We performed a comparison between Red Hat Ceph Storage and VMware vSAN 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."The community support is very good."
"We have not encountered any stability issues for the product."
"Ceph was chosen to maintain exact performance and capacity characteristics for customer cloud."
"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."
"We have some legacy servers that can be associated with this structure. With Ceph, we can rearrange these machines and reuse our investment."
"Ceph’s ability to adapt to varying types of commodity hardware affords us substantial flexibility and future-proofing."
"The most valuable feature is the stability of the product."
"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."
"The main advantage is that it's all in the box, with VMware vCenter Server product."
"Good performance, reliable and agile."
"vSAN Health is a feature designed to monitor the health and performance of the vSAN environment. It's crucial for us and our customers to frequently check on this to ensure everything is operating smoothly."
"The most valuable feature is that it is software-defined storage. Also, being able to do maintenance on the fly is a real benefit: migrating off, updating, and then moving the guest back on to the nodes."
"The valuable features of vSAN are that you can get it up and running quickly, you get redundancy built-in, and it's pretty much the perfect solution for a cluster."
"Storage is expandable with no extra cost."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to continue our business needs and have higher visibility. It has definitely increased our business productivity levels."
"It is more stable now than it was before. It's not like it was in the first year. Now it is stable, and we trust it more."
"What could be improved in Red Hat Ceph Storage is its user interface or GUI."
"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."
"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."
"Rebalancing and recovery are a bit slow."
"It would be nice to have a notification feature whenever an important action is completed."
"It takes some time to re-balance the storage in case of server failure."
"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."
"I have encountered issues with stability when replication factor was not 3, which is the default and recommended value. Go below 3 and problems will arise."
"Hardware load balancing is available on the enterprise version of the solution, however, it's extremely expensive and therefore out of our budget."
"What I would like to see, for the really small customers, is the ability to have two nodes."
"Integration could be better."
"The product's high price is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"I would like to be able to limit IOPS."
"I'd like to see better integration with the Update Manager, with respect to firmware updates for hardware."
"Currently, one of the available features is shareable VMBKs. You can create the VMBK disc and you can make them shareable between the ends. But as soon as you start using this feature, you lose the ability to create snapshots."
"It is an expensive solution."
Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 3rd in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 22 reviews while VMware vSAN is ranked 2nd in HCI with 227 reviews. Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 8.2, while VMware vSAN is rated 8.4. 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 VMware vSAN writes "Very stable, easy to set up, and easy to use". Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with MinIO, Portworx Enterprise, Pure Storage FlashBlade, NetApp StorageGRID and Dell ECS, whereas VMware vSAN is most compared with VxRail, Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct, HPE SimpliVity, Dell PowerFlex and Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI). See our Red Hat Ceph Storage vs. VMware vSAN report.
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.
