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.
"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 tool’s integration is very easy. This feature has helped us reduce development time. The solution also has many out-of-the-box features like versioning support and management of roles and permissions. The product also supports clustered deployment."
"The initial setup was straightforward as MinIO provided good support documentation and took a couple of days to complete."
"Very good at object retrieval."
"The product does save time for our company."
"The solution has good compatibility with different kinds of storage."
"The most valuable feature of MinIO is its ease of use, replication, and active directory. All the capabilities are in this solution."
"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."
"The solution is pretty stable."
"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."
"High reliability with commodity hardware."
"Without any extra costs, I was able to provide a redundant environment."
"We have some legacy servers that can be associated with this structure. With Ceph, we can rearrange these machines and reuse our investment."
"radosgw and librados provide a simple integration with clone, snapshots, and other functions that aid in data integrity."
"Red Hat Ceph Storage is a reliable solution, it works well."
"Data redundancy is a key feature, since it can survive failures (disks/servers). We didn’t lose our data or have a service interruption during server/disk failures."
"There should be the ability to expand the size after it has already been deployed. Currently, you cannot do that. It doesn't support an increase in size. Each time we spawn a new MinIO, we need to track the particular MinIO instance or tenant that has the file. Therefore, we had to create a multi-tenant solution that tracks the MinIO that has our artifacts. It isn't in one single instance. It should have better multi-tenancy support."
"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."
"The solution lacks documentation."
"The documentation of the solution should improve."
"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."
"The MinIO dashboard is minimal as there are only a couple of features inside the dashboard for a basic user. I would like this to be more robust with more click-around features."
"Lacks documentation for non-Kubernetes users."
"The tool’s pricing needs to improve. We also encountered challenges while deploying the tool in Kubernetes. The documentation also was not too great. We have currently deployed the solution in a stand-alone fashion."
"We have encountered slight integration issues."
"The storage capacity of the solution can be improved."
"It needs a better UI for easier installation and management."
"Routing around slow hardware."
"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."
"This product uses a lot of CPU and network bandwidth. It needs some deduplication features and to use delta for rebalancing."
"An area for improvement would be that it's pretty difficult to manage synchronous replication over multiple regions."
"It took me a long time to get the storage drivers for the communication with Kubernetes up and running. The documentation could improve it is lacking information. I'm not sure if this is a Ceph problem or if Ceph should address this, but it was something I ran into. Additionally, there is a performance issue I am having that I am looking into, but overall I am satisfied with the performance."
MinIO is ranked 1st in File and Object Storage with 22 reviews while Red Hat Ceph Storage is ranked 2nd 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.