Google App Engine vs. IBM Storage Ceph

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Google App Engine
Score 8.2 out of 10
N/A
Google App Engine is Google Cloud's platform-as-a-service offering. It features pay-per-use pricing and support for a broad array of programming languages.
$0.05
Per Hour Per Instance
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
Google App EngineIBM Storage Ceph
Editions & Modules
Starting Price
$0.05
Per Hour Per Instance
Max Price
$0.30
Per Hour Per Instance
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Google App EngineIBM Storage Ceph
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
YesNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Google App EngineIBM Storage Ceph
Features
Google App EngineIBM Storage Ceph
Platform-as-a-Service
Comparison of Platform-as-a-Service features of Product A and Product B
Google App Engine
9.5
32 Ratings
20% above category average
IBM Storage Ceph
-
Ratings
Ease of building user interfaces9.018 Ratings00 Ratings
Scalability10.032 Ratings00 Ratings
Platform management overhead9.032 Ratings00 Ratings
Workflow engine capability8.024 Ratings00 Ratings
Platform access control10.031 Ratings00 Ratings
Services-enabled integration10.028 Ratings00 Ratings
Development environment creation10.029 Ratings00 Ratings
Development environment replication10.028 Ratings00 Ratings
Issue monitoring and notification9.028 Ratings00 Ratings
Issue recovery9.026 Ratings00 Ratings
Upgrades and platform fixes10.029 Ratings00 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Google App EngineIBM Storage Ceph
Small Businesses
AWS Lambda
AWS Lambda
Score 8.3 out of 10
StarWind Virtual SAN
StarWind Virtual SAN
Score 9.9 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.2 out of 10
StarWind Virtual SAN
StarWind Virtual SAN
Score 9.9 out of 10
Enterprises
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.2 out of 10
IBM Storage Scale
IBM Storage Scale
Score 9.7 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Google App EngineIBM Storage Ceph
Likelihood to Recommend
8.0
(35 ratings)
8.7
(6 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
8.3
(8 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Usability
7.7
(7 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Performance
10.0
(1 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
8.4
(12 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
8.0
(1 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Google App EngineIBM Storage Ceph
Likelihood to Recommend
Google
App Engine is such a good resource for our team both internally and externally. You have complete control over your app, how it runs, when it runs, and more while Google handles the back-end, scaling, orchestration, and so on. If you are serving a tool, system, or web page, it's perfect. If you are serving something back-end, like an automation or ETL workflow, you should be a little considerate or careful with how you are structuring that job. For instance, the Standard environment in Google App Engine will present you with a resource limit for your server calls. If your operations are known to take longer than, say, 10 minutes or so, you may be better off moving to the Flexible environment (which may be a little more expensive but certainly a little more powerful and a little less limited) or even moving that workflow to something like Google Compute Engine or another managed service.
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
Google
  • Quick to develop, quick to deploy. You can be up and running on Google App Engine in no time.
  • Flexible. We use Java for some services and Node.js for others.
  • Great security features. We have been consistently impressed with the security and authentication features of Google App Engine.
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
Google
  • There is a slight learning curve to getting used to code on Google App Engine.
  • Google Cloud Datastore is Google's NoSQL database in the cloud that your applications can use. NoSQL databases, by design, cannot give handle complex queries on the data. This means that sometimes you need to think carefully about your data structures - so that you can get the results you need in your code.
  • Setting up billing is a little annoying. It does not seem to save billing information to your account so you can re-use the same information across different Cloud projects. Each project requires you to re-enter all your billing information (if required)
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
Likelihood to Renew
Google
App Engine is a solid choice for deployments to Google Cloud Platform that do not want to move entirely to a Kubernetes-based container architecture using a different Google product. For rapid prototyping of new applications and fairly straightforward web application deployments, we'll continue to leverage the capabilities that App Engine affords us.
Read full review
IBM
No answers on this topic
Usability
Google
I had to revisit the UI after a year of just setting up and forgetting. The UI got some improvements but the amount of navigation we have to go through to setup a new app has increased but also got easier to setup. Gemini now is integrated and make getting answers faster
Read full review
IBM
No answers on this topic
Support Rating
Google
Good amount of documentation available for Google App Engine and in general there is large developer community around Google App Engine and other products it interacts with. Lastly, Google support is great in general. No issues so far with them.
Read full review
IBM
No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered
Google
We were on another much smaller cloud provider and decided to make the switch for several reasons - stability, breadth of services, and security. In reviewing options, GCP provided the best mixtures of meeting our needs while also balancing the overall cost of the service as compared to the other major players in Azure and AWS.
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
Google
  • Effective employee adoption through ease of use.
  • Effective integration to other java based frameworks.
  • Time to market is very quick. Build, test, deploy and use.
  • The GAE Whitelist for java is an important resource to know what works and what does not. So use it. It would also be nice for Google to expand on items that are allowed on GAE platform.
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