Amazon FSx vs Red Hat Ceph Storage comparison

Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Red Hat are both solutions in the File and Object Storage category. Amazon Web Services (AWS) is ranked #16 with an average rating of 8.3, while Red Hat is ranked #1 with an average rating of 8.9. Amazon Web Services (AWS) holds a 0.7% mindshare in FaOS, compared to Red Hat’s 17.9% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Amazon Web Services (AWS) users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 82% of Red Hat users who would recommend it.

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 4, 2024

Red Hat Ceph Storage and Amazon FSx compete in the object storage and file system domain. Amazon FSx is generally seen as having the upper hand due to its robust features and overall functionality, making it attractive for businesses looking for advanced capabilities.

Features: Red Hat Ceph Storage offers scalable storage, strong data replication, and open-source adaptability, which make it suitable for customized deployments. Amazon FSx provides cloud-native capabilities with seamless integration with AWS services, high-performance file systems, and straightforward, feature-rich integration appealing to businesses seeking comprehensive cloud solutions.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Red Hat Ceph Storage emphasizes flexibility with its deployment model, supported by comprehensive support for tailored installations in various environments. Amazon FSx simplifies deployment with streamlined processes and extensive AWS ecosystem integration, though it may require specialized AWS knowledge. Ceph's adaptability benefits specialized needs, while FSx’s convenience is ideal for large-scale, cloud-focused operations.

Pricing and ROI: Red Hat Ceph Storage is favored for its cost-effective setup and customizable pricing models, benefitting budgets that require scalability. Amazon FSx, while involving higher initial costs, offers significant ROI through its superior cloud features and performance. The decision depends on whether upfront cost savings are preferred over potential long-term benefits through advanced features.

To learn more, read our detailed Amazon FSx vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage Report (Updated: June 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Amazon FSx vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

June 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 861,490 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 July 2025, in the File and Object Storage category, the mindshare of Pure Storage FlashBlade is 5.8%, down from 6.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Amazon FSx is 0.7%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Ceph Storage is 17.9%, down from 22.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

File and Object Storage

Featured Reviews

Eric Black

Solutions Architect at Recovery Point Systems

The ability to leverage multi-tenancy along with immutability is a huge benefit for us

The only thing I feel FlashBlade is missing is the SOS API. If it had SOS API, that would put it well over the top. Veeam Backup specifically has started to streamline their API, and they are doing that with SOS API. They have optimized it. Any of the S3 devices out there that support this SOS API can have far more API calls at once. On our side, that translates to better restoration. With SOS API, it can leverage far more restorations at a single given time or read from the device in simple terms. That results in maximizing the output and throughput from the device itself.

Read full review

MuhammadAzhar Khan

Senior DevOps Engineer at Alibaba Group

Shared storage capabilities provide enterprise value with good reliability

Amazon FSx is more costly compared to other storage solutions like EBS or EFS. The auto-scaling feature should be improved, as it currently includes downtime. I need to manually increase the storage, which is not ideal. Integrating FSx with Windows Server is challenging; it's a long process involving Active Directory (AD) setup and synchronization.

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

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

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

"It has also helped to simplify storage for us in the way that it's easy to manage. Their automatic monitoring really helps when things break or are about to break. They see a problem coming and alert us even before our own system does."

"The initial setup is pretty easy and simple."

"The performance of FlashBlade is excellent. It does not necessarily leverage the SOS API that some of the newer products leverage, but I found its speed pretty much on par and comparable. It is fast, and it does what it is supposed to do."

"I would rate Pure Storage FlashBlade a ten out of ten."

"The onboarding and integrated monitoring tools are pretty good."

"The initial setup is pretty quick."

"The snapshots, replication, and the ability to have immutable blades are the most valuable features. You're putting data snapshots out in those blades, and they cannot be touched. Its performance is great."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros

"FSx operates as an independent service, not tied to any server, which eliminates dependencies between applications for storage."

"I rate the stability of Amazon FSx ten out of ten."

"The shared storage capability is highly valuable."

"On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Amazon FSx a ten."

"We used it for disaster recovery perspective behind a number of resources, like batch services and RDS."

"The community support is very good."

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

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

"I really like that Red Hat Ceph Storage can be used as a total solution without any storage area network components."

"The configuration of the solution and the user interface are both quite good."

"The solution is pretty stable."

"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."

"Ceph Storage allows us to add value related to cost and offers a unique experience compared to traditional storage."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage pros

Cons

"The Pure Storage Orchestrator is our biggest pain point at the moment. If we can have more say in future developments of feature sets that we will need to support for our use case, that would be pretty beneficial to us."

"I want efficiency. FlashBlade doesn't have efficiency now."

"Commvault has mainly driven the Analytics, providing data and reports. However, the product has room for improvement, especially regarding storage analytics. Upgrading firmware has caused issues, requiring feature disabling to revert to traditional backups. The firmware upgrades sometimes affect Commvault backups."

