TrustRadius: an HG Insights company

Google Cloud Persistent Disk vs. Red Hat Gluster Storage

Save this comparison

Save this comparison

Add Product

Recommended Comparisons

    Overview
    ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price

    Google Cloud Persistent Disk

    Score9.5 out of 10
    N/AGoogle's Persistent Disk service on Google Cloud is designed to present reliable, high-performance block storage for virtual machine instances.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
    Google Cloud Persistent DiskRed Hat Gluster Storage
    Editions & Modules
    No answers on this topic
    No answers on this topic
    Offerings
    Pricing Offerings
    Google Cloud Persistent DiskRed 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
    Community Pulse
    Google Cloud Persistent DiskRed Hat Gluster Storage
    Considered Both Products
    Google
    No answer on this topic
    Red Hat
    No answer on this topic
    Key User Insights
    Would buy again
    100%
    Would buy again
    5 Answers
    No answers on this topic
    Delivers good value for the price
    100%
    Delivers good value for the price
    5 Answers
    No answers on this topic
    Happy with the feature set
    100%
    Happy with the feature set
    5 Answers
    No answers on this topic
    Lived up to sales and marketing promises
    100%
    Lived up to sales and marketing promises
    5 Answers
    No answers on this topic
    Implementation went as expected
    100%
    Implementation went as expected
    5 Answers
    No answers on this topic
    Best Alternatives
    Google Cloud Persistent DiskRed Hat Gluster Storage
    Small Businesses
    No answers on this topic
    StarWind Virtual SAN
    Score9.5 out of 10
    Medium-sized Companies
    IBM Cloud Block Storage
    Score9 out of 10
    StarWind Virtual SAN
    Score9.5 out of 10
    Enterprises
    IBM Cloud Block Storage
    Score9 out of 10
    IBM Storage Scale
    Score9.9 out of 10
    All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
    User Ratings
    Google Cloud Persistent DiskRed Hat Gluster Storage
    Likelihood to Recommend
    9.6
    (5 ratings)
    8.0
    (1 ratings)
    User Testimonials
    Google Cloud Persistent DiskRed Hat Gluster Storage
    Likelihood to Recommend
    Google
    Google Cloud Persistent Disk is an ideal storage solution for businesses regardless of the industry. Also, whether your business is big or small, this software is scalable and this means there is a version for every business. The software is secure, fast, and affordable. It also offers data backup features.
    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
    Google
    • Google Cloud Persistent Disk is affordable.
    • Scaling is easy.
    • Comes with data backup capabilities.
    • Fast data access and transfer.
    • Offers best data security security features.
    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
    Google
    • Nothing as of now
    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
    Alternatives Considered
    Google
    I have not used such a powerful and flexible storage device as this platform. My experience with this platform has enlightened our team members on better data storage practices. It has secured our documents within and given our teams better file storage options. Excellent data backup and restore services have boosted our company growth since we can focus on other tasks knowing that our data is safe.
    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
    Google
    • Helped our return to operation with faster restores.
    • Helped the business scale and increase our data storage capacity with [ease].
    • Helped us alleviate the need to store in our local infrastructure, saving on admin costs.
    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