Red Hat Ceph Storage vs Red Hat Gluster Storage comparison

Red Hat Ceph Storage and Red Hat Gluster Storage are both solutions in the Software Defined Storage (SDS) category. Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.9, while Red Hat Gluster Storage is ranked #12 with an average rating of 9.0. Red Hat Ceph Storage holds a 20.7% mindshare in SDS, compared to Red Hat Gluster Storage’s 3.0% mindshare. Additionally, 82% of Red Hat Ceph Storage users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 80% of Red Hat Gluster Storage users who would recommend it.

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 5, 2024

Red Hat Ceph Storage and Red Hat Gluster Storage are designed for scalable, high-performance storage solutions. Ceph appears more advantageous for its robust cloud integration and scalability.

Features: Red Hat Ceph Storage offers block storage for OpenStack images, integration with Cinder and Nova services, as well as object storage for Swift service. It is economical due to its open-source nature and supports high reliability with commodity hardware. Red Hat Gluster Storage features flexibility, ease of use through a command line interface, and scalability, making it suitable for straightforward file storage solutions.

Room for Improvement: Red Hat Ceph Storage can improve in deployment complexity and initial setup. It requires specific expertise for optimal use and integration. Ceph's extensive features can be simplified. Red Hat Gluster Storage needs enhancements in handling more complex storage needs, providing broader ecosystem integration, and improving support for non-file storage environments.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Red Hat Gluster Storage is easy to deploy, offering rapid setup and efficient performance across various environments. Ceph's deployment is complex, requiring detailed integration supported by comprehensive service options, facilitating smoother adoption in existing infrastructures.

Pricing and ROI: Red Hat Ceph Storage involves higher initial costs but offers a promising ROI for businesses needing complex storage capabilities. As free software, it's economical and benefits from a large, active community. Red Hat Gluster Storage provides a cost-effective solution with quicker ROI due to simpler management and setup, favored by enterprises with essential storage needs.

To learn more, read our detailed Red Hat Ceph Storage vs. Red Hat Gluster Storage Report (Updated: June 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat Ceph Storage vs. Red Hat Gluster Storage

June 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 856,873 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

Mindshare comparison

As of June 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 Red Hat Ceph Storage is 20.7%, down from 22.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Gluster Storage is 3.0%, up from 2.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Software Defined Storage (SDS)

Featured Reviews

Eric Black

Solutions Architect at Recovery Point Systems

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

Rifat Rahman

Infrastructure Architect & CEO at Tirzok Private Limited

Offers reliable performance and availability for large deployments

I would like to see improvements in Red Hat Ceph Storage not because I necessarily think it needs improvement, but because I generally prefer to do things manually rather than following the containerization part. Current deployments are based on containers, but I deploy manually with my scripts and controls. If there are no Kubernetes-like requirements, I often prefer to deploy a whole manual process. I don't ask for improvements in the deployment model because Red Hat has its own philosophy about making things, but it's my personal choice that I prefer things manually. Some features are available only in the containerization part, so if those are also available in manual deployment, that will help.

Read full review

GiovanniRamirez

Senior IT Consultant at Xerif

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

"The product is scalable and easy to expand."

"The initial setup is pretty quick."

"The most valuable features of FlashBlade include its replication capabilities, reports, and easy allocation. Everything is user-friendly."

"The solution provides many controllers."

"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."

"It has absolutely simplified our storage because the dashboards on the consoles show a clear understanding of where you are, and it is also very easy to provision. This been a big help for our teams."

"Using this solution has made our backups more reliable."

"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."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros

"The configuration of the solution and the user interface are both quite good."

"Ceph was chosen to maintain exact performance and capacity characteristics for customer cloud."

"The solution is pretty stable."

"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."

"Ceph Storage allows us to add value related to cost and offers a unique experience compared to traditional storage."

"The ability to provide block storage and object storage from the same storage cluster is very valuable for us."

"Without any extra costs, I was able to provide a redundant environment."

"The setup is very easy, deserving a ten out of ten."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage pros

"The price tag is good compared to the amount of data and high availability provided."

"The technical support team is excellent."

"It's very easy to upgrade storage."

"Notable features of Gluster FS include flexibility, scalability, stability, and ease of use."

Cons

"To improve FlashBlade, some analysts suggest enhancing its handling of relational database management systems and SQL queries."

"Recently, while upgrading the version code, one of the controllers failed. Replacing the controller took between 14 to 20 days."

"There could be improvements in public cloud integration."

"I would like to see more VM-Aware features in the next release of this solution."

"We haven't been able to use much of the cloud area of Pure Storage. We have a storage server and it would be better if it could integrate with other cloud features of this solution."

"I would like to see better integration."

