2 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow noopener'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 9 out of 100
8 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow noopener'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 9.8 out of 100

Likelihood to Recommend

Hitachi Content Platform (HCP)

  • [Hitachi Content Platform (HCP) is] well suited for needs requiring a highly secure, multi-tenant on-premise object store.
  • Exceeds expectations with respect to object level attributes and permissions
  • Has excellent S3/HS3 REST API feature set
  • Situations which require versioning and proven Immutability (certified by Governments)
- Expensive to use for general file storage publishing where meta data, compliance, retention, versioning are unnecessary.
Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer

Red Hat Ceph Storage

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
Colby Shores | TrustRadius Reviewer

Pros

Hitachi Content Platform (HCP)

  • HCP/HDI interface works like charm. it's easy to deploy and scale.
  • Hitachi customer support is at par with expectations
  • More cost effective than EMC/NetApp solutions.
Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer

Red Hat Ceph Storage

  • Very scalable solution
  • Providing very fast storage
  • Very good integration with KVM, libvirt and OpenStack through Cinder
Valentin Höbel | TrustRadius Reviewer

Cons

Hitachi Content Platform (HCP)

  • Cost structure is by capacity and is expensive
  • Some access settings are mutually exclusive for performance (REST vs. CIFS)
  • QoS by Tenant requires use of external ADC (Hitachi suggested and sold us Pulse Secure) and their support on this product offering is not up to their normally high standard
Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer

Red Hat Ceph Storage

  • Ceph is very difficult to set up when we used it. One had to be very careful in how they assigned their crush maps and cache tiering to get it to work right otherwise performance would be impacted and data would not be distributed evenly. From the .96 version I ran, it really is intended to be used for massive data centers in the petabytes. Beyond that the command line arguments for ceph-deploy and ceph are very involved. I would strongly recommend this as a back end for Open Stack with a dedicated Linux savvy storage engineer. Red Hat also said they are working to turn Calamari in to a full featured front end to manage OSD nodes which should make this much easier to manage in the future.
  • It should not be run off of VMs themselves since it is not optimized for a VM Kernel. This advice is coming directly from Red Hat. Unfortunately this means that smaller use cases are out of the question since it literally requires 10 physical machines, each with their own OS to become individual OSD nodes.
  • I believe this is an issue with the OSDs and not the monitors which ran fine for us in a virtual machine environment.
  • We where looking at using this as a NFS work alike and in our experiments encountered a couple of issues. the MDS server struggled to mount the CephFS file system on more than a few systems without seizing up. This isn't a huge concern when it is used as a back end for Open Stack however when using this as shared storage for production data on a web cluster proved to be problematic to us. We also would have liked to have NFS access to the Ceph monitors so we could attach this to VMWare in order to store our VMDKs since VMWare does not support mounting CephFS. When we spoke with VMWare about 7 months ago they said NFS support is in the pipeline which will address all of these concerns.
Colby Shores | TrustRadius Reviewer

Alternatives Considered

Hitachi Content Platform (HCP)

My company has close ties with Hitachi. NetApp chargeback was more per Gig and for cost saving purposes, we had to choose HCP.
Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer

Red Hat Ceph Storage

Red Hat Ceph storage offers an object store, which the other solutions do not. In addition, it is perfect for providing scalable block storage to virtualization products.
Valentin Höbel | TrustRadius Reviewer

Return on Investment

Hitachi Content Platform (HCP)

  • Best on premise solution of its' kind that encapsulates all our needs
  • ROI has been positive but it does raise questions at renewal time in terms of cost/GB vs other 2nd tier storage types
Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer

Red Hat Ceph Storage

  • CephFS was unable to handle several mounts at the same time. We will revisit NFS capabilities once available.
  • We gained quit a bit of experience with Ceph and we have a cluster on hand if our storage vendor doesn't pan out at any time in the future.
  • It had a negative impact in the time it took for us to test set up and test the cluster. Like I explained earlier, it was quite difficult to set up for experimentation. That said though, we have a very broad understanding of Ceph for our future products.
Colby Shores | TrustRadius Reviewer

Pricing Details

Hitachi Content Platform (HCP)

General

Free Trial
Free/Freemium Version
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Entry-level set up fee?
No

Red Hat Ceph Storage

General

Free Trial
Free/Freemium Version
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Entry-level set up fee?
No

Add comparison