MinIO is now in maintenance-mode
github.com280 points by hajtom 4 hours ago
280 points by hajtom 4 hours ago
What a story. EOL the open source foundation of your commercial product, to which many people contributed, to turn it into a closed source "A-Ff*ing-I Store" .. seriously what the ...
Didn't contribute to MinIO, but if they accepted external contributions without making them sign a CLA, they cannot change the license without asking every external contributor for consent to the license change. As it is AGPL, they still have to provide the source code somewhere.
IANAL, of course
They required a "Community Contribution License" in each PR description, which licensed each contribution under Apache 2 as an inbound license.
Meanwhile, MinIO's own contributions and the distribution itself (outbound license) were AGPL licensed.
It's effectively a CLA, just a bit weaker, since they're still bound by the terms of Apache 2 vs. a full license assignment like most CLAs.
Well, you can not have a product without having "AI" somewhere in the name anymore. It's the law.
I still don't understand what the difference is.
What is an AI Stor (e missing on purpose because that is how it is branded: https://www.min.io/product/aistor)
Might be because of this other storage product named that https://github.com/NVIDIA/aistore
Does anyone use this? I was setting it up a few months ago but it felt very complicated compared to MinIO (or alternatives). Is there a sort of minikube-like tool I could use here?
Looks like AI slop
Replication
A trusted identity provider is a
key component to single sign on.
It’s probably just Minio but it costs more money.
It can store things for AI workloads (and non-AI workloads, but who’s counting…)
This is why I don't bother with AGPL released by a company (use or contribute).
Choosing AGPL with contributors giving up rights is a huge red flag for "hey, we are going to rug pull".
Just AGPL by companies without even allowing contributor rights is saying, "hey, we are going to attempt to squeeze profit out and don't want competition on our SaaS offering."
I wish companies would stop trying to get free code out of the open source community. There have been so many rug pulls it should be expected now.
There is https://github.com/seaweedfs/seaweedfs
I haver not used it but will be likely a good minio alternative for people who want to run a server and don't use minio just as s3 client.
Is it stable now? Last time I checked, the amount of correctness bugs being fixed in the Git history wasn't very confidence-inspiring.
It sucks that S3 somehow became the defacto object storage interface, the API is terrible IMO. Too many headers, too many unknowns with support. WebDAV isn't any better, but I feel like we missed an opportunity here for a standardized interface.
?
Its like GET <namespace>/object, PUT <namespace>/object. To me its the most obvious mapping of HTTP to immutable object key value storage you could imagine.
It is bad that the control plane responses can be malformed XML (e.g keys are not escaped right if you put XML control characters in object paths) but that can be forgiven as an oversight.
Its not perfect but I don't think its a strange API at all.
That may be what S3 is like, but what the S3 API is is this: https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/s3
My browser prints that out to 413 pages with a naive print preview. You can squeeze it to 350 pretty reasonably with a bit of scaling before it starts getting to awfully small type on the page.
Yes, there's a simple API with simple capabilities struggling to get out there, but pointing that out is merely the first step on the thousand-mile journey of determining what, exactly, that is. "Everybody uses 10% of Microsoft Word, the problem is, they all use a different 10%", basically. If you sat down with even 5 relevant stakeholders and tried to define that "simple API" you'd be shocked what you discover and how badly Hyrum's Law will bite you even at that scale.
It gets complex with ACLs for permissions, lifecycle controls, header controls and a bunch of other features that are needed on S3 scale but not at smaller provider scale.
And many S3-compatible alternatives (probably most but the big ones like Ceph) don't implement all of the features.
For example for lifecycles backblaze have completely different JSON syntax
Last I checked the user guide to the API was 3500 pages.
3500 pages to describe upload and download, basically. That is pretty strange in my book.
Everything uses poorly documented, sometimes inconsistent HTTP headers that read like afterthoughts/tech debt. An S3 standard implementation has to have amazon branding all over it (x-amz) which is gross.
I suspect they learned a lot over the years and the API shows the scars. In their defense, they did go first.
I mean… it’s straight up an Amazon product, not like it’s an IETF standard or something.
!!!
I’ve seen a lot of bad takes and this is one of them.
