Red Hat Ceph does well in simplifying storage integration by replacing the need for numerous storage solutions. This solution allows for multiple copies of replicated and coded pools to be kept, easy replacement of failed hard drives, and easy replacement of scaled-out nodes. Red Hat Ceph continues working even when there are failures.
We experienced some stability issues when we went beyond the default factor, which is 3. We found that the rebalancing and recovery processes can be a bit slow. Red Hat Ceph can be pretty complex to deploy and has a very big learning curve.
MinIO is software-defined, runs in industry-standard hardware, and is an open-source solution. The retrieval of objects with MinIO is significantly better than many of the other solutions we considered. We found deployment to be very simple and even with numerous updates, MinIO ran seamlessly - we experienced no downtime. MinIO is amazing with regard to processing speed, volume, and accessibility to data. It can store large amounts of data, and you can retrieve, load, and transform the data quickly. MinIO offers both a browser interface and a command interface, which we found very useful.
MinIO is lacking in a few documentation and monitoring tools that other solutions provide, though. It would be a better and more flexible solution if you could use an uneven disk structure. It would also be great to include some sort of graphical representation of data, like size and data type.
Conclusion:
We were looking for a high-performance object storage system that would work well with enterprise systems. We found that MinIO offered the stability and scalability in addition to the ability to deploy on-premise, in the cloud, or hybrid options most suitable for our needs.
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...
Red Hat Ceph does well in simplifying storage integration by replacing the need for numerous storage solutions. This solution allows for multiple copies of replicated and coded pools to be kept, easy replacement of failed hard drives, and easy replacement of scaled-out nodes. Red Hat Ceph continues working even when there are failures.
We experienced some stability issues when we went beyond the default factor, which is 3. We found that the rebalancing and recovery processes can be a bit slow. Red Hat Ceph can be pretty complex to deploy and has a very big learning curve.
MinIO is software-defined, runs in industry-standard hardware, and is an open-source solution. The retrieval of objects with MinIO is significantly better than many of the other solutions we considered. We found deployment to be very simple and even with numerous updates, MinIO ran seamlessly - we experienced no downtime. MinIO is amazing with regard to processing speed, volume, and accessibility to data. It can store large amounts of data, and you can retrieve, load, and transform the data quickly. MinIO offers both a browser interface and a command interface, which we found very useful.
MinIO is lacking in a few documentation and monitoring tools that other solutions provide, though. It would be a better and more flexible solution if you could use an uneven disk structure. It would also be great to include some sort of graphical representation of data, like size and data type.
Conclusion:
We were looking for a high-performance object storage system that would work well with enterprise systems. We found that MinIO offered the stability and scalability in addition to the ability to deploy on-premise, in the cloud, or hybrid options most suitable for our needs.