We performed a comparison between Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI) and Red Hat Ceph Storage 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."One of the most valuable features is the One-Click Upgrade. When I need to update the system, I do it with one click. This product is amazing because everything is easy to manage, from network management to snapshots."
"In terms of scalability, adding a number of nodes, I find that it will not be any issues."
"Performing a Nutanix software upgrade is a very simple and non-disruptive process."
"The most valuable feature of Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure is its low cost, guaranteed to failover and failback with only a few clicks."
"I like NCI's dashboard. If there are any infrastructure issues, we'll get alerts inside the dashboard. NCI provides a single platform for managing all of our databases. We are running SQL and Linux databases."
"The flexibility of this system is very good. It's also faster than others, and has skilled technical support who showed more initiative than a competitor, e.g. VMware."
"Single-click upgrades are the most valuable feature. In the sector in which we work, it is tough to have downtime and arrange firmware upgrades."
"Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure's most valuable feature is the flexibility to move the VMs easily, keeping everything together."
"radosgw and librados provide a simple integration with clone, snapshots, and other functions that aid in data integrity."
"We are using Ceph internal inexpensive disk and data redundancy without spending extra money on external storage."
"I like the distributed and self-healing nature of the product."
"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."
"It has helped to save money and scale the storage without limits."
"It's a very performance-intensive, brilliant storage system, and I always recommend it to customers based on its benefits, performance, and scalability."
"Without any extra costs, I was able to provide a redundant environment."
"We have some legacy servers that can be associated with this structure. With Ceph, we can rearrange these machines and reuse our investment."
"The process of migrating from old hardware to new could improve."
"In terms of what I would like to see improved, I would say the life cycle management. I don't know if it is because they changed to an LCM from the previous way of upgrading the hardware or software but sometimes it feels that it needs a wizard that says, "Check this, check this," telling you your options. The only thing that's a bit frustrating for me is the life cycle management interface. That's the only thing on the entire system that frustrates me."
"I would like to see more Kubernetes and container-related workflows and multiple cloud-partner management. I would also like to see how they will synergize all these AI/ML functionalities that are available on other platforms."
"I would like better integration of XenServer into the AOS and Prism Central."
"With some projects that we are deploying, there are errors that arise when adding nodes."
"The cost of the solution is too expensive. There are other options, such as VMware, that are offered for less money. In Latin America, it seems to be overpriced for the market."
"It would be great if they could improve the GUI features."
"The documentation could be improved."
"Ceph does not deal very well with, or takes a long time to recover from, certain kinds of network failures and individual storage node failures."
"Routing around slow hardware."
"Please create a failback solution for OpenStack replication and maybe QoS to allow guaranteed IOPS."
"The storage capacity of the solution can be improved."
"It takes some time to re-balance the storage in case of server failure."
"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."
"The management features are pretty good, but they still have room for improvement."
"If you use for any other solution like other Kubernetes solutions, it's not very suitable."
More Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI) is ranked 2nd in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 194 reviews while Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 3rd in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 22 reviews. Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI) is rated 8.6, while Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI) writes "A powerful solution with easy deployment, upgrades, and management". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Ceph Storage writes "Provides block storage and object storage from the same storage cluster". Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI) is most compared with VMware vSAN, VxRail, HPE SimpliVity, VMware vSphere and Nutanix Cloud Manager (NCM), whereas Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with MinIO, VMware vSAN, Portworx Enterprise, Pure Storage FlashBlade and Intel DAOS. See our Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI) vs. Red Hat Ceph 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.