It requires very experienced personnel to support and keep the system in working condition, and install all necessary packets."
"If you use for any other solution like other Kubernetes solutions, it's not very suitable."
"It took me a long time to get the storage drivers for the communication with Kubernetes up and running. The documentation could improve it is lacking information. I'm not sure if this is a Ceph problem or if Ceph should address this, but it was something I ran into. Additionally, there is a performance issue I am having that I am looking into, but overall I am satisfied with the performance."
"It would be nice to have a notification feature whenever an important action is completed."
More Red Hat Ceph Storage cons
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate the tool's pricing a seven to eight out of ten."
"Pure Storage FlashBlade is a hardware appliance, and it's very expensive if you compare its price with other solutions. You can get the same features and benefits from its competitor, VAST Data, but for half the price of Pure Storage FlashBlade."
"The product is very expensive."
"Support is a separate line item. Support is a different cost, but whatever your support is now, that's what you're going to pay forever. If your support's $100 today, six years from now it's $100. It doesn't fluctuate unless you upgrade it, or change it, etc."
"I feel that the price could always be lowered."
"I have seen ROI. It has allowed me to increase the density of my VMs without having to purchase anything additional."
"Our licensing is renewed annually."
"It's a costly solution, but Pure Storage FlashBlade doesn't require additional licenses. All of the software is combined into one bundle."
More Pure Storage FlashBlade pricing and cost advice
"The product's price depends on the services and the size and capacity at which it is used in a business environment."
"It has flexible pricing. You are charged based on your storage."
"The product charges are based on the amount of data stored."
"Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) offers a pay-as-you-go model, so whenever you use its services, you need to pay."
"The solution's price is mid-ranged."
"The main challenge with EFS is its cost, which is slightly higher compared to EBS or S3. For one GB or ten GB of data, S3 is much cheaper. EFS could cost around $30 to $50 per month for similar usage."
"I would rate the pricing 7 out of 10."
"We never used the paid support."
"The operational overhead is higher compared to Azure because we own the hardware."
"Most of time, you can get Ceph with the OpenStack solution in a subscription​​ as a bundle.​"
"I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten."
"The other big advantage is that Ceph is free software. Compared to traditional SAN based storage, it is very economical."
"There is no cost for software."
"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."
"The price of Red Hat Ceph Storage is reasonable."
More Red Hat Ceph Storage pricing and cost advice
report
See which vendors are best for you
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which File and Object Storage solutions are best for your needs.
See recommendations
849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
29%
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Educational Organization
15%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Pure Storage FlashBlade?
The tool's most valuable feature is its fast performance, especially in handling snapshots. It helps during power out...
See all answers
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Pure Storage FlashBlade?
The pricing for FlashBlade is between cheap and moderate. FlashBlade is worth the money due to the experience and per...
See all answers
What needs improvement with Pure Storage FlashBlade?
Its configuration should be easier. There should be easier language for the configuration.
See all answers
Which file storage system is better - Amazon EFS (elastic file storage) or Azure File Storage?
Amazon EFS is easy to set up: you can use the AWS management console, API, or command-line. Amazon EFS can grow to pe...
See all answers
What do you like most about Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)?
The product's initial setup phase is easy, as per the configurations.
See all answers
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)?
Amazon EFS is more costly compared to other storage options available from AWS.
See all answers
How does Red Hat Ceph Storage compare with MiniO?
Red Hat Ceph does well in simplifying storage integration by replacing the need for numerous storage solutions. This ...
See all answers
What do you like most about Red Hat Ceph Storage?
The high availability of the solution is important to us.
See all answers
What needs improvement with Red Hat Ceph Storage?
I have not identified any drawbacks, however, the response to public platform inquiries could be faster.
See all answers
 

