We performed a comparison between Pure Storage FlashBlade 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."The tool's most valuable features are data warehousing, speedy recovery, and analytics. Its latest release is cost-effective."
"The product is scalable and easy to expand."
"Pure Storage FlashBlade is user-friendly. It's replication feature is great because it has active replication and active DR. That's the beauty of the product. It's a perfect solution for block storage."
"The solution is able to handle workloads and is easy to use. It allows us to actually manage the boxes in less time."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the rewrite speed and the nonstop services."
"The solution provides many controllers."
"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 is very easy to use, and it is very fast."
"We have not encountered any stability issues for the product."
"The most valuable feature is the stability of the product."
"The solution is pretty stable."
"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."
"Most of the features are beneficial and one does not stand out above the rest."
"We use the solution for cloud storage."
"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."
"The features provided for SMB customers are limited."
"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."
"It usually comes down to just what you hit and the value you're getting when you spend the money and license the products. I would always go, "If you want to make things better, lower your price and make your licensing simpler." There's always an opportunity around that."
"I would also like to see better support for CIFS workloads."
"I want efficiency. FlashBlade doesn't have efficiency now."
"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."
"There is some room for new features related to authentication and integration with Kubernetes, and other solution using S3 Bucket."
"What could be improved in Red Hat Ceph Storage is its user interface or GUI."
"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 takes some time to re-balance the storage in case of server failure."
"An area for improvement would be that it's pretty difficult to manage synchronous replication over multiple regions."
"The storage capacity of the solution can be improved."
"We have encountered slight integration issues."
"The product lacks RDMA support for inter-OSD communication."
Pure Storage FlashBlade is ranked 6th in File and Object Storage with 9 reviews while Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 3rd in File and Object Storage with 9 reviews. Pure Storage FlashBlade is rated 8.6, while Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Pure Storage FlashBlade writes "Immutable snapshots, great performance, and simple and easy replication". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Ceph Storage writes "Flexible and good for storage but can be complex to set up". Pure Storage FlashBlade is most compared with Dell PowerScale (Isilon), Pure Storage FlashArray, MinIO, VAST Data and Dell ECS, whereas Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with MinIO, VMware vSAN, Portworx Enterprise, Dell ECS and NetApp StorageGRID. See our Pure Storage FlashBlade 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.
