No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Cloudian HyperStore vs Red Hat Ceph Storage comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 4, 2024

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

Everpure FlashArray
Sponsored
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
217
Ranking in other categories
All-Flash Storage (4th)
Cloudian HyperStore
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
File and Object Storage (10th)
Red Hat Ceph Storage
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
27
Ranking in other categories
Software Defined Storage (SDS) (3rd), File and Object Storage (1st)
 

Featured Reviews

Sowjanya MV - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Lead at Wipro Limited
Has improved performance for mission-critical workloads and enabled seamless non-disruptive upgrades
The availability is 99.99%, which is the main factor any customer would need because their data should be available whenever they want to access it. This is one main critical thing. It is very easy to upgrade since Pure Storage FlashArray handles it well. Everything is non-disruptive now; previously, there were forklift shifts, but now that is not the case. Pure Storage FlashArray says no to forklift upgrades. Usually hardware requires downtime, but Pure Storage FlashArray has improved their footprint so that they are not asking for downtime; everything is just a non-disruptive activity, which is why customers are more inclined towards Pure Storage FlashArray. Customers want more of the models in their environment due to the performance they are giving, and everything is in one Pure1 Array console where we can view all the models on one page or just an orchestration tool. You don't miss anything; you have replication, notifications about replication, and details about which host groups replication is happening in and if that replication is successful or failed. On a daily basis, our purpose is to create volumes for infrastructure; our daily activities include creating volumes and mapping them to the host, doing any migrations from a VM, clearing the data stores, and carving the volumes to those VMs. One key factor is the data compression with a ratio of 5:1, focusing on space efficiency, inline deduplication, and the compression Pure Storage FlashArray works on; that is a major factor we can suggest to any customer. Analytical capabilities are crucial. Daily, we check the throughput and consumption, and Pure Storage FlashArray provides predictions for one year regarding usage. This prediction helps plan updates well ahead. For support, we just raise a case, and they follow up and get it done. There is also AI readiness, but with the model R2, we don't have much of that AI readiness. For others, we do have AI readiness that predicts capacity based on daily or monthly trends, enabling us to analyze how much space we need or if we need to expand the disk shelf. From an operational point of view, a good feature is that if you accidentally delete a volume, it will be retained in the destroyed state for the next twenty-four hours, which is not the same with any other vendor. I have worked in this storage domain for the past fifteen years, and this option is remarkable, benefiting any L1 or L2 engineer. Additionally, from a compliance perspective, Pure Storage FlashArray has REST APIs enabled. I have not explored automation much, but from a security standpoint, it is strong with encryption data. If you want to automate, you can easily integrate with all clouds and explore Pure Cloud for scheduling workloads, including volume creation. Customers find benefit in Pure Storage FlashArray's single management pane of glass due to the dual controller and active-active setup. If one of the controllers goes down, all workloads automatically shift to the other controller, ensuring their data is safe and accessible at all times. This is a highlighted feature that any customer desires because their data should always be accessible. For SAN workloads, we use Pure Storage FlashArray because for SAN FC fiber channel, we don't use it; we use NetApp for NAS activities. We have clearly split this, so SAN is for mission-critical applications, while network-attached storage handles file systems. This architecture helps us maximize the benefit from Pure Storage FlashArray due to the significant workloads from this giant retail client. From a footprint and energy consumption perspective, you can see energy consumption from the Pure1 storage portal on a daily basis, and it is very compact. The three models we use consume only three units, which is quite low. From a footprint and data center perspective, it doesn't occupy much space. As everything moves to cloud, there are requirements to avoid excess spending on data centers, and Pure Storage FlashArray is efficient in energy consumption and is environmentally friendly.
