Red Hat Ceph Storage vs Red Hat Gluster Storage comparison

Red Hat Ceph Storage and Red Hat Gluster Storage are both solutions in the Software Defined Storage (SDS) category. Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.8, while Red Hat Gluster Storage is ranked #11 with an average rating of 9.0. Red Hat Ceph Storage holds a 21.1% mindshare in SDS, compared to Red Hat Gluster Storage’s 3.0% mindshare. Additionally, 81% of Red Hat Ceph Storage users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 80% of Red Hat Gluster Storage users who would recommend it.

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 5, 2024

Red Hat Ceph Storage and Red Hat Gluster Storage are designed for scalable, high-performance storage solutions. Ceph appears more advantageous for its robust cloud integration and scalability.

Features: Red Hat Ceph Storage offers block storage for OpenStack images, integration with Cinder and Nova services, as well as object storage for Swift service. It is economical due to its open-source nature and supports high reliability with commodity hardware. Red Hat Gluster Storage features flexibility, ease of use through a command line interface, and scalability, making it suitable for straightforward file storage solutions.

Room for Improvement: Red Hat Ceph Storage can improve in deployment complexity and initial setup. It requires specific expertise for optimal use and integration. Ceph's extensive features can be simplified. Red Hat Gluster Storage needs enhancements in handling more complex storage needs, providing broader ecosystem integration, and improving support for non-file storage environments.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Red Hat Gluster Storage is easy to deploy, offering rapid setup and efficient performance across various environments. Ceph's deployment is complex, requiring detailed integration supported by comprehensive service options, facilitating smoother adoption in existing infrastructures.

Pricing and ROI: Red Hat Ceph Storage involves higher initial costs but offers a promising ROI for businesses needing complex storage capabilities. As free software, it's economical and benefits from a large, active community. Red Hat Gluster Storage provides a cost-effective solution with quicker ROI due to simpler management and setup, favored by enterprises with essential storage needs.

To learn more, read our detailed Red Hat Ceph Storage vs. Red Hat Gluster Storage Report (Updated: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat Ceph Storage vs. Red Hat Gluster Storage

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 851,604 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 May 2025, in the Software Defined Storage (SDS) category, the mindshare of Pure Storage FlashBlade is 4.2%, down from 4.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Ceph Storage is 21.1%, down from 22.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Gluster Storage is 3.0%, up from 2.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Software Defined Storage (SDS)

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

ANDRE VINICIUS HAMERSKI

IT Private Cloud & Infrastructure Leader at Sicredi

Offers cost-effective scalability through open-source storage integration

Ceph Storage allows us to add value related to cost and offers a unique experience compared to traditional storage. We appreciate the scalability of the open-source solution, allowing us to address our growing data needs without encountering major issues. Having used it as a pilot system in Brazil, we gained significant knowledge and the ability to manage our infrastructure as code.

Read full review

GiovanniRamirez

Senior IT Consultant at Xerif

Flexible and scalable file system for growing storage needs

Gluster FS is used for various purposes, including virtualization, collaboration, and data center environments. It is also applied in personal environments. Some specific use cases mentioned include scaling a three-terabyte file system into a 12-terabyte file system with minimal downtime Gluster…

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

"It performs well and it is also very fast."

"The tool's most valuable feature is its fast performance, especially in handling snapshots. It helps during power outages when we need to quickly move data between different data centers. It ensures efficient replication and helps maintain our data centers' uptime."

"Among its most appealing features are its ease of handling and minimal maintenance requirements."

"We have seen a reduction in the total cost of ownership by around 20%."

"The initial setup is pretty easy and simple."

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

"The most valuable feature of this solution is performance."

"I like its size. It is smaller than the other competitors. We can plug in many blades, and we can have data up to one terabyte."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros

"I would definitely recommend Red Hat Ceph Storage. It is a complete solution for cloud-native storage needs."

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

"We have some legacy servers that can be associated with this structure. With Ceph, we can rearrange these machines and reuse our investment."

"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."

"Red Hat Ceph Storage is a reliable solution, it works well."

"The ability to provide block storage and object storage from the same storage cluster is very valuable for us."

"Ceph was chosen to maintain exact performance and capacity characteristics for customer cloud."

"It has helped to save money and scale the storage without limits."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage pros

"It's very easy to upgrade storage."

"The technical support team is excellent."

"Notable features of Gluster FS include flexibility, scalability, stability, and ease of use."

"The price tag is good compared to the amount of data and high availability provided."

Cons

"The features provided for SMB customers are limited."

