Cost effective object storage
January 14, 2023
Cost effective object storage

Score 8 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Overall Satisfaction with Red Hat Ceph Storage
We use Red Hat Ceph Storage to store large binary objects of unstructured data. We ended up in a situation where storing large objects in a relational database wasn’t cost effective to scale and due to this we changed so structured data is stored in a relational database while binary objects such as photos, videos and documents are stored in Red Hat Ceph Storage.
Pros
- Cost effective storage
- Partitioning data in separate buckets
- Ability to store large individual objects
Cons
- Authorization on object level could be improved
- Helper libraries to access Red Hat Ceph Storage from various languages could be improved
- Ability to attach structured metadata to stored objects could be improved
- Scalable storage solution
- Clustering support
- Support for authorization on bucket level
- Cost effective scalable storage
- Ability to store large individual objects
- Simplified management thanks to ability to use separate buckets instead of separate database servers for each application
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.
Do you think IBM Storage Ceph delivers good value for the price?
Yes
Are you happy with IBM Storage Ceph's feature set?
Yes
Did IBM Storage Ceph live up to sales and marketing promises?
Yes
Did implementation of IBM Storage Ceph go as expected?
Yes
Would you buy IBM Storage Ceph again?
Yes

Comments
Please log in to join the conversation