TrustRadius: an HG Insights company

Save this comparison

Save this comparison

Add Product

Recommended Comparisons

    Overview
    ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price

    Dell ECS

    Score8.3 out of 10
    N/ADell ECS (formerly Atmos) is an object-based cloud storage platform. The vendor states that it has been engineered to support both traditional and next-generation workloads alike. Deployable in a software-defined model or as a turnkey appliance, the vendor boasts that ECS provides unmatched scalability, manageability, resilience, and economics to meet the demands of modern business.N/A

    Red Hat Gluster Storage

    Score6 out of 10
    N/ARed Hat Gluster Storage is a software-defined storage option; Red Hat acquired Gluster in 2011.N/A
    Pricing
    Dell ECSRed Hat Gluster Storage
    Editions & Modules
    No answers on this topic
    No answers on this topic
    Offerings
    Pricing Offerings
    Dell ECSRed Hat Gluster Storage
    Free Trial
    NoNo
    Free/Freemium Version
    NoNo
    Premium Consulting/Integration Services
    NoNo
    Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
    Additional Details——
    More Pricing Information
    Best Alternatives
    Dell ECSRed Hat Gluster Storage
    Small Businesses
    Azure Blob Storage
    Score8.7 out of 10
    StarWind Virtual SAN
    Score9.5 out of 10
    Medium-sized Companies
    Everpure FlashBlade
    Score9.9 out of 10
    StarWind Virtual SAN
    Score9.5 out of 10
    Enterprises
    Google Cloud Storage
    Score9.2 out of 10
    IBM Storage Scale
    Score9.9 out of 10
    All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
    User Ratings
    Dell ECSRed Hat Gluster Storage
    Likelihood to Recommend
    8.0
    (1 ratings)
    8.0
    (1 ratings)
    Usability
    8.0
    (1 ratings)
    -
    (0 ratings)
    User Testimonials
    Dell ECSRed Hat Gluster Storage
    Likelihood to Recommend
    Dell Technologies
    Dell ECS is well-suited for organizations that can't afford to store data in the public cloud. It also provides a much cheaper solution to store archived data that is not frequently accessed. However, it's not suitable for small-scale storage requirements as it will not be cost-effective. Also, it can't be used for low-latency databases as it will cause performance issues.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Red Hat
    GFS is well suited for DEVOPS type environments where organizations prefer to invest in servers and DAS (direct attached storage) versus purchasing storage solutions/appliances. GFS allows organizations to scale their storage capacity at a fraction of the price using DAS HDDs versus committing to purchase licenses and hardware from a dedicated storage manufacturer (e.g. NetApp, Dell/EMC, HP, etc.).
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Pros
    Dell Technologies
    • Multi-application support, legacy as well as modern.
    • Cost effective in storing archives.
    • Advantage of having cloud technology within datacenter.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Red Hat
    • Scales; bricks can be easily added to increase storage capacity
    • Performs; I/O is spread across multiple spindles (HDDs), thereby increasing read and write performance
    • Integrates well with RHEL/CentOS 7; if your organization is using RHEL 7, Gluster (GFS) integrates extremely well with that baseline, especially since it's come under the Red Hat portfolio of tools.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Cons
    Dell Technologies
    • Maintenance like firmware update, is not that much automated.
    • Not suitable for small org as entry level requirement is high.
    • Much improvement is needed over UI. The dashboard can be improved to give a broader picture.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Red Hat
    • Documentation; using readthedocs demonstrates that the Gluster project isn't always kept up-to-date as far as documentation is concerned. Many of the guides are for previous versions of the product and can be cumbersome to follow at times.
    • Self-healing; our use of GFS required the administrator to trigger an auto-heal operation manually whenever bricks were added/removed from the pool. This would be a great feature to incorporate using autonomous self-healing whenever a brick is added/removed from the pool.
    • Performance metrics are scarce; our team received feedback that online RDBMS transactions did not perform well on distributed file systems (such as GFS), however this could not be substantiated via any online research or white papers.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Usability
    Dell Technologies
    Dell ECS is working well for our organisation. On the one hand, we can leverage cloud technology; on the other, we can keep it in our own data centre, thus ensuring full security for sensitive data. With Dell ECS, we are saving a lot on the monthly bill that we used to pay for the cloud storage solution.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Red Hat
    No answers on this topic
    Alternatives Considered
    Dell Technologies
    Because of Dell's proven reliability and stability, it's well-suited to large enterprises compared to its competitors. Its Geo-distribution technology protects data across sites in a very cost-effective manner. It supports storage for both modern and legacy applications. Its archive storage costs are much lower than those of its competitors. It saves monthly bills as we own the hardware.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Red Hat
    Gluster is a lot lower cost than the storage industry leaders. However, NetApp and Dell/EMC's product documentation is (IMHO) more mature and hardened against usage in operational scenarios and environments. Using Gluster avoids "vendor lock-in" from the perspective on now having to purchase dedicated hardware and licenses to run it. Albeit, should an organization choose to pay for support for Gluster, they would be paying licensing costs to Red Hat instead of NetApp, Dell, EMC, HP, or VMware. It could be assumed, however, that if an organization wanted to use Gluster, that they were already a Linux shop and potentially already paying Red Hat or Canonical (Debian) for product support, thereby the use of GFS would be a nominal cost adder from a maintenance/training perspective.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Return on Investment
    Dell Technologies
    • Much more cost-effective than other cloud solutions. This has saved the overall cost.
    • Requires less maintenance and fewer human resources than traditional storage solutions, thus decreasing overall cost.
    • Easier to have backup across geos without having a full backup copy. This decreases the backup cost.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Red Hat
    • Positive - Alignment with the open source community and being able to stay abreast of the latest trending products available.
    • Positive - Reduced procurement and maintenance costs.
    • Negative - Impacts user/system maintainer training in order to teach them how to utilize and troubleshoot the product.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    ScreenShots