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 most valuable features of this solution are the rewrite speed and the nonstop services."
"The onboarding and integrated monitoring tools are pretty good."
"The initial setup is pretty quick."
"It's very easy-to-use."
"The most valuable features are the Metro clustering, and disaster recovery."
"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."
"It performs well and it is also very fast."
"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."
"I like the distributed and self-healing nature of the product."
"It's a very performance-intensive, brilliant storage system, and I always recommend it to customers based on its benefits, performance, and scalability."
"Red Hat Ceph Storage is a reliable solution, it works well."
"There is some room for new features related to authentication and integration with Kubernetes, and other solution using S3 Bucket."
"I would like to see the licensing fees improved as well as the price per terabytes."
"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."
"The feature that we're waiting on is better integration with the cell services."
"Compared to, for example, Hitachi NAS, the solution is not mature at all. It's just in its infancy as far as technology goes."
"I want efficiency. FlashBlade doesn't have efficiency now."
"There could be improvements in public cloud integration."
"It would be beneficial if the layer could support the S3 protocol and be container ready in the next release."
"What could be improved in Red Hat Ceph Storage is its user interface or GUI."
"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."
"The product lacks RDMA support for inter-OSD communication."
"An area for improvement would be that it's pretty difficult to manage synchronous replication over multiple regions."
Pure Storage FlashBlade is ranked 3rd in File and Object Storage with 10 reviews while Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 4th in File and Object Storage with 4 reviews. Pure Storage FlashBlade is rated 8.8, while Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 7.6. 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 "Designed for container platforms and has good integration, but its user interface needs improvement". Pure Storage FlashBlade is most compared with Pure Storage FlashArray, MinIO, Qumulo, NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) and VAST Data, whereas Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with MinIO, VMware vSAN, Portworx Enterprise, Dell ECS and Scality RING8. 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.