Listing keys is weird (is it V1 or V2)?
The authentication relies on an obtuse and idiosyncratic signature algorithm.
And S3 in practice responds with malformed XML, as you point out.
I have trouble liking it over WebDAV, as a protocol.
To be fair. We still have an opportunity to create a standardized interface for object storage. Funnily enough when Microsoft made their own they did not go for S3 compatible APIs, but Microsoft usually builds APIs their customers can use.
It was better. When it first came out, it was a pretty simple API, at least simpler than alternatives (IIRC, I could just be thinking with nostalgia).
I think it's only gotten as complicated as it has as new features have been organically added. I'm sure there are good use cases for everything, but it does beg the question -- is a better API possible for object storage? What's the minimal API required? GET/POST/DELETE?
I suspect there is no decent "minimal" API. Once you get to tens of millions of objects in a given prefix, you need server side filtering logic. And to make it worse, you need multiple ways to do that.
For example, did you know that date filtering in S3 is based on string prefix matching against an ISO8601/RFC3339 style string representation? Want all objects created between 2024-01-01 and 2024-06-30? You'll need to construct six YYYY-MM prefixes (one per month) for datetime and add them as filter array elements.
As a result the service abbreviation is also incorrect these days. Originally the first S stood for "Simple". With all the additions they've had to bolt on, S2 would be far more appropriate a name.
Like everything it starts off simple but slowly with every feature added over 19 years Simple Storage is it not.
S3 has 3 independent permissions mechanisms.
S3 isn't JSON
it's storing a [utf8-string => bytes] mapping with some very minimal metadata. But that can be whatever you want. JSON, CBOR, XML, actual document formats etc.
And it's default encoding for listing, management operations and similar is XML....
> but I feel like we missed an opportunity here for a standardized interface.
except S3 _is_ the de-facto standard interface which most object storage system speaks
but I agree it's kinda a pain
and commonly done partial (both feature wise and partial wrong). E.g. S3 store utf8 strings, not utf8 file paths (like e.g. minio does), that being wrong seems fine but can lead to a lot of problems (not just being incompatible for some applications but also having unexpected perf. characteristics for others) making it only partial S3 compatible. Similar some implementations random features like bulk delete or support `If-Match`/`If-Non-Match` headers can also make them S3 incompatible for some use cases.
So yeah, a new external standard which makes it clear what you should expect to be supported to be standard compatible would be nice.
They have been removing features from the open source version for a while.
The closest alternative seems to be RustFS. Has anyone tried it? I was waiting until they support site replication before switching.
Garage is a popular alternative to Minio. https://garagehq.deuxfleurs.fr
I hadn't heard of RustFS and it looks interesting, although I nearly clicked away based on the sheer volume of marketing wank on their main page. The GitHub repo is here: https://github.com/rustfs/rustfs
I use garage at home, single node setup. It's very easy and fast, I'm happy with it. You're missing out on a UI for it, but MountainDuck / CyberDuck solves that problem for me.
Yeah, that page is horrendous and looks super sketchy. It looks like a very professional fishing attempt to get unsuspecting developers to download malware.
They have a lot of obviously fake quotes from non-existent people at positions that don’t even mention what company it is. The pictures are misgendered and even contain pictures of kids.
Feels like the whole page is AI generated.
I maintain an S3 client that has a test matrix for the commonly used S3 implementations. RustFS regularly breaks it. Last time it did I removed it from the matrix because deleteObject suddenly didn't delete the object any more. It is extremely unstable in its current form. The website states that it is not in a production-ready state, which I can confirm.
I'd take a look at garage (didn't try seaweed yet).
If it is not an Apache/CNCF/LinuxFoundation project, it can be a rug pull aimed at using open source for getting people in the door only. They were never open for commits, and now they have abandoned open source altogether.
Might be coming soon based on this: https://docs.rustfs.com/features/replication/
From what I looked still very fresh project, to the point running out of date minio version will most likely be less problematic than latest rustfs
Sad to see these same people were behind GlusterFS.
Well, maybe they are using that experience to build something better this time around? One can hope...
Although promising, RustFS is a Chinese product. This would be a non-starter for many.
