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

Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct vs Red Hat Gluster Storage comparison

Microsoft and Red Hat are both solutions in the Software Defined Storage (SDS) category. Microsoft is ranked #8 with an average rating of 6.5, while Red Hat is ranked #10 with an average rating of 9.0. Microsoft holds a 7.8% mindshare in SDS, compared to Red Hat’s 3.0% mindshare. Additionally, 75% of Microsoft users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 80% of Red Hat users who would recommend it.
Sponsored
Microsoft Storage Spaces Di...
Read 9 Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct reviews
  • 1,536 Views
  • 1,089 Comparison Views
75% willing to recommend
Red Hat Gluster Storage
Read 4 Red Hat Gluster Storage reviews
  • 726 Views
  • 403 Comparison Views
80% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 5, 2024

Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct and Red Hat Gluster Storage compete in the storage solutions category. Microsoft tends to have the upper hand due to its seamless integration into the Windows ecosystem, offering simplicity and strong support frameworks.

Features: Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct offers integration with Windows Server, built-in security, and supports hyper-converged infrastructures. It provides efficient operations with minimal configuration. Red Hat Gluster Storage delivers an open-source architecture, is suitable for unstructured workloads, and offers scalability for high-performance applications with community support.

Room for Improvement: Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct could improve by offering more flexible deployment options, enhanced support for non-Windows environments, and lowering initial cost. Red Hat Gluster Storage might benefit from better integration tools, more comprehensive documentation for deployment, and enhanced user interface experience.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct ensures straightforward deployment within the Windows ecosystem and offers streamlined customer service through established support. Red Hat Gluster Storage requires technical expertise for deployment, though it benefits from a robust community for support, potentially enriching troubleshooting experiences.

Pricing and ROI: Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct has a higher initial cost due to Windows Server licensing, but reduced management overhead offers a balanced ROI. Red Hat Gluster Storage is cost-effective initially due to its open-source nature, though ROI may vary based on necessary specialized technical expertise for deployment.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct vs. Red Hat Gluster Storage Report (Updated: April 2025).
Buyer's Guide
Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct vs. Red Hat Gluster 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
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
37
Ranking in other categories
All-Flash Storage (17th), File and Object Storage (6th)
Microsoft Storage Spaces Di...
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
Software Defined Storage (SDS) (8th)
Red Hat Gluster Storage
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Software Defined Storage (SDS) (10th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Software Defined Storage (SDS) category, the mindshare of Pure Storage FlashBlade is 4.2%, down from 4.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct is 7.8%, up from 7.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Gluster Storage is 3.0%, up from 2.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Software Defined Storage (SDS)
 

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
Stanislaw Mielicki - PeerSpot reviewer
Achieve cost-effectiveness with superior performance while needing to address cluster support
I am working with Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct for applications, SQL, and VRS. I am an integrator for this solution The price performance is the best advantage of Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct. They introduced the All-Flash array using SSD or NVMe drives without cache drives. It is…
Read full review
GiovanniRamirez - PeerSpot reviewer
Flexible and scalable file system for growing storage needs
Gluster FS is used for various purposes, including virtualization, collaboration, and data center environments. It is also applied in personal environments. Some specific use cases mentioned include scaling a three-terabyte file system into a 12-terabyte file system with minimal downtime Gluster…
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

"FlashBlade offers low latency, high throughput, and seamless scalability."
"We can capacity plan at a greater level than we used to."
"The initial setup is pretty quick."
"The ease of deployment and management has helped us simplify our storage. We also do not have to worry about capacity management as much. A lot of these things are native to Pure Storage."
"The initial setup was straightforward. If you know how to plug in power and network you're pretty much qualified. They were on site to configure the network, the box to fit into our network architecture. Other than that, we self-managed from there."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the rewrite speed and the nonstop services."
"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 product is scalable and easy to expand."
More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"The most valuable feature are the caching capabilities using the storage class memory."
"The performance, reliability, and affordability has been most valuable."
"The flash ability, in terms of tiering and caching, is amazing"
"It's mainly about the storage expansion, like in hyper-converged solutions."
"The most valuable feature is that there is no single point of failure."
"The price performance is the best advantage of Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct."
"The price performance is the best advantage of Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct."
More Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct pros
"It's very easy to upgrade storage."
"The price tag is good compared to the amount of data and high availability provided."
"Notable features of Gluster FS include flexibility, scalability, stability, and ease of use."
"The technical support team is excellent."
 

