We performed a comparison between IBM Cloud Object Storage 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.
"IBM has the most number of additional services, this is the main advantage."
"IBM Cloud Object Storage integrates well."
"One of Cloud Object Storage's best features is infinite capacity. This is one of the main advantages if you don't want to use your own storage. You also have the ability to write only, write once, and read many. It's like tape storage but software-based. This feature is essential for financial institutions that require that kind of protection if you write backup or data there."
"It's a very performance-intensive, brilliant storage system, and I always recommend it to customers based on its benefits, performance, and scalability."
"I like the distributed and self-healing nature of the product."
"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."
"Red Hat Ceph Storage is a reliable solution, it works well."
"IBM Cloud storage is not cheap, but it could be."
"The performance could be better. It isn't bad, but everything is network-based, so you have a performance penalty on the network. You can never achieve the same performance as hardware. That's the disadvantage of cloud storage solutions in general. Cloud performance is one of the main issues clients have."
"The performance could improve in IBM Cloud Object Storage. The throughput or objects per second can have degradation."
"An area for improvement would be that it's pretty difficult to manage synchronous replication over multiple regions."
"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."
"What could be improved in Red Hat Ceph Storage is its user interface or GUI."
"The product lacks RDMA support for inter-OSD communication."
IBM Cloud Object Storage is ranked 13th in File and Object Storage with 3 reviews while Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 4th in File and Object Storage with 4 reviews. IBM Cloud Object Storage is rated 6.6, while Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of IBM Cloud Object Storage writes "It has virtually infinite capacity but doesn't perform as well as hardware solutions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Ceph Storage writes "Designed for container platforms and has good integration, but its user interface needs improvement". IBM Cloud Object Storage is most compared with Dell ECS, IBM Spectrum Scale, Cloudian HyperStore, MinIO and NetApp StorageGRID, whereas Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with MinIO, VMware vSAN, Portworx Enterprise, Dell ECS and Huawei FusionStorage. See our IBM Cloud Object Storage vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage report.
See our list of best File and Object Storage vendors and best Cloud Software Defined 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.