I've been working on https://github.com/uroni/hs5 as a replacement with similar goals to early minio.
The core is stable at this point, but the user/policy management and the web interface is still in the works.
Looks like you cleanly point out their violation of the AGPL. I wish I were a lawyer with nothing better to do, I'd definitely be suing the MinIO group, there's no way they can cleanly remove the AGPL code outsiders contributed.
I don't think there would be an issue with removing AGPL contributed code. You can't force someone to distribute something they don't want to. IANAL, but I believe that what (all?) copyright in software is most concerned with is the active distribution of code -- not the removal of code.
That said, if there was contributed AGPL code, they couldn't change the license on that part of the code w/o a CLA. AGPL also doesn't necessarily mean you have to make the code publicly available, just available to those that you give the program to (I'm assuming AGPL is like the GPL in this regard).
So, that I'd be curious about it is -- (1) is there any contributed AGPL code in the current version? (2) what license is granted to customers of the enterprise version?
Minio can completely use whatever license they want for their code. But, if there was contributed code w/o a CLA, then I'm not sure how a commercial/enterprise license would play with contriubuted AGPL code. It would be an interesting question to find out.
> AGPL also doesn't necessarily mean you have to make the code publicly available, just available to those that you give the program to (I'm assuming AGPL is like the GPL in this regard).
This is the crucial difference between the AGPL and the GPL: the AGPL requires you to make the code available to users for whom you run the code, as well as users you give the program to.
But, for minio, the users aren't the public... the users are their enterprise customers (now). So, to fulfill the AGPL, they'd have to give the code to their users, but that doesn't necessarily mean to the public at large (via GitHub).
But, what I don't know is -- is there any other AGPL code that minio doesn't own, but that was otherwise contributed to minio? Because, presumably, they aren't actually giving their customers the minio program with an AGPL license, rather they have whatever their enterprise license agreement is. If this is the case, and there is AGPL code that's not owned by Minio, I can foresee problems in the future.
That's definitely not how its written or interpreted. Microsoft had to release code because they touched GPL code some years back I think it was for HyperV? We're talking about a company with many lawyers at the ready not being able to skirt the GPL in any way, like undoing the code.
Additionally, in order to CHANGE the license, if others contributed code under that license, you would need their permission, on top of the fact, you cannot retroactively revoke the license for previous versions.
What I'm really curious about is if their most recent enterprise versions/code must be released under AGPL. And if so, can they restrict customers from distributing AGPL'd code through an enterprise contract?
I can't see how this is a defensible position for Minio, but I'm not sure they really care that much at this point.
I don't see a contributor licensing agreement (CLA), so you may be right.
(I personally choose not to contribute to projects with CLAs, I don't want my contributions to become closed-source in the future.)
Its worse than I thought:
https://blog.min.io/weka-violates-minios-open-source-license...
They think they can revoke someone's AGPL license. That's not at all how that license works!
I think that's exactly how that license works. Basically, the license is the only thing that grants you rights to redistribute the licensed work. Copyright law otherwise forbids it. And the license itself only grants you the right to redistribute the work as long as you comply with its terms. If you violate them, the license no longer applies, and you no longer have any legal right to distribute the work or any derived works.
I have zero knowledge about the squabble between MinIO and Weka. I don't know, and don't care, if either of them is in the right. But if Weka isn't complying with the terms of the AGPL, then MinIO has the legal right to tell them they can no longer distribute MinIO's licensed work at all, because nothing else grants them that privilege.
If that weren't true, there'd be no teeth to the A?GPL whatsoever.
Yes, it is. Although https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html says
> All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met.
it also says
> You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).
> However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation.
> Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.
This is in common with the GPLv3. It is much longer than the corresponding terms of the GPLv2 to remedy a sort of fragility in the GPLv2 which says your license terminates permanently if you ever violate the GPL, even temporarily and by accident.
I have no knowledge of whether Weka did or didn't violate the license, but if they did violate it and refused to fix it, MinIO's revocation of their license is completely in accordance with the terms of the license as written. I don't think a GPL termination case has yet been litigated.
> I don't think a GPL violation case has yet been litigated.
