Azure Blob Storage vs. IBM Storage Ceph

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Azure Blob Storage
Score 8.7 out of 10
N/A
Microsoft's Blob Storage system on Azure is designed to make unstructured data available to customers anywhere through REST-based object storage.
$0.01
per GB/per month
IBM Storage Ceph
Score 8.0 out of 10
N/A
IBM® Storage Ceph® is a software-defined storage platform that consolidates block, file and object storage to help organizations eliminate data silos and deliver a cloud-like experience while retaining the cost benefits and data sovereignty advantages of on-premises IT.N/A
Pricing
Azure Blob StorageIBM Storage Ceph
Editions & Modules
Block Blobs
$0.0081
per GB/per month
Azure Data Lake Storage
$0.0081
per GB/per month
Files
$0.058
per GB/per month
Managed Discs
$1.54
per month
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Azure Blob StorageIBM Storage Ceph
Free Trial
YesNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Azure Blob StorageIBM Storage Ceph
Best Alternatives
Azure Blob StorageIBM Storage Ceph
Small Businesses
Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage
Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage
Score 9.2 out of 10
StarWind Virtual SAN
StarWind Virtual SAN
Score 9.4 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Google Cloud Storage
Google Cloud Storage
Score 8.8 out of 10
StarWind Virtual SAN
StarWind Virtual SAN
Score 9.4 out of 10
Enterprises
Google Cloud Storage
Google Cloud Storage
Score 8.8 out of 10
IBM Storage Scale
IBM Storage Scale
Score 7.1 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Azure Blob StorageIBM Storage Ceph
Likelihood to Recommend
9.9
(9 ratings)
8.7
(6 ratings)
Usability
8.0
(1 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
9.0
(3 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Azure Blob StorageIBM Storage Ceph
Likelihood to Recommend
Microsoft
Blob storage is well suited to hosting/sharing zipped files rather than several smaller files, as folder enumeration/listing is not supported. Files uploaded are case-sensitive, so users need to be educated on the correct naming convention format if they are delegating the file-sharing process outside of IT.
Read full review
IBM
Large scale data storage: Red Hat Ceph Storage is designed to be highly scalable and can handle large amounts of data. It's well suited for organizations that need to store and manage large amounts of data, such as backups, images, videos, and other types of multimedia content.Cloud-based deployments: Red Hat Ceph Storage can provide object storage services for cloud-based applications such as SaaS and PaaS offerings. It is well suited for organizations that are looking to build their own cloud storage infrastructure or to use it as a storage backend for their cloud-based applications.High-performance computing: Red Hat Ceph Storage can be used to provide storage for high-performance computing (HPC) applications, such as scientific simulations and other types of compute-intensive workloads. It's well suited for organizations that need to store
Read full review
Pros
Microsoft
  • Easy to work with - drag and drop
  • Capable of long term retention
  • Relatively low cost
  • Good for different data formats
  • Allows archival storage
Read full review
IBM
  • 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.
Read full review
Cons
Microsoft
  • If we are transferring huge amount of data (outbound), it can get quite expensive.
  • With new features being added constantly, although a good thing, at times it becomes difficult to keep up with the changes. Documentation needs to keep UpToDate and should include best practices.
  • Performance can be improved especially when it comes to cold storage.
Read full review
IBM
  • GUI based mainetenence should be developed
  • Unable to detect storage latencies
  • VM to disk mapping should be visible so as to save some critical applications data in case of HDD failures
Read full review
Usability
Microsoft
Blob storage is fairly simple, with several different options/settings that can be configured. The file explorer has enhanced its usability. Some areas could be improved, such as providing more details or stats on how many times a file has been accessed. It is an obvious choice if you're already using Azure/Entra.
Read full review
IBM
No answers on this topic
Support Rating
Microsoft
Microsoft has improved its customer service standpoint over the years. The ability to chat with an issue, get a callback, schedule a call or work with an architecture team(for free) is a huge plus. I can get mentorship and guidance on where to go with my environment without pushy sales tactics. This is very refreshing. Typically support can get me to where I need to be on the first contact, which is also nice.
Read full review
IBM
No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered
Microsoft
Azure Blob Storage is the best choice to store files when the app runs in Azure. It also has some advantages over S3, like Shared Access Signatures, that make it easy to control access to files directly via a URL. Azure Blob Storage is very fast and we have not had any major issues with it after using it for several years.
Read full review
IBM
MongoDB offers better search ability compared to Red Hat Ceph Storage but it’s more optimized for large number of object while Red Hat Ceph Storage is preferred if you need to store binary data or large individual objects. To get acceptable search functionality you really need to compile Red Hat Ceph Storage with another database where the search metadata related to Red Hat Ceph Storage objects are stored.
Read full review
Return on Investment
Microsoft
  • Azure has increased the flexibility of where we place data within our organization.
  • It has proven to be very reliable and always accessible.
Read full review
IBM
  • Ceph allows my customer to scale out very fast.
  • Ceph allows distributing storage objects through multiple server rooms.
  • Ceph is fault-taulerant, meaning the customer can lose a server room and would still be able to access the storage.
Read full review
ScreenShots