Red Hat Ceph Storage Reviews

We use the solution for cloud storage. 

We have encountered slight integration issues. 

I have been using the product for more than two years. 

Red Hat Ceph Storage is stable. 

The tool is scalable, and we have around 200 users. 

The tool's tech support is fast and consists of knowledgeable resources. 

Red Hat Ceph Storage's installation is simple and takes around four to five days to complete. 

A consultant helped us with the deployment. 

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

Our primary use case is for integration with OpenStack for block and object storage.

We use both Red Hat Ceph and Azure storage, for all staging and non-production.

Most of the features are beneficial and one does not stand out above the rest.

The operational overhead is higher compared to Azure because we own the hardware. It would be nice to have a notification feature whenever an important action is completed.

I have been using Red Hat Ceph Storage for the past five to six years.

There is high stability and I would give that a nine out of ten.

There is scalability and I would rank that a seven.

Implementation is easy, but the problem is procuring the hardware and configuring all the networking. That is a bit time-consuming. So I would rate it six out of ten. The deployment takes around forty-five minutes.

I would rate Red Hat Ceph Storage a seven out of ten.

We use Red Hat Ceph Storage for a Kubernetes backend.

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.

I have been using Red Hat Ceph Storage for three years.

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

The scalability is one of the most useful aspects of Red Hat Ceph Storage.

I did not contact the support.

The Red Hat Ceph Storage initial setup is complicated.

We did the implementation ourselves with a couple of people.

The price of Red Hat Ceph Storage is reasonable.

Red Hat Ceph Storage is working exactly as it should be. It's running in the background, and it's working, and it doesn't bother me.

I would recommend Red Hat Ceph Storage. it is a good system. It is important they have knowledge or if they can find somebody to support them. It's not a good solution if you don't know what you're doing.

I rate Red Hat Ceph Storage an eight out of ten.

We use this solution as the RBD and FS system for block storage.

The best features are performance, open measure for hardware options, and scalability.

An area for improvement would be that it's pretty difficult to manage synchronous replication over multiple regions. I also don't like the containerization method for Cephadm in the recent deployment. In the next release, I'd like to see reports for security and performance.

I've been working with this solution for approximately five years.

This is a very stable system, and I see very linear performance growth over expansions, so I'm more or less happy with it.

The scalability is good.

The initial setup was pretty good, I deployed it completely in one day.

The price of this product isn't high.

Companies that can afford completely flash-based pipe servers should go for Ceph. It's a very performance-intensive, brilliant storage system, and I always recommend it to customers based on its benefits, performance, and scalability. I would rate it as eight out of ten.

It's possible that we should have used the solution a long time ago as it appears to cost the business less money to run some of our data systems using it. We're definitely seeing cost savings since we've implemented it.

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

The management features are pretty good, but they still have room for improvement.

The solution needs to offer support for the fiber channel as a protocol.

I've been using the solution for six months.

The solution has been quite stable for us.

I've not tested the scalability of the solution; our company doesn't have too much capacity.

The initial setup is straightforward.

We didn't look at other vendors. We went straight to this solution as we were already using the brand for our operating system as well.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

• File Services NFS and CIFS (RBD images)
• Object Services S3 and Swift (radosgw)
• I/O into replicated and erasure coded pools (librados)

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.

I/O into replicated and erasure coded pools (librados).

It needs a better UI for easier installation and management.

It has provided retention of all customer sites on which it has been installed in the last three years, with no catastrophic failures so far.

I am involved with Ceph and OpenStack as an integrator. I set it up or consult with clients for private cloud deployments. Ceph is my storage of choice for OpenStack and general object-storage needs.

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.

The ability to present Rest API, POSIX filesystem, and block devices from the same distributed object storage back-system (RADOS) is of major value to me.

Ceph lacks a little bit only in performance. It needs to scale a lot and needs very fast and well-orchestrated/configured hardware for best performance. This not a downside though, it is a challenge. Ceph only improves the given hardware.

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.

Ceph has no issues with scalability but needs proper planning regarding the hardware.

Technical support from the mailing lists is very good but you always need to get your hands dirty. However, if you pay for a product like Red Hat Ceph Storage, support is a big advantage.

I have used many solutions but not as extensively as Ceph. I switched to Ceph because of its architecture and because it is a one-stop shop when it comes to storage.

Ceph is complex, as with all distributed systems. It has a long learning curve but it pays for itself after that.

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.

I have been using Ceph since 2015, in both SOHO and bigger private cloud installations.

Ceph, as a distributed storage solution, is amazing and I can only rate it a 10 out of 10. However, being distributed and complex, Ceph needs engineers with a good understanding of its internals and Linux, for it to shine.

Overall, it is a great product.

We used Ceph as back-end storage for our internal cloud, based on OpenStack.

Our environment was a small open-source OpenStack cloud, on 10 Dell servers, each with two 1TB disks. We installed Ceph on each server to handle those disks and integrated OpenStack Cinder with Ceph to be used as cloud storage instances.

Scale out storage and storage redundancy.

Data redundancy, since it can survive failures (disks/servers). We didn’t lose our data or have a service interruption during server/disk failures.

Rebalancing and recovery are a bit slow.

I used it for about two years. We had no service interruption and no loss of data.

I have used (or know) the following distributed/shared file systems: Gluster, NFS, GFS2, and Ceph. For me, Ceph is one of the best.

We are using it in a Proxmox Cluster.

Without any extra costs, I was able to provide a redundant environment. After I built the first cluster, other departments notice the performance and redundancy, then they started building their own clusters. I helped them to design and build their cluster. Now, we have four Ceph Clusters running, three in production and one in the test environment.

We are using Ceph internal inexpensive disk and data redundancy without spending extra money on external storage.

This product uses a lot of CPU and network bandwidth. It needs some deduplication features and to use delta for rebalancing. 

After adding new OSD, e-balancing is an huge issue if not properly configured, as it can cause huge performance issues.

I use Ceph as OpenStack and Kubernetes storage back-end solution.

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

We did not depend on expensive hardware to start using it and can upgrade it if our demand grows.

Its reliability. I have experienced failures and human mistakes. However, Ceph was able to recover automatically the data with a special procedure.

Geo-replication needs improvement. It is a new feature, and not well supported yet. 

No stability issues.

No scalability issues.

The community support is very good. I have never used the paid support.

The initial setup is very straightforward. We used the tool ceph-deploy, which is simple to use. The manual procedure is time consuming, but well-documented.

No advice, as we never used the paid support.

We evaluated GlusterFS (POCs), but Ceph provides better block device storage.

I would recommend the product.