It has, though it has mainly been under the "breach of contract" approach and not under "copyright infringement" approach. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigation
Of course you're correct. I meant to say no GPL termination case, and I've corrected my comment to say that. By that I mean cases where the defendant had cured their breach of the GPL but continued exercising the rights the GPL would have given them but for the termination clause.
I'm not a contributor to Minio. This is its own separate thing.
I do have a separate AGPL project (see github) where I have nearly all of the copyright and have looked into how one would be able to enforce this in the US at some point and it did look pretty bleak -- it is a civil suit where you have to show damages etc. but IANAL.
I did not like the FUD they were spreading about AGPL at the time since it is a good license for end-user applications.
Oh I didn't mean to imply yours was, yours is C++ theirs is Go. The AGPL is fine, not a license for me, but its fine. I'm more of an MIT license kind of guy. If you're going to do the AGPL thing and then try to secure funding, make sure you own the whole thing first.
Interesting! I like the relative simplicity and durability guarantees. I can see using this for dev and proof of concept. Or in situations where HA/RAID are handled lower in the stack.
What is the performance like for reads, writes, and deletes?
And just to play devil's advocate: What would you say to someone who argues that you've essentially reimplemented a filesystem?
It uses LMDB, so if the object mapping fits in memory that should be pretty optimal for reading, while using the build-in Linux page cache and not a separate one (important for testing use cases). For write/deletes it has a bit of write-amplification due to the copy-on-write btree. I've implemented a separate, optional WAL for this and also a mode where writes/delete can be bundeled in a transaction, but in practice I think the performance difference should not matter.
W.r.t. filesystem: Yes, aware of this. Initially used minio and also implemented the use case directly on XFS as well and only had problems at larger scales (that still fit on a machine) with it. Ceph went into a similar direction with BlueStore (reimplementing the filesystem, but with RocksDB).
Fork in Linux foundation incoming. Minio will revert in 1-2 years, but too late, community will move on and never return, reputation lost forever
Just watch them harass fork users with proprietary stacks as they used to:
https://github.com/minio/minio/issues/13308#issuecomment-929...
https://github.com/minio/minio/discussions/13571#discussionc...
Oh no, I used MinIO once or twice for some unlicensed software.
Should I contact a MinIO salesman to purchase an enterprise license ASAP or is it fine if I license my kids and advent of code solutions under the AGPLv3 license ?
Shocker... they abandoned POSIX compatibility, built a massively over-complicated product, then failed to compete with things like Ceph on the metal side or ubiquitous S3/R2/B2 on the cloud side.
No, they rebranded to AIStor and are now selling to AI companies.
Minio is/was pretty solid product for places where rack of servers for Ceph wasn't an option (it does have quite a bit higher memory requirements), or you just need a bit of S3 (like we have small local instances that just run as build cache for CI/CD)
But that's not where money is
> they abandoned POSIX compatibility, built a massively over-complicated product
This is a wild sentence--how can you criticize them for abandoning POSIX support __and__ building a massively over-complicated product? Making a reliable POSIX system is inherently very complex.
I think the criticism (just interpreting the post, don’t know anything about the technical situation) is that the complication is not necessary/worthwhile.
POSIX can be complicated, but it puts you in a nice ecosystem, so for some use-cases complex POSIX support is not over complicated. It is just… appropriately complicated.
Minio is more or less feature complete for most use cases. Actually the last big update of minio removed features (the UI). I am using minio for 5 years and haven't messed with it or used any new thingie for the last 5 years (i.e since I installed it); I only update to new versions.
So if the minio maintainers (or anybody that forks the project and wants to work it) can fix any security issues that may occur I don't see any problems with using it.
> Actually the last big update of minio removed features (the UI)
AFIK they removed it only to move it to their paid version, didn't they?
Well I didn't mind when they removed it and certainly I didn't consider their paid version which is way too expensive for most use cases.
The UI was useful when first configuring the buckets and permissions; if you've got it working (and don't need to change anything) you're good to go. Also, everything can be configured without the UI (not so easily of course).
I used it for my experiments in Docker. I once or two used the UI, I always connected through python.
