No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

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
7.2
Number of Reviews
231
Ranking in other categories
All-Flash Storage (3rd)
Cloudian HyperStore
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
13
Ranking in other categories
File and Object Storage (10th)
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 (2nd)
 

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 American Express
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

"I recommend this solution for production because it has good performance and capacity management."
"The simplicity of it. The performance is good, but the simplicity is the best thing. Storage management is quite complex, but Pure Storage is easy to manage."
"We also use VMware integrations developed by Pure, their plugins in our vCenter environment. They help by allowing our non-technical operations teams to deploy new data stores and resize data stores without me having to involve myself all the time to do those simple tasks."
"Once we solved the data reduction and what Pure does we were hooked."
"It is all-flash. This makes it a lot faster than the rest of what we have, as it is able to drive high I/O loads, which is big for us."
"Do it. I have zero reservations about recommending Pure to anyone who is looking for some really good all-flash."
"I like FlashArray's ActiveCluster as well as its snapshot and cloning capabilities."
"Having an intuitive user interface to get things running is great."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the durability, as it is very durable and that is particularly important for our backups."
"We have seen a return on investment with money saved and time saved because we backed up in real time and there is no limit, so I think that is the primary benefit."
"The cost was the main reason we chose to use this solution."
"Cloudian HyperStore has positively impacted my organization by reducing costs, which is one of the biggest advantages I can see from Cloudian HyperStore."
"The most valuable features are its scalability and Amazon S3 compatibility because we can move back and forth with a hybrid cloud."
"Cloudian HyperStore has significantly improved our organization by making our data storage more efficient, scalable, and overall cost-effective."
"Cloudian HyperStore has significantly improved our organization by providing scalable, reliable, and cost-effective object storage for our growing volumes of unstructured data."
"High reliability with commodity hardware There is no cost for software"
"The product allows our OpenStack environment to move away from the classic network type of backend storage and enables increased resilience using commodity hardware pricing, which is a major benefit."
"Stratus allows more reliability than all the other types of computers available."
"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."
"The setup is very easy, deserving a ten out of ten."
"I like the distributed and self-healing nature of the product."
"The product spawned a new vision of storage deployment, as well as a strong interest in reusing equipment and increasing ROI."
"Ceph’s ability to adapt to varying types of commodity hardware affords us substantial flexibility and future-proofing."
 

Cons

"The price of the Pure Storage Flash Array is too high and there needs to be more contract clarity."
"Reports of performance and LUN utilization could be improved."
"Regarding documentation, it would be helpful if we could have access to the root passwords for administrative tasks."
"It was a little costly."
"The one major gripe I have is that there is no snapshotting enabled by default on the SAN."
"I would like to see data tiering to AWS."
"Everpure FlashArray can be improved as the pricing is expensive, but you do get what you pay for; you are paying a premium for better service, better warranties, less downtime, and other things, so I do not know that a lower price would work out because you probably would not have that high of quality for those things."
"I would like to see additional features like performance monitoring, configuring alerts, and the customization of alert thresholds."
"Cloudian HyperStore can be improved because it cannot simply be left to the business owner to operate its software."
"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 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."
"I am not certain if their database or another component is experiencing issues, but they sometimes take more than two or three weeks to resolve a case."
"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."
"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 not easy to maintain, which is a big drawback to the solution."
"I suppose the cost could always be lower and they should continue to add the latest Amazon S3 features."
"Please create a failback solution for OpenStack replication and maybe QoS to allow guaranteed IOPS."
"I've heard the integration with OpenShift is great, however, the licensing cost is excessively high."
"It takes some time to re-balance the storage in case of server failure."
"When it comes to the capabilities of Red Hat Ceph Storage such as object, block, and file storage, I am not fully satisfied."
"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."
"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."
"The product lacks RDMA support for inter-OSD communication."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is a cheaper solution."
"Our licensing is on a yearly basis. So, every year, we renew. We could do a three-year contract, but right now, we only do a one-year."
"We have a seen a reduction in TCO. It is definitely a cost-effective solution for us. We have seen ROI."
"When we bought the unit, we bought per capacity. So, the licensing is per capacity, and the only thing that we have to buy every year or every three years is maintenance. Included in that maintenance is the upgrade of the controllers every three years at no cost to us."
"Cost-wise, I imagine that the product's price would probably give you a nosebleed if you were a younger company."
"The pricing is very attractive and it delivers performance for the money."
"Our costs are around $100,000."
"The pricing is an issue. However, being all-flash, it will always be sort of expensive."
"Our fees are approximately half a dollar per gigabyte."
"The solution is cheap."
"The price of this product isn't high."
"The price of Red Hat Ceph Storage is reasonable."
"The operational overhead is higher compared to Azure because we own the hardware."
"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."
"There is no cost for software."
"We never used the paid support."
"The other big advantage is that Ceph is free software. Compared to traditional SAN based storage, it is very economical."
"Most of time, you can get Ceph with the OpenStack solution in a subscription​​ as a bundle.​"
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which File and Object Storage solutions are best for your needs.
908,877 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Construction Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Outsourcing Company
7%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Comms Service Provider
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business71
Midsize Enterprise38
Large Enterprise159
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise8
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 find the pricing of Everpure FlashArray to be quite high compared to other storage solutions; however, the reliabil...
What needs improvement with Pure Storage FlashArray?
I believe we have covered the most important features; the architecture of Pure Storage is essential, and features su...
What needs improvement with Cloudian HyperStore?
Cloudian HyperStore can be improved because it cannot simply be left to the business owner to operate its software. Y...
What is your primary use case for Cloudian HyperStore?
Our main use case for Cloudian HyperStore is cloud backup of large data, such as patient information and research inf...
What advice do you have for others considering Cloudian HyperStore?
On a scale of one to ten, I would give Cloudian HyperStore a seven. I give it a seven because it needs a lot of impro...
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 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...
What advice do you have for others considering Red Hat Ceph Storage?
I do not have experience working with solutions such as Red Hat Ceph Storage and StorPool. I have plenty of experienc...
 

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: June 2026.
908,877 professionals have used our research since 2012.