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 initial setup is pretty quick."
"The main feature I have found to be product replication."
"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 tool's most valuable features are data warehousing, speedy recovery, and analytics. Its latest release is cost-effective."
"The tool's most valuable feature is its fast performance, especially in handling snapshots. It helps during power outages when we need to quickly move data between different data centers. It ensures efficient replication and helps maintain our data centers' uptime."
"The solution provides many controllers."
"Using this solution has made our backups more reliable."
"Speed and ease of use are the two most valuable features."
"We have some legacy servers that can be associated with this structure. With Ceph, we can rearrange these machines and reuse our investment."
"It has helped to save money and scale the storage without limits."
"Ceph has simplified my storage integration. I no longer need two or three storage systems, as Ceph can support all my storage needs. I no longer need OpenStack Swift for REST object storage access, I no longer need NFS or GlusterFS for filesystem sharing, and most importantly, I no longer need LVM or DRBD for my virtual machines in OpenStack."
"Red Hat Ceph Storage is a reliable solution, it works well."
"Replicated and erasure coded pools have allowed for multiple copies to be kept, easy scale-out of additional nodes, and easy replacement of failed hard drives. The solution continues working even when there are errors."
"Most of the features are beneficial and one does not stand out above the rest."
"Data redundancy is a key feature, since it can survive failures (disks/servers). We didn’t lose our data or have a service interruption during server/disk failures."
"High reliability with commodity hardware."
"The speed could be improved."
"The technical support needs to improve. When we open a case, it is auto assigned to a support tech person. Nine out of ten times, we get an email right back saying that person is off until tomorrow. I cannot handle that. They just did this over the weekend to us, too. I had to call our rep and have them do something about it."
"In the realm of micro-services, I think that Pure Storage can do well if they start getting in there and making their arrays more micro-services ready."
"I would like to see the licensing fees improved as well as the price per terabytes."
"There could be improvements in public cloud integration."
"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 Pure Storage Orchestrator is our biggest pain point at the moment. If we can have more say in future developments of feature sets that we will need to support for our use case, that would be pretty beneficial to us."
"It would be beneficial if the layer could support the S3 protocol and be container ready in the next release."
"The management features are pretty good, but they still have room for improvement."
"The storage capacity of the solution can be improved."
"This product uses a lot of CPU and network bandwidth. It needs some deduplication features and to use delta for rebalancing."
"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 needs a better UI for easier installation and management."
"Rebalancing and recovery are a bit slow."
"Please create a failback solution for OpenStack replication and maybe QoS to allow guaranteed IOPS."
"Geo-replication needs improvement. It is a new feature, and not well supported yet."
Pure Storage FlashBlade is ranked 6th in File and Object Storage with 31 reviews while Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 3rd in File and Object Storage with 22 reviews. Pure Storage FlashBlade is rated 8.8, while Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Pure Storage FlashBlade writes "A high-performing and scalable solution that improves data performance for S3 workloads". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Ceph Storage writes "Provides block storage and object storage from the same storage cluster". Pure Storage FlashBlade is most compared with Dell PowerScale (Isilon), VAST Data, MinIO, Pure Storage FlashArray and Dell ECS, whereas Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with MinIO, VMware vSAN, Portworx Enterprise, NetApp StorageGRID and Dell ECS. 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.
