Introduction

In the fast-evolving landscape of Kubernetes, choosing the right persistent storage backend is crucial for performance, scalability, and operational efficiency. This blog post dives into four widely-used open-source storage solutions — Ceph, GlusterFS, Longhorn, and OpenEBS — and compares them using real-world benchmarks, community feedback, and a technical deep dive into deployment, observability, disaster recovery, and data consistency aspects. Whether you’re running a large-scale production cluster or a lightweight edge deployment, this guide will help you make an informed decision. This comprehensive Kubernetes storage comparison evaluates the most used options in production and cloud-native environments.

TL;DR: Ceph excels in scalability and robustness; Longhorn wins in simplicity; OpenEBS offers modularity; GlusterFS is legacy.

1. Overview of Compared Solutions

Storage	Type	Architecture	Kubernetes Native	Community Activity
Ceph	Block, Object, FS	RADOS with optional RGW	Medium (via Rook)	Very Active
GlusterFS	Distributed File System	Peer-to-peer	No	Declining
Longhorn	Distributed Block Storage	K8s-native with CRDs	Yes	Active
OpenEBS	Modular Block Storage	Engines: Jiva, cStor, Mayasto	Yes	Active

2. Benchmark Setup and Methodology

• Kubernetes Version: v1.29.3
• Cluster Specs: 3-node cluster, each with 4 vCPU, 16GB RAM, 500GB NVMe SSDs, connected via 10GbE network
• Storage Configurations:
  • Ceph: 3x replication, deployed via Rook with Bluestore OSDs (RBD used for block tests)
  • Longhorn: Default replica count (3), snapshotting enabled
  • OpenEBS: Mayastor engine used for performance, replication factor 2
  • GlusterFS: 3-brick replicated volume
• Tools Used: fio, sysbench, bonnie++
• fio Command Template:

fio --name=randwrite --ioengine=libaio --rw=randwrite --bs=4k --numjobs=4 --iodepth=32 --size=1G --runtime=60 --group_reporting

• Tests Conducted:
  • 4K Random Read/Write IOPS
  • 1MB Sequential Read/Write Throughput
  • Latency under write pressure
  • PVC provisioning/deletion time
  • Replica sync lag under simulated network interruption

These tests form the foundation of our Kubernetes storage comparison methodology

3. Kubernetes Storage Benchmark Results: Ceph vs Longhorn vs OpenEBS vs Gluster

Below are the benchmark results from our Kubernetes storage comparison across Ceph, Longhorn, OpenEBS, and GlusterFS.

A. Performance (IOPS & Throughput)

• Random Write IOPS (4K):
  • Ceph: ~32K
    Ceph showed strong IOPS but with high CPU usage, expected due to 3x replication and journaling overhead.
  • OpenEBS (Mayastor): ~28K
    Excellent performance with lower CPU load than Ceph, but lacks S3/object features.
  • Longhorn: ~19K
    Decent output for edge/SMB use cases; latency spikes occasionally under pressure.
  • GlusterFS: ~11K
    Limited performance likely due to FUSE layer and lack of native integration with Kubernetes.
• Sequential Read Throughput (MB/s):
  • Ceph: 890
    High throughput achieved thanks to parallel RBD reads and NVMe backend.
  • Longhorn: 610
    Good performance, but serialization of replicas slightly limits throughput.
  • OpenEBS: 720
    Efficient use of Mayastor’s SPDK-based engine boosts sequential reads.
  • GlusterFS: 480
    Performance bottlenecked by user-space operations and metadata sync.

B. Latency (Avg. Write, ms):

• Ceph: 2.4ms
  Low latency due to RBD block mode, albeit with higher resource cost.
• Longhorn: 4.7ms
• OpenEBS: 3.5ms
• GlusterFS: 6.3ms

C. PVC Provisioning Time

• OpenEBS: 2s
• Longhorn: 4s
• Ceph (via Rook): 6s
• GlusterFS: 8s

D. CPU & Memory Utilization (Idle/Active):

• Ceph: High resource usage, especially under load
  RADOS journaling and replication cost visible in load average.
• GlusterFS: Moderate, spikes under write-heavy ops
• Longhorn: Lightweight at rest, moderate under load
• OpenEBS: Varies by engine (Jiva low, Mayastor high)

E. Sample YAML: PVC for OpenEBS Mayastor

apiVersion: v1
kind: PersistentVolumeClaim
metadata:
 name: mayastor-pvc
spec:
accessModes:
- ReadWriteOnce
resources:
 requests:
  storage: 10Gi
storageClassName: mayastor-io-sc

F. Sample fio Output (Ceph RBD)

write: IOPS=31.5k, BW=123MiB/s, Latency=2.2ms
cpu: usr=6.5%, sys=13.1%

Looking for real-world YAML samples or performance test scripts?
Contact the Kubedo team — we’re happy to share tailored templates or walk you through a deployment suited to your needs.