Comparisons

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Pure Storage FlashBlade Logo
Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Pure Storage FlashBlade
Compared 21% of the time
VAST Data vs Pure Storage FlashBlade Logo
VAST Data vs Pure Storage FlashBlade
Compared 12% of the time
MinIO vs Pure Storage FlashBlade Logo
MinIO vs Pure Storage FlashBlade
Compared 11% of the time
Pure Storage FlashArray vs Pure Storage FlashBlade Logo
Pure Storage FlashArray vs Pure Storage FlashBlade
Compared 8% of the time
Dell ECS vs Pure Storage FlashBlade Logo
Dell ECS vs Pure Storage FlashBlade
Compared 6% of the time
More Pure Storage FlashBlade Competitors
Microsoft Azure File Storage vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) Logo
Microsoft Azure File Storage vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)
Compared 54% of the time
NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) Logo
NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)
Compared 11% of the time
Google Cloud Storage vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) Logo
Google Cloud Storage vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)
Compared 9% of the time
Amazon S3 Glacier vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) Logo
Amazon S3 Glacier vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)
Compared 8% of the time
Azure NetApp Files vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) Logo
Azure NetApp Files vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)
Compared 5% of the time
More Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) Competitors
MinIO vs Red Hat Ceph Storage Logo
MinIO vs Red Hat Ceph Storage
Compared 41% of the time
VMware vSAN vs Red Hat Ceph Storage Logo
VMware vSAN vs Red Hat Ceph Storage
Compared 6% of the time
NetApp StorageGRID vs Red Hat Ceph Storage Logo
NetApp StorageGRID vs Red Hat Ceph Storage
Compared 5% of the time
Dell PowerFlex vs Red Hat Ceph Storage Logo
Dell PowerFlex vs Red Hat Ceph Storage
Compared 4% of the time
Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct vs Red Hat Ceph Storage Logo
Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct vs Red Hat Ceph Storage
Compared 3% of the time
More Red Hat Ceph Storage Competitors
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
Pure Storage FlashBlade
April 2025
Pure Storage FlashBlade reportDownload Pure Storage FlashBlade product report
Buyer's Guide
Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)
April 2025
Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) reportDownload Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) product report
Buyer's Guide
Software Defined Storage (SDS)
April 2025
Red Hat Ceph Storage reportDownload Red Hat Ceph Storage product report
 

Also Known As

No data available
No data available
Ceph
 

Overview

FlashBlade is the industry’s most advanced scale-out storage for unstructured data, powered by a modern, massively parallel architecture to consolidate complex data silos (like backup appliances and data lakes) and accelerate tomorrow’s discoveries and insights.

Pure Storage

Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) provides simple, scalable file storage for use with Amazon EC2 instances in the AWS Cloud. Amazon EFS is easy to use and offers a simple interface that allows you to create and configure file systems quickly and easily. With Amazon EFS, storage capacity is elastic, growing and shrinking automatically as you add and remove files, so your applications have the storage they need, when they need it.

When mounted to Amazon EC2 instances, an Amazon EFS file system provides a standard file system interface and file system access semantics, allowing you to seamlessly integrate Amazon EFS with your existing applications and tools. Multiple Amazon EC2 instances can access an Amazon EFS file system at the same time, allowing Amazon EFS to provide a common data source for workloads and applications running on more than one Amazon EC2 instance.

It’s designed for high availability and durability, and provides performance for a broad spectrum of workloads and applications, including Big Data and analytics, media processing workflows, content management, web serving, and home directories.

Amazon Web Services (AWS)
Red Hat Ceph Storage is an enterprise open source platform that provides unified software-defined storage on standard, economical servers and disks. With block, object, and file storage combined into one platform, Red Hat Ceph Storage efficiently and automatically manages all your data.
Red Hat
 

Sample Customers

ServiceNow, Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport, Dominos, Man AHL
Arcesium, Atlassian, Seeking Alpha, Zend
Dell, DreamHost
Buyer's Guide
Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage
April 2025
Free Report: Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
DOWNLOAD NOW
849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See our Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) 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.