File Storage · head to head
Ceph vs Nasuni
Ceph
File Storage
Open source distributed storage providing object, block and file from one cluster
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -
Nasuni
File Storage
Cloud file storage that keeps the authoritative copy in object storage and caches it at each site
- From
- On request
- Rated
- -
The short version
- Only Ceph has a free tier, so it costs nothing to try first.
- Each has a real cost: Ceph ceph assumes an operator who understands placement groups, CRUSH rules and recovery tuning, so organisations without dedicated storage staff routinely end up with a cluster that works until the first failure and then does not.; Nasuni subscription is based on managed capacity, so cold data that would cost almost nothing in an archive tier keeps paying the full platform rate, and there is limited incentive structure to delete.
- They diverge on capability: Ceph covers RADOS object store, Nasuni covers Edge caching appliances.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which Ceph and Nasuni actually diverge.
Identical on both: user rating (Not yet rated), category (File Storage).
What each one covers
Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.
Only in Ceph
- RADOS object store
- RADOS Gateway
- RBD block devices
- CephFS
- CRUSH placement
- Erasure coded pools
Only in Nasuni
- Edge caching appliances
- Object storage back end
- Continuous versioning
- Global file lock
- Rapid site recovery
- Ransomware detection
What people use each for
The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.
Ceph
- Backing a private cloud where virtual machine disks, shared filesystems and an S3 endpoint all need the same hardwarenot Nasuni
- Growing past the point where a proprietary array upgrade costs more than a rack of commodity serversnot Nasuni
- Research and media environments with petabytes of data and staff who can operate storagenot Nasuni
- Providing an S3 endpoint on premises with multi site replication under your own controlnot Nasuni
Nasuni
- Consolidating file servers across many branch offices onto one namespace without shipping data between sitesnot Ceph
- Replacing a NAS plus backup plus offsite replication stack with a single recovery modelnot Ceph
- Engineering or media teams in different regions who need to work on the same large project filesnot Ceph
- An organisation that has been hit by ransomware on file shares and needs version level rollback rather than tape restoresnot Ceph
Where each one falls short
Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.
Ceph
- Ceph assumes an operator who understands placement groups, CRUSH rules and recovery tuning, so organisations without dedicated storage staff routinely end up with a cluster that works until the first failure and then does not.
- Small clusters are inefficient: three way replication means a third of raw capacity is usable, and erasure coding needs enough failure domains to be safe, so the economics only work above a certain size.
- Recovery and rebalancing generate heavy internal traffic, so a failed disk can degrade client latency across the cluster unless backfill is throttled correctly beforehand.
- Upgrades must follow a strict daemon order across monitors, managers, OSDs and gateways, and a mistake in that order on a live cluster is difficult to reverse.
- Because it is self hosted, every byte served to the internet is transit you pay for on your own links, so the free licence does not mean free egress and bandwidth planning becomes your problem rather than the providers.
Nasuni
- Subscription is based on managed capacity, so cold data that would cost almost nothing in an archive tier keeps paying the full platform rate, and there is limited incentive structure to delete.
- Every site needs an appliance, virtual or physical, which is a footprint and a patching obligation at locations that previously had only a file server or nothing.
- A read that misses the local cache is fetched from object storage, so the first access to a cold large file is at cloud latency and users experience it as the system being slow at random.
- Global file lock serialises access across regions, so genuinely collaborative editing of the same large files still involves waiting for another site to release the lock rather than merging.
- The object storage underneath is your contract, so API transaction and egress charges from Azure or AWS land on your cloud bill and are not covered by the Nasuni subscription you were quoted against.
Pricing, plan by plan
Ceph
Free- CephFree
- Full functionality, no capacity limit
- Object, block and file interfaces
- Community support via mailing list and Slack
Nasuni
On request- Nasuni File Data Platform$undefined/year
- Subscription based on managed capacity
- Edge appliances at each site
- Continuous versioning and rapid recovery
Which should you pick?
Choose Ceph if
- You need rados object store.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on Linux.
- You also want rados gateway.
Choose Nasuni if
- You need edge caching appliances.
