IBM Storage Ceph vs. Qumulo Core

It is absolutely, hands down the best storage solution for Open Stack. I would even argue it is the only solution if a company is operating at petabyte scale and need resiliency. The storage solution allows any organization to scale their environment using commodity hardware from top to bottom. It has a battle tested track record where it is even being used as the data storage back end for the Large Hadron Collider at Cern

Incentivized

Qumulo is great for media and entertainment companies, that need simple and easy management of a NAS. The product can also scale and be sized to larger shops too. The support that comes with it also can act as an extension of internal IT. Their support is always watching the box when it phones home with hardware errors or if it would go offline. Qumulo is not initially set up well-running virtual workloads, while Vmware supports NFS, some settings need to be adjusted on Qumulo to allow for upgrades to happen while virtual machines are running

Incentivized

• Highly resilient, almost every time we attempted to destroy the cluster it was able to recover from a failure. It struggled to when the nodes where down to about 30%(3 replicas on 10 nodes)
• The cache tiering feature of Ceph is especially nice. We attached solid state disks and assigned them as the cache tier. Our sio benchmarks beat the our Netapp when we benchmarked it years ago (no traffic, clean disks) by a very wide margin.
• Ceph effectively allows the admin to control the entire stack from top to bottom instead of being tied to any one storage vendor. The cluster can be decentralized and replicated across data centers if necessary although we didn't try that feature ourselves, it gave us some ideas for a disaster recovery solution. We really liked the idea that since we control the hardware and the software, we have infinite upgradability with off the shelf parts which is exactly what it was built for.

Incentivized

• Support, they offer a slack based support which is fast and incredibly helpful.
• Fast releases, they release new features every 2 weeks and actively seek out improvement ideas from end-users.
• NFS and SMB co-existent support through mapping permissions allows mixed end users to connect through there native protocol.

Incentivized

• Authorization on object level could be improved
• Helper libraries to access Red Hat Ceph Storage from various languages could be improved
• Ability to attach structured metadata to stored objects could be improved

Incentivized

• Admin users are not able to be tied to SSO or LDAP accounts.
• At the start there was no RBAC but this has since been addressed.
• While there is incredible analytics, there is no native way to get historical trends by volume or user.

Incentivized

Their Slack-based support is like nothing I have experienced. They are fast, helpful, and willing to go the extra mile, even when an issue is not clearly their's to solve. They are committed to your success. The engineers on the Slack channel are oftentimes the engineers that programmed the very same feature you are asking questions about or having issues with.

Incentivized

VSAN (Virtual SAN) and Ceph are both software-defined storage solutions, but they have some key differences in terms of their architecture and capabilities.VSAN is a software-defined storage solution that is built into the VMware vSphere hypervisor. It allows organizations to create a shared storage pool using locally attached storage on multiple ESXi hosts. VSAN is designed to be highly available, and it can automatically detect and recover from hardware failures.Ceph, on the other hand, is an open-source software-defined storage solution that can run on a variety of different hardware and virtualization platforms. It provides object, block, and file storage in a single platform, and is designed to be highly scalable and highly available. Ceph is also known for its ability to handle large amounts of data, and it can be integrated with a wide variety of different applications and services.In terms of functionality, VSAN is more suited for virtualized environments, as it is built into vSphere and it is designed to work well with vSphere's other features such as vMotion and DRS. Ceph on the other hand provides more flexibility as it can run on multiple platforms and it can handle more types of storage like object, block and file storage.I

Incentivized

Qumulo was not the least expensive but we were blown away by support offered and pre-sales support to ensure questions were answered. Our main challenges were mixed end-user platforms and a diverse set of use cases on those end-user computers. Having the dual access to volumes, over NFS and SMB, helps us greatly in this area.

Incentivized

• Cost saving in terms of capex (you can reduce EMC & NetApp like dependency)
• One time setup & then easy provisioning of storage
• Requirement of competent engineers for maintenence

Incentivized

• Reduced cost in support and upgrade times compared to old fiber San.
• Allows the Service Desk to focus on other things since permissions and access are simplified.
• Very easy and bandwidth efficient replication allows us to comply with DR.

Incentivized