Nice talk, but I think I was basically trying to say that Ceph really shines when you compare it to Lustre and PanFS.
It's not a clear winner when you compare it to GlusterFS because the original design wasn't intended to replace GlusterFS (although it may do a good job of this anyway).
Ceph is still a very long way behind Lustre for streaming bandwidth, so to say it shines would be a little much. Lustre's weakness is in scaling to support large file counts, but in real deployments this can be mitigated by using an MDS server with a lot of grunt. Ceph can't compete with Lustre for HPC deployments until it supports RDMA, and even with that it's still going to take a long time to reach Lustre's performance (which is close to line rate at this point)
It's not a clear winner when you compare it to GlusterFS because the original design wasn't intended to replace GlusterFS (although it may do a good job of this anyway).