- You work on Web, Windows, VMware, Hyper-V, AWS, Azure.
- You also want object storage back end.
Questions people ask
- Is Ceph or Nasuni better?
- Neither clearly leads. Ceph starts at Free and Nasuni at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, Ceph or Nasuni?
- Ceph has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at Free for Ceph and On request for Nasuni.
- Does Ceph or Nasuni run on more platforms?
- Ceph runs on Linux. Nasuni runs on Web, Windows, VMware, Hyper-V, AWS, Azure.
- Can I use Ceph for free?
- Yes. Ceph has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. Nasuni starts at On request.
- What is Ceph best used for?
- Ceph is most often used for backing a private cloud where virtual machine disks, shared filesystems and an s3 endpoint all need the same hardware, growing past the point where a proprietary array upgrade costs more than a rack of commodity servers, research and media environments with petabytes of data and staff who can operate storage, providing an s3 endpoint on premises with multi site replication under your own control. Of those, backing a private cloud where virtual machine disks, shared filesystems and an s3 endpoint all need the same hardware and growing past the point where a proprietary array upgrade costs more than a rack of commodity servers are not what Nasuni is typically brought in for.
- What can Ceph do that Nasuni cannot?
- Ceph covers RADOS object store, RADOS Gateway, RBD block devices, CephFS. Nasuni covers Edge caching appliances, Object storage back end, Continuous versioning, Global file lock.
Answered from the vendors’ own pages
Ceph: How many nodes do I need to start?
Three is the practical minimum for a replicated cluster with real fault tolerance, and most production advice starts at five once you account for maintenance windows.
Nasuni: Do I still need a backup product?
That is the pitch: continuous versioning in object storage replaces the backup schedule for file data. Databases and virtual machines still need their own tooling.
Ceph: Is it faster than a SAN?
Not on single stream latency. It wins on aggregate throughput and on growing without a forklift upgrade, which is a different property from raw speed.
Nasuni: Who owns the storage account?
You do. Nasuni writes into object storage you contract for, which also means the cloud provider bills you directly for it.
Ceph: Can I buy support?
Yes. IBM sells IBM Storage Ceph and SUSE and others have offered supported builds; the upstream project itself is free.
Nasuni: How fast is recovery of a whole site?
An appliance can be serving files within hours because data is pulled on demand, but performance stays degraded while the cache refills.
Ceph: Should I use it just for S3?
If object is all you need, a dedicated object store is simpler to run. Ceph earns its complexity when you need block and file as well.
Nasuni: Is pricing published?
No. Nasuni sells through quotes based on managed capacity and site count, so comparisons need a real proposal rather than a list price.
Related pages
Other head to heads
- Ceph vs MinIO
- Ceph vs Panzura
- Ceph vs Scality RING
- Ceph vs VAST Data
- Ceph vs Backblaze
- Ceph vs Duplicati
- Ceph vs Storj
- Ceph vs Tigris
- Ceph vs Cloudflare R2
- Ceph vs Cloudian
- Ceph vs IDrive e2
- Ceph vs TrueNAS
- Ceph vs LucidLink
- Ceph vs pCloud
- Ceph vs Sync.com
- Ceph vs Nextcloud
- Ceph vs Veeam Backup & Replication
- Ceph vs Zerto
- Ceph vs Carbonite
- Ceph vs Tresorit
- Nasuni vs MinIO
- Nasuni vs Panzura
- Nasuni vs Scality RING
- Nasuni vs VAST Data
- Nasuni vs Backblaze
- Nasuni vs Duplicati
- Nasuni vs Storj
- Nasuni vs Tigris
- Nasuni vs Cloudflare R2
- Nasuni vs Cloudian
- Nasuni vs IDrive e2
- Nasuni vs TrueNAS
- Nasuni vs LucidLink
- Nasuni vs pCloud
- Nasuni vs Sync.com
- Nasuni vs Nextcloud
- Nasuni vs Veeam Backup & Replication
- Nasuni vs Zerto
- Nasuni vs Carbonite
- Nasuni vs Tresorit