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

Cloudian HyperStore vs Red Hat Ceph Storage comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 4, 2024

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

Everpure FlashArray
Sponsored
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
211
Ranking in other categories
All-Flash Storage (4th)
Cloudian HyperStore
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
File and Object Storage (11th)
Red Hat Ceph Storage
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
27
Ranking in other categories
Software Defined Storage (SDS) (3rd), File and Object Storage (1st)
 

Featured Reviews

Sowjanya MV - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Lead at Wipro Limited
Has improved performance for mission-critical workloads and enabled seamless non-disruptive upgrades
The availability is 99.99%, which is the main factor any customer would need because their data should be available whenever they want to access it. This is one main critical thing. It is very easy to upgrade since Pure Storage FlashArray handles it well. Everything is non-disruptive now; previously, there were forklift shifts, but now that is not the case. Pure Storage FlashArray says no to forklift upgrades. Usually hardware requires downtime, but Pure Storage FlashArray has improved their footprint so that they are not asking for downtime; everything is just a non-disruptive activity, which is why customers are more inclined towards Pure Storage FlashArray. Customers want more of the models in their environment due to the performance they are giving, and everything is in one Pure1 Array console where we can view all the models on one page or just an orchestration tool. You don't miss anything; you have replication, notifications about replication, and details about which host groups replication is happening in and if that replication is successful or failed. On a daily basis, our purpose is to create volumes for infrastructure; our daily activities include creating volumes and mapping them to the host, doing any migrations from a VM, clearing the data stores, and carving the volumes to those VMs. One key factor is the data compression with a ratio of 5:1, focusing on space efficiency, inline deduplication, and the compression Pure Storage FlashArray works on; that is a major factor we can suggest to any customer. Analytical capabilities are crucial. Daily, we check the throughput and consumption, and Pure Storage FlashArray provides predictions for one year regarding usage. This prediction helps plan updates well ahead. For support, we just raise a case, and they follow up and get it done. There is also AI readiness, but with the model R2, we don't have much of that AI readiness. For others, we do have AI readiness that predicts capacity based on daily or monthly trends, enabling us to analyze how much space we need or if we need to expand the disk shelf. From an operational point of view, a good feature is that if you accidentally delete a volume, it will be retained in the destroyed state for the next twenty-four hours, which is not the same with any other vendor. I have worked in this storage domain for the past fifteen years, and this option is remarkable, benefiting any L1 or L2 engineer. Additionally, from a compliance perspective, Pure Storage FlashArray has REST APIs enabled. I have not explored automation much, but from a security standpoint, it is strong with encryption data. If you want to automate, you can easily integrate with all clouds and explore Pure Cloud for scheduling workloads, including volume creation. Customers find benefit in Pure Storage FlashArray's single management pane of glass due to the dual controller and active-active setup. If one of the controllers goes down, all workloads automatically shift to the other controller, ensuring their data is safe and accessible at all times. This is a highlighted feature that any customer desires because their data should always be accessible. For SAN workloads, we use Pure Storage FlashArray because for SAN FC fiber channel, we don't use it; we use NetApp for NAS activities. We have clearly split this, so SAN is for mission-critical applications, while network-attached storage handles file systems. This architecture helps us maximize the benefit from Pure Storage FlashArray due to the significant workloads from this giant retail client. From a footprint and energy consumption perspective, you can see energy consumption from the Pure1 storage portal on a daily basis, and it is very compact. The three models we use consume only three units, which is quite low. From a footprint and data center perspective, it doesn't occupy much space. As everything moves to cloud, there are requirements to avoid excess spending on data centers, and Pure Storage FlashArray is efficient in energy consumption and is environmentally friendly.
NS
Sr Infrastructure Engineer at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Object storage has reduced costs and improves data protection for web application workloads
