Ceph vs Kubo (IPFS)
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted file sync & storage options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
Ceph
Distributed object, block, and file storage platform
VS
Kubo (IPFS)
Reference implementation of the InterPlanetary File System
| Feature | Ceph | Kubo (IPFS) |
|---|---|---|
| Category | File Sync & Storage | File Sync & Storage |
| License | LGPL-2.1 | MIT |
| Language | C++ | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Hard |
| Min. RAM | 4,096 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | docker, kubernetes, bare-metal | docker, binary, snap |
| GitHub stars | ★ 16,905 | ★ 17,093 |
| First released | 2006 | 2015 |
| Replaces | Amazon S3, Google Drive | Dropbox |
Why pick each one
Choose Ceph if…
- Released under the LGPL-2.1 license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Kubernetes-ready with Helm charts available
- Mature project with 16.9k GitHub stars
Choose Kubo (IPFS) if…
- Released under the MIT license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Mature project with 17.1k GitHub stars
- Written in Go
Frequently asked questions
Is Ceph or Kubo (IPFS) better?
Neither is universally better. Kubo (IPFS) has the larger community; both share a hard setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are Ceph and Kubo (IPFS) free and open-source?
Yes. Ceph is licensed under LGPL-2.1 and Kubo (IPFS) under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Ceph and Kubo (IPFS) with Docker?
Ceph: yes. Kubo (IPFS): yes.