$ k8scalc compare longhorn rook/ceph
Longhorn vs Rook/Ceph
Longhorn vs Rook/Ceph for Kubernetes distributed storage — compare setup complexity, resource usage, performance, object storage, and production suitability.
FeatureLonghornRook/Ceph
Setup complexity
Low (Helm + UI)
High (CRDs + config)
RAM per storage node
~300 MB
1–2 GB
Block storage (RWO)
Yes—
Yes (RBD)—
Shared filesystem (RWX)
No
Yes (CephFS)
S3-compatible storage
No
Yes (Ceph RGW)
Web UI
Built-in
Rook / Ceph dashboard
S3 backup
Built-in
Via Velero
Automatic replica healing
Yes—
Yes—
CNCF project
Yes—
Yes—
Best cluster size
<20 nodes—
>10 nodes, heavy storage—
Verdict
Longhorn is the right choice for small to medium clusters (under 20 nodes). It installs in minutes via Helm, includes a web UI, automatic replica healing, and built-in S3 backup. Rook/Ceph is for large-scale storage requirements: it adds object storage (Ceph RGW), shared filesystems (CephFS), and handles petabyte-scale with better performance. But Ceph requires significantly more resources (1–2 GB RAM per OSD node) and operational expertise. For a self-hosted Hetzner cluster with a few nodes, Longhorn is the obvious choice.