NS
Sr Infrastructure Engineer at American Express
Object storage has reduced costs and improves data protection for web application workloads
Cloudian HyperStore can be improved by making upgrades easier. Currently, I see that upgrades are very complicated, and most of the time I require Cloudian support whenever I want to upgrade. I think Cloudian has the opportunity to improve in self-service capabilities. If they make upgrades less vendor-dependent, that would be beneficial. I would also like to add that more automation APIs would be valuable. If more APIs were available for S3 compatible tasks, that would be great. I rate the product eight because if they make updates easier, make firmware upgrades easier, make compaction available on CMC instead of requiring scripts, make node cleanup straightforward, make forecasting simple, make capacity planning easy, and provide self-healing opportunities, I believe the rating would be a ten.
Rifat Rahman - PeerSpot reviewer
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The stability is perfect, the reliability is 100%, and the latency is always lower than 1 millisecond."
"The most valuable features are extremely low latency, high IOPS with VMware, inline deduplication and compression."
"One of the lesser sung advantages was when we started running our interface engine on Pure Storage; the ability to process messages and pass them through in our organization skyrocketed purely because of a disk that I owned which we were getting out of Pure Storage."
"It has made working with storage as easy and simple as it should be."
"The most valuable features would be its performance, retrieval, recovery, and backup, and it meets the customer's expectations."
"Lone segmentation is simpler and more agile. It's improved the velocity in overall provisioning from project to operation."
"When you put all of the features in a box, leverage them and migrate your application to one of these arrays, it will give you a lot of benefits."
"The performance of the storage is just unbelievable."
"Cloudian HyperStore has positively impacted my organization by reducing costs, which is one of the biggest advantages I can see from Cloudian HyperStore."
"The most valuable feature is the durability, as it is very durable and that is particularly important for our backups."
"It is very durable and that is particularly important."
"The most valuable features are its scalability and Amazon S3 compatibility because we can move back and forth with a hybrid cloud."
"Cloudian HyperStore is one hundred percent stable."
"The cost was the main reason we chose to use this solution."
"Cloudian HyperStore has significantly improved our organization by making our data storage more efficient, scalable, and overall cost-effective."
"Considering a customer's need for a cost-effective solution, Cloudian HyperStore fits well for data protection scenarios."
"The configuration of the solution and the user interface are both quite good."
"Data redundancy is a key feature, since it can survive failures (disks/servers) and we didn’t lose our data or have a service interruption during server or disk failures."
"Without any extra costs, I was able to provide a redundant environment."
"The product allows our OpenStack environment to move away from the classic network type of backend storage and enables increased resilience using commodity hardware pricing, which is a major benefit."
"Red Hat Ceph Storage is working exactly as it should be; it's running in the background, it's working, and it doesn't bother me."
"Companies that can afford completely flash-based pipe servers should go for Ceph because it's a very performance-intensive, brilliant storage system, and I always recommend it to customers based on its benefits, performance, and scalability."
"It's a very performance-intensive, brilliant storage system, and I always recommend it to customers based on its benefits, performance, and scalability."
"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."
 

