File Storage · head to head
Ceph vs Zipkin
Ceph
File Storage
Open source distributed storage providing object, block and file from one cluster
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -
The short version
- 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.; Zipkin less active development and smaller community momentum than Jaeger
- They diverge on capability: Ceph covers RADOS object store, Zipkin covers Trace collection and search.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which Ceph and Zipkin actually diverge.
Identical on both: starting price (Free), pricing model (Open source, no licence fee), free tier (Yes), user rating (Not yet rated).
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 Zipkin
- Trace collection and search
- Dependency diagram
- Simple deployment
- Pluggable storage
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 Zipkin
- Growing past the point where a proprietary array upgrade costs more than a rack of commodity serversnot Zipkin
- Research and media environments with petabytes of data and staff who can operate storagenot Zipkin
- Providing an S3 endpoint on premises with multi site replication under your own controlnot Zipkin
Zipkin
- Adding distributed tracing quickly without standing up heavy infrastructurenot Ceph
- Java and Spring Boot estates, where instrumentation support is long-establishednot Ceph
- Small deployments where Jaeger is more than the problem requiresnot 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.
Zipkin
- Less active development and smaller community momentum than Jaeger
- Fewer features: sampling, storage options and UI are all more limited
- The interface is dated and slower to work with on large trace volumes
- Tracing alone still leaves metrics and logs in separate tools during an incident
Pricing, plan by plan
Ceph
Free- CephFree
- Full functionality, no capacity limit
- Object, block and file interfaces
- Community support via mailing list and Slack
Zipkin
Free- ZipkinFree
- Full functionality
- No usage limits
- Community support
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 Zipkin if
- You need trace collection and search.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Self-hosted.
- You also want dependency diagram.
Questions people ask
- Is Ceph or Zipkin better?
- Neither clearly leads. Ceph starts at Free and Zipkin at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, Ceph or Zipkin?
- Ceph starts at Free and Zipkin at Free.
- Does Ceph or Zipkin run on more platforms?
- Ceph runs on Linux. Zipkin runs on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Self-hosted.
- Can I use Ceph for free?
- Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
- 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 Zipkin is typically brought in for.
- What can Ceph do that Zipkin cannot?
- Ceph covers RADOS object store, RADOS Gateway, RBD block devices, CephFS. Zipkin covers Trace collection and search, Dependency diagram, Simple deployment, Pluggable storage.
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.
Zipkin: Is Zipkin free?
Yes, open source with no licence fee.
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.
Zipkin: Zipkin or Jaeger?
Jaeger has more momentum, more features and CNCF backing. Zipkin is lighter and quicker to stand up, and remains well supported in the Java and Spring ecosystem.
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.
Zipkin: Does Zipkin work with OpenTelemetry?
Yes. OpenTelemetry can export to Zipkin, which is now the usual way to instrument for it.
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.
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 Jaeger
- Ceph vs Grafana Cloud
- Ceph vs VictoriaMetrics
- Ceph vs Deno Deploy
- Ceph vs Anyscale
- Ceph vs Cerebrium
- Ceph vs Go
- Ceph vs Orca Security
- Ceph vs Heroku
- Ceph vs Vault
- Ceph vs Beam Cloud
- Ceph vs Caddy
- Ceph vs DeepInfra
- Ceph vs OpenTelemetry
- Ceph vs Thanos
- Ceph vs Linkerd
- Ceph vs Longhorn
- Zipkin vs MinIO
- Zipkin vs Panzura
- Zipkin vs Scality RING
- Zipkin vs VAST Data
- Zipkin vs Backblaze
- Zipkin vs Duplicati
- Zipkin vs Storj
- Zipkin vs Tigris
- Zipkin vs Cloudflare R2
- Zipkin vs Cloudian
- Zipkin vs IDrive e2
- Zipkin vs TrueNAS
- Zipkin vs LucidLink
- Zipkin vs pCloud
- Zipkin vs Sync.com
- Zipkin vs Jaeger
- Zipkin vs Grafana Cloud
- Zipkin vs VictoriaMetrics
- Zipkin vs Deno Deploy
- Zipkin vs Anyscale
- Zipkin vs Cerebrium
- Zipkin vs Go
- Zipkin vs Orca Security
- Zipkin vs Heroku
- Zipkin vs Vault
- Zipkin vs Beam Cloud
- Zipkin vs Caddy
- Zipkin vs DeepInfra
- Zipkin vs OpenTelemetry
- Zipkin vs Thanos
- Zipkin vs Linkerd
- Zipkin vs Longhorn