Softwr

Cloud · head to head

Rook vs Soketi

Rook logo

Rook

Cloud

Kubernetes operator that deploys and manages Ceph storage clusters

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Soketi logo

Soketi

Developer Tools

Self-hosted, Pusher-compatible WebSockets server with a stalled maintenance record

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: Rook rook automates Ceph but does not abstract it, so an incident still demands Ceph expertise, and organisations without it end up hiring consultants at exactly the wrong moment.; Soketi maintenance has effectively stalled: the maintainer has said time is severely limited, releases are infrequent, and the community has been discussing whether the project is abandoned, which means security fixes may not arrive.
  • They diverge on capability: Rook covers Ceph operator, Soketi covers Pusher protocol compatibility.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Rook and Soketi actually diverge.

Attributes where Rook and Soketi differ
AttributeRookSoketi
PlatformsLinux, KubernetesLinux, macOS, Windows
CategoryCloudDeveloper Tools

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 Rook

  • Ceph operator
  • Block, file and object
  • Erasure coding
  • CSI driver
  • Automated upgrades
  • Multi-cluster mirroring

Only in Soketi

  • Pusher protocol compatibility
  • Presence and private channels
  • Horizontal scaling
  • App management backends
  • Webhooks
  • Prometheus metrics

What people use each for

The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.

Rook

  • An on-premises Kubernetes platform needing block, shared filesystem and S3 storage without buying three productsnot Soketi
  • A team that already runs Ceph and wants its lifecycle managed declaratively inside Kubernetesnot Soketi
  • A large cluster where three-way replication overhead is unaffordable and erasure coding is requirednot Soketi
  • An organisation building a private cloud that cannot use managed cloud storage services for residency reasonsnot Soketi

Soketi

  • A Laravel application that already uses Echo and wants to stop paying a hosted realtime providernot Rook
  • Realtime notifications or presence indicators where data must not leave your own infrastructure for compliance reasonsnot Rook
  • A local or CI environment that needs a Pusher-compatible server without hitting a paid accountnot Rook
  • A high-connection-count application where hosted per-connection pricing has become the largest line in the infrastructure billnot Rook

Where each one falls short

Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.

Rook

  • Rook automates Ceph but does not abstract it, so an incident still demands Ceph expertise, and organisations without it end up hiring consultants at exactly the wrong moment.
  • There is no vendor and no SLA; the realistic commercial support routes are IBM Red Hat OpenShift Data Foundation or an independent Ceph consultancy, both of which change the cost picture entirely.
  • Ceph is resource hungry, needing substantial memory and dedicated disks per OSD, so the hardware cost of a properly sized cluster is often underestimated.
  • Recovery and rebalancing after a disk or node failure generates heavy background input and output that can degrade application performance for hours, which surprises teams sizing for steady state.
  • Minimum viable clusters require several nodes with several disks each, so it is impractical at small scale and the entry hardware cost exceeds simpler alternatives.

Soketi

  • Maintenance has effectively stalled: the maintainer has said time is severely limited, releases are infrequent, and the community has been discussing whether the project is abandoned, which means security fixes may not arrive.
  • Dependency drift on Node and uWebSockets.js will eventually force you to fork or migrate, and that cost is unbudgeted at the point you adopt it.
  • There is no commercial support to buy, so a production incident at three in the morning is entirely your problem with no escalation path.
  • Scaling beyond a single node needs Redis and careful configuration, and getting presence channels correct across nodes is a genuine source of subtle bugs.
  • It implements the Pusher protocol rather than tracking it, so any protocol feature Pusher adds later will not appear, and the compatibility guarantee slowly decays.

Pricing, plan by plan

Rook

Free
  • RookFree
    • Apache 2.0 licensed, no licence fee
    • Graduated CNCF project
    • Community support via GitHub and Slack only

Soketi

Free
  • SoketiFree
    • MIT licensed
    • Unlimited connections subject to your own hardware
    • No vendor billing

Which should you pick?

Choose Rook if

  • You need ceph operator.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, Kubernetes.
  • You also want block, file and object.
Rook review

Choose Soketi if

  • You need pusher protocol compatibility.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, macOS, Windows.
  • You also want presence and private channels.
Soketi review

Questions people ask

Is Rook or Soketi better?
Neither clearly leads. Rook starts at Free and Soketi at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Rook or Soketi?
Rook starts at Free and Soketi at Free.
Does Rook or Soketi run on more platforms?
Rook runs on Linux, Kubernetes. Soketi runs on Linux, macOS, Windows.
Can I use Rook for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is Rook best used for?
Rook is most often used for an on-premises kubernetes platform needing block, shared filesystem and s3 storage without buying three products, a team that already runs ceph and wants its lifecycle managed declaratively inside kubernetes, a large cluster where three-way replication overhead is unaffordable and erasure coding is required, an organisation building a private cloud that cannot use managed cloud storage services for residency reasons. Of those, an on-premises kubernetes platform needing block, shared filesystem and s3 storage without buying three products and a team that already runs ceph and wants its lifecycle managed declaratively inside kubernetes are not what Soketi is typically brought in for.
What can Rook do that Soketi cannot?
Rook covers Ceph operator, Block, file and object, Erasure coding, CSI driver. Soketi covers Pusher protocol compatibility, Presence and private channels, Horizontal scaling, App management backends.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Rook: Who supports it in production?

Nobody by default. IBM sells Red Hat OpenShift Data Foundation, which is supported Rook and Ceph, and independent consultancies sell Ceph support. Decide this before deployment.

Soketi: Is Soketi still maintained?

Barely. The maintainer has stated that available time is very limited and releases have been sparse; treat it as community-maintained.

Rook: Does it need Ceph knowledge?

Yes. Rook handles deployment and routine operations, but troubleshooting a degraded cluster is a Ceph skill and there is no way around it.

Soketi: Do I need to change my client code?

No. Pusher client SDKs and Laravel Echo work by changing the host, port and credentials.

Rook: Can it replace an object storage appliance?

Functionally yes, through the RADOS gateway, but you take on the operations that an appliance vendor would otherwise carry.

Soketi: What does it cost?

Nothing in licence fees. It is MIT licensed; you pay for the server it runs on.

Soketi: What are people moving to?

Laravel Reverb for Laravel applications, and Sockudo, a Rust reimplementation, for others.

Share

Related pages

More on Rook

More on Soketi

Keep looking

Other head to heads