4. DR and Backup Features in Kubernetes Storage Solutions

Storage	Backup Support	Remote DR Option
Ceph	Yes (rbd export, RGW, snapshots)	Yes (multisite RGW, mirroring)
Longhorn	Yes (NFS, S3)	Yes (UI-based)
OpenEBS	Partial (engine-specific)	Limited
GlusterFS	Manual only	No

Ceph provides advanced DR capabilities such as asynchronous mirroring and geo-replication for object storage via RGW. Longhorn simplifies DR with its built-in backup UI and remote restore support. OpenEBS support depends on the engine; for example, cStor supports snapshots and backup to remote PVCs. GlusterFS lacks any out-of-the-box backup or DR functionality.

5. Data Consistency in Kubernetes Storage Comparison

Scenario	Ceph	Longhorn	OpenEBS	GlusterFS
Node Failure	✅ No data loss (with 3x replication)	✅ Data intact (with 3 replicas)	✅ Depends on engine	⚠️ Risk of split-brain
Network Partition	✅ Handles via quorum	⚠️ May delay sync	⚠️ Engine dependent	❌ High risk
Write Consistency	✅ Strong (RADOS sync)	⚠️ Depends on sync status	⚠️ Varies by engine	⚠️ Eventual

6. Security in Kubernetes Storage Compariso

Feature	Ceph	Longhorn	OpenEBS	GlusterFS
RBAC/Namespace Isolatio	✅ Full	✅ Partial	✅ Full	❌ None
Encryption at Rest	✅ Yes (dm-crypt, luks	⚠️ Limited	⚠️ Engine specific	❌ None
TLS In-Transit	✅ mTLS	✅ Optional	⚠️ Partial	❌ None

7. Volume Binding Modes & Provisioning

Kubernetes offers two volume binding strategies:

• Immediate: volume is bound as soon as the PVC is created.
• WaitForFirstConsumer: volume is not bound until a pod using it is scheduled.

Some solutions like Longhorn benefit significantly from WaitForFirstConsumer to optimize scheduling across nodes. Here’s an example PVC spec using that mode:

volumeBindingMode: WaitForFirstConsumer

This strategy prevents scheduling pods on nodes that lack access to storage volumes, especially relevant in edge or hybrid deployments.

8. Comparative Decision Matrix (Visual Summary)

Criteria	Ceph	Longhorn	OpenEBS	GlusterFS
Scale-out Capability	✅ Excellent	⚠️ Limited	✅ Good	⚠️ Medium
Object Storage Support	✅ RGW (S3-compatible)	❌	❌	❌
Snapshot + Backup	✅ CSI + native tools	✅ UI + S3/NFS	⚠️ Engine-dependent	❌ Manual only
Observability & Alerting	✅ Prometheus + Exporters	✅ Built-in	⚠️ Partial	❌ None
Production-readiness	✅ Enterprise-grade	⚠️ Edge-focused	✅ Dev/prod hybrid	❌ Legacy use only
Complexity / Learning Curve	🔺 High	✅ Low	⚠️ Medium	🔺 High

Use this matrix to quickly align your technical needs with the most suitable solution. If you’re unsure, start with Longhorn or OpenEBS, and graduate to Ceph as operational maturity increases.

9. Conclusion & Recommendation

Ceph documentation | Longhorn documentation | OpenEBS documentation

Use Case	Recommended Solution
Large-scale production storage	Ceph
Lightweight/Edge deployments	Longhorn
Stateful apps with modular needs	OpenEBS
File storage in legacy systems	GlusterFS (if needed)

Final Word: If you’re building a future-proof, S3-compatible, highly available storage backend on Kubernetes, Ceph (via Rook) is still king — but it comes at a cost. For teams prioritizing ease and speed, Longhorn or OpenEBS offer Kubernetes-native simplicity without the steep learning curve.

For those aiming to run storage at scale, ensure you’re choosing solutions with robust observability, flexible replication, and known performance trade-offs.

We hope this Kubernetes storage comparison helps guide your infrastructure decisions.

10. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Is Ceph better than Longhorn for Kubernetes?

Ceph offers superior scalability, multi-protocol support (block, file, object), and is better suited for large-scale, production-grade clusters. Longhorn, on the other hand, is easier to deploy and manage in smaller Kubernetes environments.

Which Kubernetes storage backend is easiest to manage?

Longhorn is known for its user-friendly web UI and native Kubernetes integration, making it ideal for teams with minimal ops resources.

Can OpenEBS replace Ceph or Longhorn?

OpenEBS is a great option when modularity is needed and storage per pod is required. However, it lacks the unified architecture and S3 object storage support that Ceph provides.

What is the best storage solution for edge clusters?

Longhorn is ideal for edge due to its low resource footprint and simple architecture.

Which one supports S3-compatible object storage?

Only Ceph supports S3 via its RGW (RADOS Gateway) interface.

Still unsure which Kubernetes storage solution fits your use case? Talk to the Kubedo team — we help teams design, deploy, and operate Kubernetes-native storage that scales.