StorageGRID vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

We chose NetApp StorageGRID because we were not looking for a true backup solution but wanted the features to included a DR centric ideology. The IBM Cloud Backup solution was purely backup focused and did not fit the requirements for our needs. NetApp StorageGRID checked all of our boxes in regards to cost, use case, and ease of manageability.

Red Hat Ceph storage is most comparable with VMware Virtual SAN which we currently use in production. It had about the same default resiliency although we had far more customization options with Ceph albeit more difficult to configure. VMware Virtual SAN is such an expensive item that it was worth it for us to explore Ceph as an alternative. Both had similar cons of being best mated with their preferred hypervisors (Open Stack as opposed to VMware ESXi) and neither had NFS access. Netapp was less performant than our Ceph cluster with cache tiering and far more proprietary however it does have NFS support which is crucial when being used as a storage back end for VMWare. We found our Netapp to be far less resilient as well as it does require regular maintenance.We found for our medium sized business that the Nutanix had the upgradability, NFS support, and performance and much of the resiliency of Ceph so we decided to go in that direction. If our company where operating at petabyte scale however, Ceph is hands down the best solution available!