Cloudian HyperStore can be improved by making upgrades easier. Currently, I see that upgrades are very complicated, and most of the time I require Cloudian support whenever I want to upgrade. I think Cloudian has the opportunity to improve in self-service capabilities. If they make upgrades less vendor-dependent, that would be beneficial. I would also like to add that more automation APIs would be valuable. If more APIs were available for S3 compatible tasks, that would be great. I rate the product eight because if they make updates easier, make firmware upgrades easier, make compaction available on CMC instead of requiring scripts, make node cleanup straightforward, make forecasting simple, make capacity planning easy, and provide self-healing opportunities, I believe the rating would be a ten.
Rifat Rahman - PeerSpot reviewer
Infrastructure Architect & CEO at Tirzok Private Limited
Offers reliable performance and availability for large deployments
I would like to see improvements in Red Hat Ceph Storage not because I necessarily think it needs improvement, but because I generally prefer to do things manually rather than following the containerization part. Current deployments are based on containers, but I deploy manually with my scripts and controls. If there are no Kubernetes-like requirements, I often prefer to deploy a whole manual process. I don't ask for improvements in the deployment model because Red Hat has its own philosophy about making things, but it's my personal choice that I prefer things manually. Some features are available only in the containerization part, so if those are also available in manual deployment, that will help.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It has been very stable. I have not seen or heard of downtime storage issues after moving over to it."
"The scalability options are very nice because you can scale it much better and faster. The scalability was there in the previous environment also, but this is far better than what we had before. It basically helps the user in case they are looking for more storage. We can scale it much faster."
"Their evergreen solution is probably the most needed in any industry, especially today in unprecedented times and supply chain issues, their evergreen solution is amazing."
"The cost of Pure FlashArray is a bit high compared to peers, but its sustainability and features justify the price."
"The most valuable feature of the FlashArray is Pure One, which provides a comprehensive overview of our entire storage environment."
"This solution is very scalable."
"The back-end data reporting for Pure Storage is phenomenal. The data that you can see on the performance of your customers' array, so you can be proactive about upgrades or enhancements, and is a phenomenal tool to have access to as a partner. I haven't seen this type of stuff out of anything of the other storage systems."
"It is an SSD array that has awesome performance, low submillisecond latency, and does what it is supposed to do. It just works, which is difficult for things to do anymore."
"The cost was the main reason we chose to use this solution."
"Cloudian HyperStore is one hundred percent stable."
"The most valuable feature is the durability, as it is very durable and that is particularly important for our backups."
"My advice for others looking into using Cloudian HyperStore is to consider it a good product to add to their portfolio, as long as they fully understand the drawbacks of things such as using the Cassandra database."
"Cloudian HyperStore impacted my organization positively because we started to use it at least eight years ago, and at that time, we did not have many choices on the market, and I do not recall a truly good enterprise solution for using S3 storage in a private data center."
"The most valuable features are its scalability and Amazon S3 compatibility because we can move back and forth with a hybrid cloud."
"The tool has S3 capability. Its scalability is excellent. From a security and encryption perspective, the solution supports SSL encryption. It is a seamless solution offering data encryption, quality service, and security encryption."
"It is very durable and that is particularly important."
"Red Hat Ceph Storage is a reliable solution, it works well."
"I would definitely recommend Red Hat Ceph Storage. It is a complete solution for cloud-native storage needs."
"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."
"It opens doors for completely open-source cloud."
"Red Hat Ceph Storage is working exactly as it should be; it's running in the background, it's working, and it doesn't bother me."
"It has helped to save money and scale the storage without limits."
"It has helped to save money and scale the storage without limits."
"Ceph has simplified my storage integration, as I no longer need two or three storage systems since Ceph can support all my storage needs, replacing OpenStack Swift for REST object storage access, NFS or GlusterFS for filesystem sharing, and LVM or DRBD for virtual machines in OpenStack."
 