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

"On our dedupe during our initial buy, we were expecting a number a little higher like 4x. However, we are getting about 3.6. While it is close enough, it doesn't quite hit the numbers. So, this has been a challenge."

"They need better integration with public clouds along with a better hybrid solution."

"I would like to see better integration."

"The technical support needs to improve. When we open a case, it is auto assigned to a support tech person. Nine out of ten times, we get an email right back saying that person is off until tomorrow. I cannot handle that. They just did this over the weekend to us, too. I had to call our rep and have them do something about it."

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

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

More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons

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

"It would be nice to have a notification feature whenever an important action is completed."

"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."

"We have encountered slight integration issues."

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

"Some documentation is very hard to find."

"Rebalancing and recovery are a bit slow."

"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."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage cons

"The system should be more intuitive and easier to manage."

"The performance of the solution must be improved."

"The user interface could be simplified."

"There is a feature in Red Hat’s commercial version that could be beneficial if integrated into the open-source version."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We used a reseller for the purchase."

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

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

"Pure Storage FlashBlade is a hardware appliance, and it's very expensive if you compare its price with other solutions. You can get the same features and benefits from its competitor, VAST Data, but for half the price of Pure Storage FlashBlade."

"Our licensing is renewed annually."

"The price is a little high."

"The product is very expensive."

"I rate the tool's pricing a seven to eight out of ten."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pricing and cost advice

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

"We never used the paid support."

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

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

"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."

"Most of time, you can get Ceph with the OpenStack solution in a subscription as a bundle."

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

"There is no cost for software."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage pricing and cost advice

"If you need cheap storage, but still need high availability, it's a good product to look at."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Software Defined Storage (SDS) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

851,604 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Educational Organization

27%

Computer Software Company

12%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

18%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Financial Services Firm

Government

Financial Services Firm

18%

Computer Software Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

Government

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 for FlashBlade is between cheap and moderate. FlashBlade is worth the money due to the experience and per...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Pure Storage FlashBlade?

Its configuration should be easier. There should be easier language for the configuration.

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?

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

See all answers

What do you like most about Red Hat Gluster Storage?

The technical support team is excellent.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Red Hat Gluster Storage?

There is a feature in Red Hat’s commercial version that could be beneficial if integrated into the open-source versio...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Red Hat Gluster Storage?

Gluster FS is used for various purposes, including virtualization, collaboration, and data center environments. It is...

See all answers

Comparisons

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 21% of the time

VAST Data vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 11% of the time

MinIO vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 11% of the time

Pure Storage FlashArray vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 8% of the time

Dell ECS vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 6% of the time

More Pure Storage FlashBlade Competitors

MinIO vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 40% of the time

VMware vSAN vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 6% of the time

NetApp StorageGRID vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 6% of the time

Dell PowerFlex vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 4% of the time

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 3% of the time

More Red Hat Ceph Storage Competitors

LizardFS vs Red Hat Gluster Storage

Compared 26% of the time

VMware vSAN vs Red Hat Gluster Storage

Compared 21% of the time

StarWind Virtual SAN vs Red Hat Gluster Storage

Compared 15% of the time

IBM Spectrum Scale vs Red Hat Gluster Storage

Compared 13% of the time

LINBIT SDS vs Red Hat Gluster Storage

Compared 8% of the time

More Red Hat Gluster Storage Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Pure Storage FlashBlade

May 2025

Download Pure Storage FlashBlade product report

Buyer's Guide

Software Defined Storage (SDS)

April 2025

Download Red Hat Ceph Storage product report

Buyer's Guide

Software Defined Storage (SDS)

April 2025

Download Red Hat Gluster Storage product report

Also Known As

No data available

Ceph

Red Hat Gluster, Red Hat Storage Server

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

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

Red Hat Gluster Storage (formerly known as Red Hat Storage Server) is a software-defined storage (SDS) platform designed to handle the requirements of traditional file storage—high-capacity tasks like backup and archival as well as high-performance tasks of analytics and virtualization. But unlike traditional storage systems, Red Hat Gluster Storage isn’t rigid and expensive. It easily scales across bare metal, virtual, container, and cloud deployments.

Red Hat

Sample Customers

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

Dell, DreamHost

NTT Plala, McMaster University, University of Basque Country, Goodtech ASA, Cox Automotive, Raidió Teilifís Éireann (RTÉ), SaskTel, Glashart Media, Casio

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat Ceph Storage vs. Red Hat Gluster Storage

April 2025

Free Report: Red Hat Ceph Storage vs. Red Hat Gluster Storage

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

851,604 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Red Hat Ceph Storage vs. Red Hat Gluster 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.