Cons

"Part of our company works on Dell EMC because Pure Storage did not have synchronous applications when we were purchasing our products."
"Pure Storage FlashArray could improve some aspects. There are certain features that are good and there are some features that I see some issues with at the technical level."
"Data reduction is an area that needs improvement. There is a garbage collection service that runs but during that time, system utilization increases."
"It was a little costly."
"On a couple of occasions, the waiting time for an upgrade has been pretty substantial."
"We had one instance with an eight-hour outage in our primary data center because the upgrade to the controller failed, and the controller redundancy didn't work."
"CIFS and SMB Shares cannot be mounted directly."
"We understand that they're thinking about it, but one of the things that would be nice is if they added some basic file-level capabilities to the platform. The idea is that they would run a basic NFS or CIF share from the controllers. FlashBlade is the powerhouse for File and Object storage, but if you don't need all that power, a lightweight file function would make FlashArrays more versatile."
"As it is an S3 solution with the same protocol as the one we have with AWS, having better integration with AWS will be beneficial."
"It is not easy to maintain, which is a big drawback to the solution."
"I suppose the cost could always be lower and they should continue to add the latest Amazon S3 features."
"It is a cloud-based environment and at times, it is not very simple to use."
"The initial cost has not been recouped because of performance issues, leading to a lack of customer trust with this product, as I cannot sell it quickly enough before the new licensing costs hit, resulting in losing money by the end."
"It is a cloud-based environment and at times, it is not very simple to use. I would like to see it more user-friendly and easy to use."
"Cloudian HyperStore's scalability is not as good as I wanted it to be because if I want to add anything new to the current environment, the process is extremely lengthy and takes a lot of time."
"Cloudian HyperStore needs to incorporate AI and predictive analysis. It would be helpful if the solution could analyze and predict how to manage data better. The end users should not have access to protected documents. They should be able to drop the documents. The capacity management dashboard can be better. We also want two-factor authentication using Google Authenticator or Microsoft Authenticator as MFA. Hence, the user would access the console not just by logging in with a password and username but with third-party applications as well."
"The management features are pretty good, but they still have room for improvement."
"Please create a failback solution for OpenStack replication and maybe QoS to allow guaranteed IOPS."
"While the documentation for Ceph Storage is helpful, it could be improved."
"An area for improvement would be that it's pretty difficult to manage synchronous replication over multiple regions."
"Ceph is not a mature product at this time. Guides are misleading and incomplete. You will meet all kind of bugs and errors trying to install the system for the first time. It requires very experienced personnel to support and keep the system in working condition, and install all necessary packets."
"I've heard the integration with OpenShift is great, however, the licensing cost is excessively high."
"This product uses a lot of CPU and network bandwidth. It needs some deduplication features and to use delta for rebalancing."
"Rebalancing and recovery are a bit slow."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is very reasonable when compared to other solutions."
"Price is about the only thing that's wrong with it. A little bit better pricing would be great."
"We have seen a reduction in the TCO, because Pure Storage is partnering with Belfrics. This partnership reduces our latency and space."
"The price of the solution is not expensive."
"It could always be lower, but it's okay."
"Cost-wise, I imagine that the product's price would probably give you a nosebleed if you were a younger company."
"No storage device is cheap, but Pure Storage is fairly priced and offers what you pay for. You get all the licenses in the future when you purchase a license."
"I don't know the exact cost but it's around $1,000."
"The solution is cheap."
"Our fees are approximately half a dollar per gigabyte."
"Most of time, you can get Ceph with the OpenStack solution in a subscription​​ as a bundle.​"
"The price of this product isn't high."
"The price of Red Hat Ceph Storage is reasonable."
"We never used the paid support."
"The operational overhead is higher compared to Azure because we own the hardware."
"I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten."
"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."
"There is no cost for software."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which File and Object Storage solutions are best for your needs.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
12%
Construction Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Energy/Utilities Company
7%
Retailer
7%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Comms Service Provider
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business65
Midsize Enterprise36
Large Enterprise151
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise7
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business13
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise15
 

Questions from the Community

Which should I choose: HPE 3PAR StoreServ or Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform F Series?
Both are great platforms, but if you are considering all flash solutions, I would recommend you to consider Pure Stor...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Pure Storage FlashArray?
The only issue is the pricing. Because we have competition, our customers always take another brand and say they can ...
What needs improvement with Pure Storage FlashArray?
Our customers using Dell storage also use competing solutions. Our customers who have Everpure FlashArray may also ha...
What needs improvement with Cloudian HyperStore?
Cloudian HyperStore can be improved by replacing the Cassandra database since it seems to struggle. I would add that ...
What is your primary use case for Cloudian HyperStore?
My main use case for Cloudian HyperStore is for immutable backup storage. I use Cloudian HyperStore for immutable bac...
What advice do you have for others considering Cloudian HyperStore?
My advice for others looking into using Cloudian HyperStore is to consider it a good product to add to their portfoli...
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 ...
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...
What advice do you have for others considering Red Hat Ceph Storage?
I do not have experience working with solutions such as Red Hat Ceph Storage and StorPool. I have plenty of experienc...
 

Also Known As

Pure Storage FlashArray
HyperStore, Cloudian HyperStore Object Storage, HyperStore Object Storage
Ceph
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Nielsen, Lamar Advertising, LinkedIn, Betfair, UT-Dallas
NTT Communications, Casale, Kumo
Dell, DreamHost
Find out what your peers are saying about Cloudian HyperStore vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.