Cons

"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."
"The speed could be improved."
"On our dedupe during our initial buy, we were expecting a number a little higher like 4x. However, we are getting about 3.6. While it is close enough, it doesn't quite hit the numbers. So, this has been a challenge."
"I would like to see more deduplication."
"It would be nice if you could store file-based in the same box with the same technology."
"It would be beneficial if the layer could support the S3 protocol and be container ready in the next release."
"Pure Storage FlashBlade should improve on more cloud integration."
"I would like to see more monitoring capability included in the next release of this solution."
More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons
"Microsoft closed the shared cluster support, which is important for the solution."
"I think the online documentation needs a lot of work and so do the sizing tools."
"More optimization could be done in terms of mirroring."
"The management tool within this solution could be improved. We would also like to be able to access services like Azure when using this solution."
"It is scalable, but only beyond two nodes. If I go for two nodes it's not scalable. I need to build a complete cluster from the beginning if I'm going for two nodes."
"Documentation management could be improved"
"The integration is not difficult because there is no GUI, but we need to use a PowerShell command. This makes it difficult to monitor and to see the components' statuses."
"It is difficult to get a hardware compatibility certification for the solution."
More Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct cons
"The performance of the solution must be improved."
"There is a feature in Red Hat’s commercial version that could be beneficial if integrated into the open-source version."
"The system should be more intuitive and easier to manage."
"The user interface could be simplified."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing for FlashBlade is between cheap and moderate."
"The price is a little high."
"I understand that it is competitively priced compared to other brands."
"Licensing fees are paid yearly."
"I have seen ROI. It has allowed me to increase the density of my VMs without having to purchase anything additional."
"In my opinion, we have paid the right price for the product. I don't think that it is too much or too little."
"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."
"It is within reason for what you get. From what we have found comparing it to other vendors, it is in the same range as others. Given the choice, we would definitely redeploy it based on the cost."
More Pure Storage FlashBlade pricing and cost advice
"Cost-wise the product is one of the more affordable within the category of products."
"The solution is expensive."
"With the data center licensing and everything that is connected to that, this solution is relatively costly."
"If you need cheap storage, but still need high availability, it's a good product to look at."
report
See which vendors are best for you
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Software Defined Storage (SDS) 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%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

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
How does VMware vSAN compare with Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct?
We found VMware’s vSAN was easy to set up, configure, and manage compared to other solutions we considered. It is bes...
See all answers
What do you like most about Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct?
Its technical support is excellent.
See all answers
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct?
Pricing is an advantage of Storage Spaces Direct. Licenses can be on a monthly or yearly basis, depending on the addi...
See all answers
What do you like most about Red Hat Gluster Storage?
The technical support team is excellent.
See all answers
What needs improvement with Red Hat Gluster Storage?
There is a feature in Red Hat’s commercial version that could be beneficial if integrated into the open-source versio...
See all answers
What is your primary use case for Red Hat Gluster Storage?
Gluster FS is used for various purposes, including virtualization, collaboration, and data center environments. It is...
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 11% of the time
Red Hat Ceph Storage vs Pure Storage FlashBlade Logo
Red Hat Ceph Storage vs Pure Storage FlashBlade
Compared 11% 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
More Pure Storage FlashBlade Competitors
VMware vSAN vs Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct Logo
VMware vSAN vs Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct
Compared 64% of the time
Red Hat Ceph Storage vs Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct Logo
Red Hat Ceph Storage vs Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct
Compared 13% of the time
StarWind Virtual SAN vs Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct Logo
StarWind Virtual SAN vs Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct
Compared 7% of the time
Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) vs Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct Logo
Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) vs Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct
Compared 6% of the time
DataCore SANsymphony vs Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct Logo
DataCore SANsymphony vs Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct
Compared 5% of the time
More Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct Competitors
LizardFS vs Red Hat Gluster Storage Logo
LizardFS vs Red Hat Gluster Storage
Compared 27% of the time
VMware vSAN vs Red Hat Gluster Storage Logo
VMware vSAN vs Red Hat Gluster Storage
Compared 20% of the time
Red Hat Ceph Storage vs Red Hat Gluster Storage Logo
Red Hat Ceph Storage vs Red Hat Gluster Storage
Compared 18% of the time
StarWind Virtual SAN vs Red Hat Gluster Storage Logo
StarWind Virtual SAN vs Red Hat Gluster Storage
Compared 15% of the time
IBM Spectrum Scale vs Red Hat Gluster Storage Logo
IBM Spectrum Scale vs Red Hat Gluster Storage
Compared 12% of the time
More Red Hat Gluster Storage Competitors
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
Pure Storage FlashBlade
April 2025
Pure Storage FlashBlade reportDownload Pure Storage FlashBlade product report
Buyer's Guide
Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct
April 2025
Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct reportDownload Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct product report
Buyer's Guide
Software Defined Storage (SDS)
April 2025
Red Hat Gluster Storage reportDownload Red Hat Gluster Storage product report
 

Also Known As

No data available
MS Storage Spaces Direct
Red Hat Gluster, Red Hat Storage Server
 

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

Storage Spaces Direct uses industry-standard servers with local-attached drives to create highly available, highly scalable software-defined storage at a fraction of the cost of traditional SAN or NAS arrays. Its converged or hyper-converged architecture radically simplifies procurement and deployment, while features like caching, storage tiers, and erasure coding, together with the latest hardware innovation like RDMA networking and NVMe drives, deliver unrivaled efficiency and performance.

Microsoft

Red Hat Gluster Storage (formerly known as Red Hat Storage Server) is a software-defined storage (SDS) platform designed to handle the requirements of traditional file storage—high-capacity tasks like backup and archival as well as high-performance tasks of analytics and virtualization. But unlike traditional storage systems, Red Hat Gluster Storage isn’t rigid and expensive. It easily scales across bare metal, virtual, container, and cloud deployments.

Red Hat
 

Sample Customers

ServiceNow, Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport, Dominos, Man AHL
Acuutech, Quest Technology Management, Bradley, Mead & Hunt
NTT Plala, McMaster University, University of Basque Country, Goodtech ASA, Cox Automotive, Raidió Teilifís Éireann (RTÉ), SaskTel, Glashart Media, Casio
Buyer's Guide
Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct vs. Red Hat Gluster Storage
April 2025
Free Report: Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct vs. Red Hat Gluster Storage
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct vs. Red Hat Gluster Storage and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
DOWNLOAD NOW
849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See our Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct vs. Red Hat Gluster Storage report.
See our list of best Software Defined Storage (SDS) vendors.

We monitor all Software Defined Storage (SDS) 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.