As a note ceph (rook on kubernetes) which is distributed blockstorage has a built in s3 endpoint support
I use this image on my VPS, it was the last update before they neutered the community version
quay.io/minio/minio:RELEASE.2025-04-22T22-12-26Z
This is a way too old version. You should use a newer one instead by downloading the source and built the binaries yourself.
Here's a simple script that does it automagically (you'll need golang installed):
> build-minio-ver.sh
#!/bin/bash
set -e
VERSION=$(git ls-remote --tags https://github.com/minio/minio.git | \
grep -Eo 'RELEASE\.[0-9T-]+Z' | sort | tail -n1)
echo "Building MinIO $VERSION ..."
rm -rf /tmp/minio-build
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/minio/minio.git /tmp/minio-build
cd /tmp/minio-build
git fetch --tags
git checkout "$VERSION"
echo "Building minio..."
CGO_ENABLED=0 go build -trimpath \
-ldflags "-s -w \
-X github.com/minio/minio/cmd.Version=$VERSION \
-X github.com/minio/minio/cmd.ReleaseTag=$VERSION \
-X github.com/minio/minio/cmd.CommitID=$(git rev-parse HEAD)" \
-o "$OLDPWD/minio"
echo " Binary created at: $(realpath "$OLDPWD/minio")"
"$OLDPWD/minio" --versionSame here, since I'm the only one using my instance. But, you should be aware that there is an CVE in that version that allows any account level to increase their own permissions to admin level, so it's inherently unsafe
please copy and paste outrage from previous discussions to not waste more time
Is this not the best thing that could happen? Like now its in maintenance, it can be forked without any potential license change in the future, or any new features that are in that license change... This allows anyone to continue working on this, right? Or did i miss something?
> ... it can be forked without any potential license change in the future ...
It is useful to remember that one may fork at the commit before a license change.
It is also useful to remember that MinIO has historically held to an absurd interpretation of the AGPL -- that it spreads (again, according to them) to software that communicates with MinIO via the REST API/CLI.
I assume forks, and software that uses them will be held to the same requirements.
Pretty sure you can’t retroactively apply a restrictive license, so that was never a concern.
You can, sort of, sometimes. Copyleft is still based on copyright. So in theory you can do a new license as long as all the copyright holders agree to the change. Take open source/free/copyleft out of it:
You create a proprietary piece of software. You license it to Google and negotiate terms. You then negotiate different terms with Microsoft. Nothing so far prevents you from doing this. You can't yank the license from Google unless your contract allows that, but maybe it does. You can in theory then go and release it under a different license to the public. If that license is perpetual and non-revokable then presumably I can use it after you decide to stop offering that license. But if the license is non-transferrable then I can't pass on your software to someone else either by giving them a flash drive with it, or by releasing it under a different license.
Several open source projects have been re-licensed. The main thing that really is the obstacle is that in a popular open source or copyleft project you have many contributors each of which holds the copyright to their patches. So now you have a mess of trying to relicense only some parts of your codebase and replace others for the people resisting the change or those you can't reach. It's a messy process. For example, check out how the Open Street Maps data got relicensed and what that took.
I think you are correct, but you probably misunderstood the parent.
My understanding of what they meant by "retroactively apply a restrictive license" is to apply a restrictive license to previous commits that were already distributed using a FOSS license (the FOSS part being implied by the new license being "restrictive" and because these discussions are usually around license changes for previously FOSS projects such as Terraform).
As allowing redistribution under at least the same license is usually a requirement for a license to be considered FOSS, you can't really change the license of an existing version as anyone who has acquired the version under the previous license can still redistribute it under the same terms.
Edit: s/commit/version/, added "under the same terms" at the end, add that the new license being "restrictive" contributes to the implication that the previous license was FOSS
Right but depending on the exact license, can the copyright holder revoke your right to redistribute?
I thought they were pivoting towards close it and trying to monetize this?
That got backlash so now it’s just getting dropped entirely?
People get to do whatever they want but bit jarring to go from this is worth something people will pay for to maintenance mode in quick succession
> I thought they were pivoting towards close it and trying to monetize this?
That's literally what the commit shows that they're doing?