Cons

"FlashArray could improve on the administrative side. For example, when you need to upgrade the boxes, we can't do that ourselves. We need to open a ticket with support and have them do that for us. You don't need to be on the call with them. We tell them we have a slot that we want to upgrade, and they send us an email when it's done."
"One thing I'd like to see in a future release is integration between their main storage array and what they call their FlashBlade product; to be able to snapshot directly from the primary array into multiple different backup copies on FlashBlade."
"The price of the solution can improve."
"The internal garbage collection process has been fixed recently in some OS updates so it is more efficient but that could be just a little better."
"We need to add more storage in Pure Storage FlashArray with the cluster mode activated for us to have better performance."
"It would be beneficial to have a separate pricing point for environments with lower performance requirements or less workload."
"Larger capacity and more storage ports would be the two things I'd like to see."
"I would like some performance analytics which go deeper than today. It should be specific to some hosts and applications. This would be good."
"I suppose the cost could always be lower and they should continue to add the latest Amazon S3 features."
"The initial cost has not been recouped because of performance issues, leading to a lack of customer trust with this product, as I cannot sell it quickly enough before the new licensing costs hit, resulting in losing money by the end."
"It is a cloud-based environment and at times, it is not very simple to use. I would like to see it more user-friendly and easy to use."
"Cloudian HyperStore's scalability is not as good as I wanted it to be because if I want to add anything new to the current environment, the process is extremely lengthy and takes a lot of time."
"As it is an S3 solution with the same protocol as the one we have with AWS, having better integration with AWS will be beneficial."
"Cloudian HyperStore needs to incorporate AI and predictive analysis. It would be helpful if the solution could analyze and predict how to manage data better. The end users should not have access to protected documents. They should be able to drop the documents. The capacity management dashboard can be better. We also want two-factor authentication using Google Authenticator or Microsoft Authenticator as MFA. Hence, the user would access the console not just by logging in with a password and username but with third-party applications as well."
"It is a cloud-based environment and at times, it is not very simple to use."
"It is not easy to maintain, which is a big drawback to the solution."
"The product lacks RDMA support for inter-OSD communication."
"What could be improved in Red Hat Ceph Storage is its user interface or GUI."
"Areas of Red Hat Ceph Storage that have room for improvement include more promotion. Many people do not know about the Stratus case, which is one of the most reliable systems available in the world, but they are not aware that a system can keep working even if there is a hardware failure."
"Routing around slow hardware."
"When it comes to the capabilities of Red Hat Ceph Storage such as object, block, and file storage, I am not fully satisfied."
"Please create a failback solution for OpenStack replication and maybe QoS to allow guaranteed IOPS."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Price per terabyte is substantially higher than their competition. We would like to see it drop."
"The price is very reasonable when compared to other solutions."
"I would prefer that they lower their pricing."
"We lost a lot of customers because we couldn't compete on price with other vendors."
"There are no licensing fees aside from the support."
"The pricing is very attractive and it delivers performance for the money."
"The pricing is an issue. However, being all-flash, it will always be sort of expensive."
"There is always room for negotiation."
"The solution is cheap."
"Our fees are approximately half a dollar per gigabyte."
"The other big advantage is that Ceph is free software. Compared to traditional SAN based storage, it is very economical."
"We never used the paid support."
"The price of Red Hat Ceph Storage is reasonable."
"Most of time, you can get Ceph with the OpenStack solution in a subscription​​ as a bundle.​"
"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 this product isn't high."
"There is no cost for software."
"I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which File and Object Storage solutions are best for your needs.
884,976 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Retailer
7%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Comms Service Provider
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business63
Midsize Enterprise36
Large Enterprise143
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise7
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business13
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise15
 

Questions from the Community

Which should I choose: HPE 3PAR StoreServ or Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform F Series?
Both are great platforms, but if you are considering all flash solutions, I would recommend you to consider Pure Stor...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Pure Storage FlashArray?
I don't really know much about the pricing for Pure Storage FlashArray in terms of the absolute cost. Regarding Everg...
What needs improvement with Pure Storage FlashArray?
Despite liking Pure Storage FlashArray, there is room for improvement in automation. Pure Storage FlashArray needs to...
What needs improvement with Cloudian HyperStore?
Cloudian HyperStore can be improved by replacing the Cassandra database since it seems to struggle. I would add that ...
What is your primary use case for Cloudian HyperStore?
My main use case for Cloudian HyperStore is for immutable backup storage. I use Cloudian HyperStore for immutable bac...
What advice do you have for others considering Cloudian HyperStore?
My advice for others looking into using Cloudian HyperStore is to consider it a good product to add to their portfoli...
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 ...
What do you like most about Red Hat Ceph Storage?
The high availability of the solution is important to us.
What needs improvement with Red Hat Ceph Storage?
Areas of Red Hat Ceph Storage that have room for improvement include more promotion. Many people do not know about th...
 

Also Known As

Pure Storage FlashArray
HyperStore, Cloudian HyperStore Object Storage, HyperStore Object Storage
Ceph
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Nielsen, Lamar Advertising, LinkedIn, Betfair, UT-Dallas
NTT Communications, Casale, Kumo
Dell, DreamHost
Find out what your peers are saying about Cloudian HyperStore vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
884,976 professionals have used our research since 2012.