Compare GlusterFS and IBM Storage Ceph 
- Users report that IBM Storage Ceph excels in its scalability, allowing for seamless expansion as data needs grow, while GlusterFS is noted for its flexibility in deployment options, making it suitable for various environments.
- Reviewers mention that IBM Storage Ceph has a robust set of features, particularly its RADOS (Reliable Autonomic Distributed Object Store) which enhances data reliability, whereas users on G2 highlight GlusterFS's ease of use in managing storage volumes, making it a favorite among small businesses.
- G2 users indicate that the quality of support for IBM Storage Ceph is generally rated higher, with an 8.2 score, compared to GlusterFS's 7.6, suggesting that users may find more effective assistance when issues arise with Ceph.
- Users say that the product direction for IBM Storage Ceph is highly rated at 10.0%, indicating strong confidence in its future development, while GlusterFS's product direction rating of 4.4% raises concerns about its long-term viability.
- Reviewers mention that the ease of setup for GlusterFS is rated higher at 7.8, which is beneficial for users looking for a quick deployment, while IBM Storage Ceph's lower score of 6.8 suggests a steeper learning curve for new users.
- Users report that both products meet requirements well, with IBM Storage Ceph scoring 8.8 and GlusterFS at 8.5, indicating that both solutions are effective but may cater to slightly different user needs and expectations.
Easy to setup, works on cheap hardware.
The auto-heal isn't reliable and the process to manually intervene is painful, not exact, and does not scale. Performance suffers when the volumes aren't at 100% health. If underlying I/O isn't consistent the volume can wobble. Community support isn't all...
Availability, performance, ability to run on commodity hardware
What I dislike is not specific to Ceph but specific to all on prem management. I believe the future in technology is going to be in the cloud. And management of even a mature technology like Ceph is not as attractive as adopting a fully managed storage...
Easy to setup, works on cheap hardware.
Availability, performance, ability to run on commodity hardware
The auto-heal isn't reliable and the process to manually intervene is painful, not exact, and does not scale. Performance suffers when the volumes aren't at 100% health. If underlying I/O isn't consistent the volume can wobble. Community support isn't all...
What I dislike is not specific to Ceph but specific to all on prem management. I believe the future in technology is going to be in the cloud. And management of even a mature technology like Ceph is not as attractive as adopting a fully managed storage...