"Compared to, for example, Hitachi NAS, the solution is not mature at all. It's just in its infancy as far as technology goes."

"The solution is expensive."

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

"I would like to have Snapshots and Snapmail in the next release. People who came from a NetApp background, especially expect these features."

"To improve FlashBlade, some analysts suggest enhancing its handling of relational database management systems and SQL queries."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons

"Amazon FSx is more costly compared to other storage solutions like EBS or EFS."

"A direct FTP feature would be beneficial instead of relying on transmission services."

"Amazon FSx is more costly compared to other storage solutions like EBS or EFS."

"I've been facing a challenge when doing a failover from FSx side. AWS console does not refresh within a half hour."

"From my experience, there are areas in Amazon FSx where more performance is needed, as they will be looking for higher IOPS."

"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."

"What could be improved in Red Hat Ceph Storage is its user interface or GUI."

"It needs a better UI for easier installation and management."

"I have not identified any drawbacks, however, the response to public platform inquiries could be faster."

"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."

"The licensing cost is excessively high. This is a significant issue from my perspective."

"Routing around slow hardware."

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

More Red Hat Ceph Storage cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We used a reseller for the purchase."

"It's a costly solution, but Pure Storage FlashBlade doesn't require additional licenses. All of the software is combined into one bundle."

"It is within reason for what you get. From what we have found comparing it to other vendors, it is in the same range as others. Given the choice, we would definitely redeploy it based on the cost."

"I have seen ROI. It has allowed me to increase the density of my VMs without having to purchase anything additional."

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

"Licensing fees are paid yearly."

"The price is a little high."

"Our customers have seen a reduction in TCO."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pricing and cost advice

"The lowest price I have paid is $370 or $380 per month, while the highest can exceed $3,000 per month."

"The other big advantage is that Ceph is free software. Compared to traditional SAN based storage, it is very economical."

"We never used the paid support."

"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."

"The operational overhead is higher compared to Azure because we own the hardware."

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

"There is no cost for software."

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

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

More Red Hat Ceph Storage pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which File and Object Storage solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

861,490 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

11%

Educational Organization

Manufacturing Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Computer Software Company

10%

Retailer

Computer Software Company

18%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Financial Services Firm

Educational Organization

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

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?

The pricing of Pure Storage FlashBlade is expensive compared to other products I used from other companies in the pas...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Pure Storage FlashBlade?

I believe there is not much improvement needed because they have everything we need, but the interface is a little bi...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Amazon FSx?

From my experience, there are areas in Amazon FSx where more performance is needed, as they will be looking for highe...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Amazon FSx?

Our customers mainly use Amazon FSx for high-performance computing. Our customers are mainly in the Life Science and ...

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering Amazon FSx?

There is an ongoing project where my customers are exploring the FSx solution, but not yet for AI-driven projects; th...

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

Comparisons

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 20% of the time

MinIO vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 11% of the time

VAST Data vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 10% of the time

Pure Storage FlashArray vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 9% of the time

Dell ECS vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 5% of the time

More Pure Storage FlashBlade Competitors

NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP vs Amazon FSx

Compared 23% of the time

Azure NetApp Files vs Amazon FSx

Compared 15% of the time

Amazon EBS (Elastic Block Store) vs Amazon FSx

Compared 11% of the time

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Amazon FSx

Compared 11% of the time

More Amazon FSx Competitors

MinIO vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 38% of the time

NetApp StorageGRID vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 6% of the time

VMware vSAN vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 5% of the time

Dell PowerFlex vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 3% of the time

Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 3% of the time

More Red Hat Ceph Storage Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Pure Storage FlashBlade

June 2025

Download Pure Storage FlashBlade product report

Buyer's Guide

Cloud Storage

July 2025

Download Amazon FSx product report

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat Ceph Storage

June 2025

Download Red Hat Ceph Storage product report

Also Known As

No data available

Amazon FSx for Windows File Server, Amazon FSx for Lustre

Ceph

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

Amazon FSx makes it easy and cost effective to launch and run popular file systems. With Amazon FSx, you can leverage the rich feature sets and fast performance of widely-used open source and commercially-licensed file systems, while avoiding time-consuming administrative tasks like hardware provisioning, software configuration, patching, and backups. It provides cost-efficient capacity and high levels of reliability, and it integrates with other AWS services so that you can manage and use the file systems in cloud-native ways.

Amazon FSx provides you with two file systems to choose from: Amazon FSx for Windows File Server for enterprise workloads and Amazon FSx for Lustre for high-performance workloads.

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

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

Sample Customers

ServiceNow, Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport, Dominos, Man AHL

Neiman Marcus, T Mobile, Docxellent, Matrix, Lyell

Dell, DreamHost

Buyer's Guide

Amazon FSx vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

June 2025

Free Report: Amazon FSx vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon FSx vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

861,490 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Amazon FSx 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.