We compared Red Hat Ceph Storage and MinIO based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
User reviews indicate that Red Hat Ceph Storage is praised for its scalability, flexibility, and efficiency, with good customer service, while MinIO is valued for its scalability, high performance and user-friendly interface. Red Hat Ceph Storage is commended for reliability, compatibility, and cost-effectiveness, while MinIO is preferred for its simplicity, cost-effectiveness, and ease of use. Both products have positive ROI but may benefit from enhancements in different areas such as scalability, performance, and user interface.
Features: Red Hat Ceph Storage is praised for its scalability, flexibility, and ability to handle large data amounts, while MinIO is valued for its scalability, high performance, and user-friendly interface. Both products integrate seamlessly with existing systems.
Pricing and ROI: Red Hat Ceph Storage has been praised for its minimal and efficient setup costs, while MinIO is known for its easy and straightforward implementation. Users find Red Hat Ceph Storage reasonably priced and cost-effective, while MinIO offers flexible pricing options. Both products have fair and reasonable licensing structures., Red Hat Ceph Storage and MinIO both received positive returns on investment according to user feedback. Users expressed satisfaction with the cost-effectiveness and improved performance of Red Hat Ceph Storage. On the other hand, MinIO users highlighted the value and benefits they derived from using the product.
Room for Improvement: Red Hat Ceph Storage could improve in scalability, installation processes, documentation, GUI for management, performance, and troubleshooting capabilities. On the other hand, MinIO users suggest enhancements in performance, reliability, documentation, user interface, integration options, and feature set.
Deployment and customer support: The user reviews for Red Hat Ceph Storage indicate varying time durations for deployment, setup, and implementation phases. In contrast, MinIO user reviews mention consistent timeframes for deployment and setup, with one user taking three months and another taking one week., Red Hat Ceph Storage is known for its knowledgeable and efficient customer service team, while MinIO has been praised for its exceptional assistance and dedication in providing prompt solutions. Both products prioritize customer satisfaction and smooth operations.
The summary above is based on 16 interviews we conducted recently with Red Hat Ceph Storage and MinIO users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"The container installation features are good. The S3 feature provisions the storage buckets making it easy. It allows me to spin up the public buckets with open-source technology."
"This is an all-in-one, user-friendly data storage."
"MinIO can work with attributes and folders, and it has the ability to use a stream approach for files. I have moments that should work exclusively. It also has some management features you can use, like exclusive locks that you can perform on one record or a collection."
"The most valuable feature of MinIO is its ease of use, replication, and active directory. All the capabilities are in this solution."
"The solution has good compatibility with different kinds of storage."
"The most valuable features are that MinIO is open, it works on-premise, and is compatible with the Amazon industry which is great for finding compatible libraries in many languages which is very good for developers."
"Very good at object retrieval."
"Nice web interface, easy to use, with a low memory footprint."
"Ceph has simplified my storage integration. I no longer need two or three storage systems, as Ceph can support all my storage needs. I no longer need OpenStack Swift for REST object storage access, I no longer need NFS or GlusterFS for filesystem sharing, and most importantly, I no longer need LVM or DRBD for my virtual machines in OpenStack."
"The ability to provide block storage and object storage from the same storage cluster is very valuable for us."
"High reliability with commodity hardware."
"It has helped to save money and scale the storage without limits."
"Replicated and erasure coded pools have allowed for multiple copies to be kept, easy scale-out of additional nodes, and easy replacement of failed hard drives. The solution continues working even when there are errors."
"We have some legacy servers that can be associated with this structure. With Ceph, we can rearrange these machines and reuse our investment."
"Ceph’s ability to adapt to varying types of commodity hardware affords us substantial flexibility and future-proofing."
"It's a very performance-intensive, brilliant storage system, and I always recommend it to customers based on its benefits, performance, and scalability."
"MinIO could use a time patch on it. It could also use better documentation for some languages like Python."
"The developer support could be better."
"The solution should have high availability. Also, support should be quick."
"The solution lacks documentation."
"The scalability is one of the limitations we have found. We are looking for another solution but they must provide the same characteristics, such as an affordable price and continuity."
"MinIO has behaved strangely in the past. For instance, the application dropped connection to MinIO. It's not too significant, but it loses connection. We're trying to understand exactly what is happening when this happens."
"Its reverse proxy features could be better."
"The Distributed User Interface (DUI) needs some work. It's hard to view a large set of data on the DUI. It's an issue with the DUI's performance."
"Some documentation is very hard to find."
"It takes some time to re-balance the storage in case of server failure."
"Ceph does not deal very well with, or takes a long time to recover from, certain kinds of network failures and individual storage node failures."
"I would like to see better performance and stability when Ceph is in recovery."
"In the deployment step, we need to create some config files to add Ceph functions in OpenStack modules (Nova, Cinder, Glance). It would be useful to have a tool that validates the format of the data in those files, before generating a deploy with failures."
"What could be improved in Red Hat Ceph Storage is its user interface or GUI."
"If you use for any other solution like other Kubernetes solutions, it's not very suitable."
"It needs a better UI for easier installation and management."
MinIO is ranked 1st in File and Object Storage with 22 reviews while Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 3rd in File and Object Storage with 22 reviews. MinIO is rated 8.0, while Red Hat Ceph Storage is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of MinIO writes " A tool for storage purposes that helps businesses save time". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Ceph Storage writes "Provides block storage and object storage from the same storage cluster". MinIO is most compared with NetApp StorageGRID, Dell ECS, Pure Storage FlashBlade, Cloudian HyperStore and SwiftStack, whereas Red Hat Ceph Storage is most compared with VMware vSAN, Portworx Enterprise, Pure Storage FlashBlade, NetApp StorageGRID and Dell ECS. See our MinIO vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage report.
See our list of best File and Object Storage vendors.
We monitor all File and Object Storage reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.