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 #3 with an average rating of 9.3, while Red Hat Gluster Storage is ranked #11 with an average rating of 10.0. Red Hat Ceph Storage holds a 14.3% 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: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat Ceph Storage vs. Red Hat Gluster Storage

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 879,455 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 January 2026, in the Software Defined Storage (SDS) category, the mindshare of Pure Storage FlashBlade is 3.3%, down from 4.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Ceph Storage is 14.3%, down from 21.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Gluster Storage is 3.0%, up from 2.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Software Defined Storage (SDS) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Red Hat Ceph Storage	14.3%
Pure Storage FlashBlade	3.3%
Red Hat Gluster Storage	3.0%
Other	79.4%

Software Defined Storage (SDS)

Featured Reviews

MikaelHellström

IT Manager at Regin Dalarna

Has handled backup storage needs reliably and supports seamless upgrades

In environments requiring high throughput and low latency, Pure Storage FlashBlade provides high throughput and normal latency, but we do not have any application that requires low latency right now, so the latency of three to five milliseconds is considered kind of high. Pure Storage FlashBlade's ability to integrate with enterprise applications is not important for us, as we only want to present an S3 bucket for our backup, which we have done, and it works very fast. We use the Purity software's data reduction techniques; we have a backup software that compresses everything before sending it to the S3 bucket, achieving a data reduction of 1.1 to one. I would recommend Pure Storage FlashBlade to other companies because it's a very fast and scalable solution for anyone who needs it. On a scale of 1-10, I rate this solution an 8.

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

"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 onboarding and integrated monitoring tools are pretty good."

"It performs well and it is also very fast."

"The most valuable features are the Metro clustering, and disaster recovery."

"The most valuable features include the ease of implementation, ease of use and the speed that you can do backup and recovery on."

"The main feature I have found to be product replication."

"FlashBlade offers low latency, high throughput, and seamless scalability."

"I like its size. It is smaller than the other competitors. We can plug in many blades, and we can have data up to one terabyte."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros

"Most of the features are beneficial and one does not stand out above the rest."

"The high availability of the solution is important to us."

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

"The most valuable feature is the stability of the product."

"Ceph’s ability to adapt to varying types of commodity hardware affords us substantial flexibility and future-proofing."

"I can compare Red Hat Ceph Storage with products from other vendors; I explored quite a few, but I still find that Red Hat Ceph Storage is making the most disruption."

"Stratus allows more reliability than all the other types of computers available."

"The community support is very good."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage pros

"The technical support team is excellent."

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

"It's very easy to upgrade storage."

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

Cons

"I have not seen ROI."

"It would be beneficial if the layer could support the S3 protocol and be container ready in the next release."

"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."

"I would like to see more deduplication."

"The speed could be improved."

"Pure Storage FlashBlade should improve on more cloud integration."

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

"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."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons

"If you use for any other solution like other Kubernetes solutions, it's not very suitable."

"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."

"We have encountered slight integration issues."

"While the documentation for Ceph Storage is helpful, it could be improved."

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

"The management features are pretty good, but they still have room for improvement."

"If troubleshooting is needed, the response should be faster."

"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."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage cons

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

"The performance of the solution must be improved."

"The user interface could be simplified."

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

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"Licensing fees are paid yearly."

"The price is a little high."

"The pricing for FlashBlade is between cheap and moderate."

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

"We used a reseller for the purchase."

"The product is very expensive."

"Pure Storage FlashBlade is a hardware appliance, and it's very expensive if you compare its price with other solutions. You can get the same features and benefits from its competitor, VAST Data, but for half the price of Pure Storage FlashBlade."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pricing and cost advice

"I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten."

"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."

"We never used the paid support."

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

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

"There is no cost for software."

"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."

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

879,455 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

12%

Computer Software Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Computer Software Company

17%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Financial Services Firm

Educational Organization

Financial Services Firm

10%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Comms Service Provider

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	11
Midsize Enterprise	11
Large Enterprise	21

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	13
Midsize Enterprise	4
Large Enterprise	15

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?

Regarding pricing, it is okay; we needed exactly this in size, and the price was a lot lower than competitors, making...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Pure Storage FlashBlade?

In my opinion, one way Pure Storage FlashBlade can be improved is by having more compatibility between the FlashArray...

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 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

What advice do you have for others considering Red Hat Gluster Storage?

I would highly recommend Gluster FS to others considering it. The system is robust, flexible, and easy to use. I'd ra...

See all answers

Comparisons

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 17% of the time

Pure Storage FlashArray vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 10% of the time

MinIO vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 9% of the time

VAST Data vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 6% of the time

Dell ObjectScale vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 6% of the time

More Pure Storage FlashBlade Competitors

MinIO vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 47% of the time

NetApp StorageGRID vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 4% of the time

VMware vSAN vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 4% of the time

Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 3% of the time

Dell PowerFlex vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 2% of the time

More Red Hat Ceph Storage Competitors

VMware vSAN vs Red Hat Gluster Storage

Compared 14% of the time

LizardFS vs Red Hat Gluster Storage

Compared 13% of the time

IBM Spectrum Scale vs Red Hat Gluster Storage

Compared 11% of the time

LINBIT SDS vs Red Hat Gluster Storage

Compared 11% of the time

StarWind Virtual SAN vs Red Hat Gluster Storage

Compared 9% of the time

More Red Hat Gluster Storage Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Pure Storage FlashBlade

December 2025

Download Pure Storage FlashBlade product report

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat Ceph Storage

December 2025

Download Red Hat Ceph Storage product report

Buyer's Guide

Software Defined Storage (SDS)

December 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

December 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: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

879,455 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.