We performed a comparison between NetApp StorageGRID 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."Cost-effective and easy to deploy."
"Duplication, interface and the manageability is good and simple."
"It has enabled us to save money on storage costs. We removed our tape library."
"StorageGRID is designed for cloud-based, highly scalable storage. Think big names like service providers like Google who need massive storage volumes with scalability. It also offers cloud-enabled storage capabilities with cloud management functionality. So, if you prioritize scalability and cloud integration, StorageGRID is the way to go. Its object-based storage is built specifically for that purpose."
"The speed of the disks removed the bottleneck from our storage."
"The backup features are valuable. I've heard from our backup and data protection people that our clients are very satisfied with the performance in junction with the backup, which they archive on this type of object storage."
"The management portals have most significantly improved our data retrieval times. They've made it much easier to restore data compared to our previous methods."
"It improves our operational efficiency."
"High reliability with commodity hardware."
"We have not encountered any stability issues for 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."
"We have some legacy servers that can be associated with this structure. With Ceph, we can rearrange these machines and reuse our investment."
"The solution is pretty stable."
"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."
"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."
"radosgw and librados provide a simple integration with clone, snapshots, and other functions that aid in data integrity."
"The redundancy and reliability are great, but I also see room for improvement there. I would like to see more efficiency in the storage and dedupe/compression solutions."
"I would like to see them integrate more with the monitoring platforms. It is a bit difficult to get automated monitoring of the system."
"It has its quirks here and there, but it is an older NetApp system."
"Beyond the initial setup, this product is a little bit difficult to configure."
"Data retrieval speed could be better."
"The only real issue that we have run into is, when we are cloning, we cannot do a thin provision clone, it has to be a full clone."
"One key improvement I'd like to see in StorageGRID is enhanced visibility for management purposes."
"The price is something that NetApp could improve, as with most companies. NetApp is known for not being the cheapest storage option, which is also valid for StorageGRID. There are other storage options on the market which we are aware of and have done proofs of concept for, but you cannot really compare the list prices because, as a big user of NetApp storages, we have totally different prices than some list prices. Still, the price information we got for other options are almost always less expensive than StorageGRID."
"The product lacks RDMA support for inter-OSD communication."
"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."
"Geo-replication needs improvement. It is a new feature, and not well supported yet."
"An area for improvement would be that it's pretty difficult to manage synchronous replication over multiple regions."
"The management features are pretty good, but they still have room for improvement."
"This product uses a lot of CPU and network bandwidth. It needs some deduplication features and to use delta for rebalancing."
"Some documentation is very hard to find."
"We have encountered slight integration issues."
NetApp StorageGRID is ranked 7th in File and Object Storage with 12 reviews while Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 3rd in File and Object Storage with 22 reviews. NetApp StorageGRID is rated 8.4, while Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of NetApp StorageGRID writes "Scalable object storage with robust data durability with efficient geo-distribution and comprehensive lifecycle management ensuring managing of large volumes of unstructured data". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Ceph Storage writes "Provides block storage and object storage from the same storage cluster". NetApp StorageGRID is most compared with MinIO, Dell ECS, Scality RING, Cloudian HyperStore and Hitachi Content Platform, whereas Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with MinIO, VMware vSAN, Portworx Enterprise, Pure Storage FlashBlade and Dell ECS. See our NetApp StorageGRID 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.