Side by side
Ceph vs Gluster
Both stand on distributed file system software. Which one you can start free with, which one lets you read the code, and what each costs once you pay.
Free plan APILinuxSelf-hosted+1
Ceph brings several storage types and replication capabilities into a system organizations operate on their own hardware. Its deployment and production guidance point to infrastructure requirements readers should account for.
Visit Ceph Free plan LinuxSelf-hosted
Gluster offers a broad set of distributed-storage capabilities, with Linux and self-hosted deployment options and no license cost. Teams should account for community-version support limitations when planning assistance.
Visit GlusterThe facts
| Ceph | Gluster | |
|---|---|---|
| Free plan | Yes | Yes |
| Open source | Not published | Not published |
| Runs on | API, Linux, Self-hosted, Windows | Linux, Self-hosted |
| Lowest paid plan | Free or on request | Free or on request |
| Plans published | 1 | 1 |
| Maker | Not published | Not published |
| Website | ceph.io | gluster.org |
| On distributed file system software | #2 of 32 | #7 of 32 |
Ceph: what it does well
- Combines object, block, and file storage.
- RGW supports the S3 API.
- Includes versioning, lifecycle rules, and immutability.
- Can replicate across geographic locations.
- Free plan listed as free.
What to know first
- Requires organizations to choose and manage cluster hardware.
- cephadm requires Python 3 and systemd.
- Production guidance calls for 10 Gb/s networking between hosts.
Gluster: what it does well
- Free and open source.
- Combines storage from multiple servers in one namespace.
- POSIX compatible with extended-attribute filesystems.
- Lists replication, snapshots, quotas, and bitrot detection.
- Supports NFS and SMB access.
What to know first
- Red Hat does not support community versions.
- Design and performance assistance is referred to consultancies.