We performed a comparison between Red Hat Ceph Storage and Zadara based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Software Defined Storage (SDS) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It's a very performance-intensive, brilliant storage system, and I always recommend it to customers based on its benefits, performance, and scalability."
"radosgw and librados provide a simple integration with clone, snapshots, and other functions that aid in data integrity."
"We have some legacy servers that can be associated with this structure. With Ceph, we can rearrange these machines and reuse our investment."
"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."
"Ceph’s ability to adapt to varying types of commodity hardware affords us substantial flexibility and future-proofing."
"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."
"We have not encountered any stability issues for the product."
"Without any extra costs, I was able to provide a redundant environment."
"Zadara Storage Cloud having 24/7 management saves me support and engineering costs because the storage and computing are managed by a third-party. We are able to focus more attention on the customer, which is truly our core business. Even at 1:00 AM or 2:00 AM at night, someone will answer, which is important."
"It's very easy to expand and compared to other storage systems that we've used, it's a lot more expandable and a lot more flexible in how it's deployed."
"The most valuable features of Zadara are its visibility and simplicity to use."
"The processing is much faster with this product."
"One of the most useful features is that they provide iSCSI as a service."
"Being able to scale on demand, and being able to get out of our security operation center, and not having to purchase hardware upfront, has drastically reduced the overhead that was required to maintain our information. We have also gained additional capabilities in terms of speed of replicating that information."
"The most valuable feature is the flexibility in terms of deployment options."
"A nice feature is the immutable object storage, which can be used in conjunction with Veeam."
"The management features are pretty good, but they still have room for improvement."
"It would be nice to have a notification feature whenever an important action is completed."
"This product uses a lot of CPU and network bandwidth. It needs some deduplication features and to use delta for rebalancing."
"In the deployment step, we need to create some config files to add Ceph functions in OpenStack modules (Nova, Cinder, Glance). It would be useful to have a tool that validates the format of the data in those files, before generating a deploy with failures."
"The product lacks RDMA support for inter-OSD communication."
"The storage capacity of the solution can be improved."
"What could be improved in Red Hat Ceph Storage is its user interface or GUI."
"Geo-replication needs improvement. It is a new feature, and not well supported yet."
"Cost-wise, because it's a pay-per-use model, it may ultimately end up costing us more in the long run than something we developed ourselves."
"I would like to see them be a little bit more proactive in terms of the patches and updates that are available. I would like to see more disclosure and information around what fixes or what enhancements are available within a patch, and help in coordinating and scheduling that. Right now, it's driven more by the customer in reaching out via a support ticket."
"The range of support of VMware could be better. It can support Windows, however, it cannot support other operating systems like IBM AIX. This needs to improve."
"Some of the features are a little bit slow to come to market."
"The initial setup of the solution is complex."
"Having iSCSI over the internet using a VPN, the IPSec tunnel is really the only thing that I find missing from this product."
"There are still some storage features that they lack. For example, other vendors implemented the auto-tiering feature a long time ago, while Zadara Storage Cloud is just coming out with this feature today. So, they are a little bit late compared to the market."
"The management interface is more geared towards end-users rather than a service partner like ourselves, and there are improvements that can be made around that."
Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 3rd in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 21 reviews while Zadara is ranked 10th in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 9 reviews. Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 8.2, while Zadara is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Red Hat Ceph Storage writes "Provides block storage and object storage from the same storage cluster". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Zadara writes "We're able to scale up or down almost instantly, and changes are handled efficiently by their managed services team ". Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with MinIO, VMware vSAN, Portworx Enterprise, Pure Storage FlashBlade and Dell ECS, whereas Zadara is most compared with MinIO, Amazon S3, Wasabi, Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI) and Amazon EFS (Elastic File System). See our Red Hat Ceph Storage vs. Zadara report.
See our list of best Software Defined Storage (SDS) vendors and best File and Object Storage 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.