"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."

"We initially encountered challenges with the assembly process due to issues with the documentation required during setup, an area where Pure Storage needs improvement."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons

"I would like to see better performance and stability when Ceph is in recovery."

"Areas of Red Hat Ceph Storage that have room for improvement include more promotion. Many people do not know about the Stratus case, which is one of the most reliable systems available in the world, but they are not aware that a system can keep working even if there is a hardware failure."

"Ceph is not a mature product at this time. Guides are misleading and incomplete. You will meet all kind of bugs and errors trying to install the system for the first time. It requires very experienced personnel to support and keep the system in working condition, and install all necessary packets."

"We have encountered slight integration issues."

"I have not identified any drawbacks, however, the response to public platform inquiries could be faster."

"The storage capacity of the solution can be improved."

"I've heard the integration with OpenShift is great, however, the licensing cost is excessively high."

"The licensing cost is excessively high. This is a significant issue from my perspective."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage cons

"There is a feature in Red Hat’s commercial version that could be beneficial if integrated into the open-source version."

"The user interface could be simplified."

"The performance of the solution must be improved."

"The system should be more intuitive and easier to manage."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Our licensing is renewed annually."

"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."

"I feel that the price could always be lowered."

"The price of this solution could be made more affordable."

"In my opinion, we have paid the right price for the product. I don't think that it is too much or too little."

"The price could be cheaper."

"We used a reseller for the purchase."

"I have seen ROI. It has allowed me to increase the density of my VMs without having to purchase anything additional."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pricing and cost advice

"We never used the paid support."

"If you can afford a product like Red Hat Ceph Storage then go for it. If you cannot, then you need to test Ceph and get your hands dirty."

"Most of time, you can get Ceph with the OpenStack solution in a subscription as a bundle."

"The operational overhead is higher compared to Azure because we own the hardware."

"The price of Red Hat Ceph Storage is reasonable."

"There is no cost for software."

"The other big advantage is that Ceph is free software. Compared to traditional SAN based storage, it is very economical."

"The price of this product isn't high."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage pricing and cost advice

"If you need cheap storage, but still need high availability, it's a good product to look at."

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

856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Educational Organization

16%

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

18%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Financial Services Firm

Government

Financial Services Firm

17%

Computer Software Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

Government

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 Red Hat Ceph Storage compare with MiniO?

Red Hat Ceph does well in simplifying storage integration by replacing the need for numerous storage solutions. This ...

See all answers

What do you like most about Red Hat Ceph Storage?

The high availability of the solution is important to us.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Red Hat Ceph Storage?

Areas of Red Hat Ceph Storage that have room for improvement include more promotion. Many people do not know about th...

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

Compared 20% of the time

MinIO vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 11% of the time

VAST Data vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 10% of the time

Pure Storage FlashArray vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 10% of the time

Dell ECS vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 6% of the time

More Pure Storage FlashBlade Competitors

MinIO vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 38% of the time

NetApp StorageGRID vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 6% of the time

VMware vSAN vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 6% of the time

Dell PowerFlex vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 4% of the time

Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 3% of the time

More Red Hat Ceph Storage Competitors

LizardFS vs Red Hat Gluster Storage

Compared 25% of the time

VMware vSAN vs Red Hat Gluster Storage

Compared 21% of the time

StarWind Virtual SAN vs Red Hat Gluster Storage

Compared 15% of the time

IBM Spectrum Scale vs Red Hat Gluster Storage

Compared 14% of the time

LINBIT SDS vs Red Hat Gluster Storage

Compared 7% of the time

More Red Hat Gluster Storage Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Pure Storage FlashBlade

May 2025

Download Pure Storage FlashBlade product report

Buyer's Guide

Software Defined Storage (SDS)

May 2025

Download Red Hat Ceph Storage product report

Buyer's Guide

Software Defined Storage (SDS)

May 2025

Download Red Hat Gluster Storage product report

Also Known As

No data available

Ceph

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

Red Hat Ceph Storage is an enterprise open source platform that provides unified software-defined storage on standard, economical servers and disks. With block, object, and file storage combined into one platform, Red Hat Ceph Storage efficiently and automatically manages all your data.

Red Hat

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

Dell, DreamHost

NTT Plala, McMaster University, University of Basque Country, Goodtech ASA, Cox Automotive, Raidió Teilifís Éireann (RTÉ), SaskTel, Glashart Media, Casio

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat Ceph Storage vs. Red Hat Gluster Storage

June 2025

Free Report: Red Hat Ceph Storage vs. Red Hat Gluster Storage

Find out what your peers are saying about Red Hat Ceph Storage vs. Red Hat Gluster Storage and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Red Hat Ceph Storage 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.