> *This project is currently under maintenance and is not accepting new changes.*
> For enterprise support and actively maintained versions, please see MinIO SloppyAISlop (not actual name)
Their marketing had shifting to trying to push an AI angle for some time now. For an established project or company, that's usually a sign that things aren't going well.
They cite a proprietary alternative they offer for enterprises. So yes they pivoted to a monetized offering and are just dropping the open source one.
So they’re pulling an OpenAI.
Start open source to use free advertising and community programmer, and then dumps it all for commercial licensing.
I think n8n is next because they finished the release candidate for version 2.0, but there are no changelogs.
Does anyone have any recommendations for a simple S3-wrapper to a standard dir? I've got a few apps/services that can send data to S3 (or S3 compatible services) that I want to point to a local server I have, but they don't support SFTP or any of the more "primitive" solutions. I did use a python local-s3 thing, but it was... not good.
Versity Gateway looks like a reasonable option here. I haven't personally used it, but I know some folks who say it performs pretty great as a "ZFS-backed S3" alternative.
https://github.com/versity/versitygw
Unlike other options like Garage or Minio, it doesn't have any clustering, replication, erasure coding, ...
Your S3 objects are just files on disk, and Versity exposes it. I gather it exists to provide an S3 interface on top of their other project (ScoutFS), but it seems like it should work on any old filesystem.
Versity is really promising. I got a chance to meet with Ben recently at the Super Computing conference in St. Louis and he was super chill about stuff. Big shout out to him.
He also mentioned that the minio-to-versity migration is a straight forward process. Apparently, you just read the data from mino's shadow filesystem and set it as an extended attribute in your file.
I really like what I've (just now) read about Versity. I like that they are thinking about large scale deployments with tape as the explicit cold-storage option. It really makes sense to me coming from an HPC background.
Thanks for posting this, as it's the first I've come across their work.
You could perhaps checkout https://garagehq.deuxfleurs.fr/
I've done some preliminary testing with garage and I was pleasantly surprised. It worked as expected and didn't run into any gotchas.
Garage is really good for core S3, the only thing I ran into was it didn't support object tagging. It could be considered maybe a more esoteric corner of the S3 api, but minio does support it. Especially if you're just mapping for a test api, object tagging is most likely an unneeded feature anyway.
It's a "Misc" endpoint in the Garage docs here: https://garagehq.deuxfleurs.fr/documentation/reference-manua...
Do you want to serve already existing files from a directory or just that the backend is a directory on your server?
If the answer is the latter, seaweedfs is an option:
https://github.com/seaweedfs/seaweedfs?tab=readme-ov-file#qu...
s3proxy has a filesystem backend [0].
Possibly of interest: s3gw[1] is a modified version of ceph's radosgw that allows it to run standalone. It's geared towards kubernetes (notably part of Rancher's storage solution), but should work as a standalone container.
[0] https://github.com/gaul/s3proxy [1] https://github.com/s3gw-tech/s3gw
Check out from nvidia, aistore: https://github.com/NVIDIA/aistore
It's not a fully featured s3 compatible service, like MinIO, but we used it to great success as a local on-prem s3 read/write cache with AWS as the backing S3 store. This avoided expensive network egress charges as we wanted to process data in both AWS as well as in a non-AWS GPU cluster (i.e. a neocloud)
I'm quite interested in a k8s-native file-system that makes use of local persistent volumes. I'm running cockroachDB in my cluster (not yet with local persistent volumes.. but getting closer).
Anyone have any suggestions?
I can't believe they made this decision. It's detrimental to the open-source ecosystem and MinIO users, and it's not good for them either, just look at the Elasticsearch case.
So, when anyone will fork in? Call it MaxIO or whatever. I might even submit couple of small patches.
My only blocker for a fork to maintain compatibility and path to upgrade from earlier versions.
To be fair, their previous behavior and attitude towards the open source license suggests that minio would possibly engage in at least a little bumptious legal posturing against whoever chose to fork it.
So how are HN reviews of GarageHQ? Or any others?
Garage works well for its limited feature set, but it doesn't have very active development. Apparently they're working on a management UI.
Seaweedfs is more mature and has many interfaces (S3, webdav, SFTP, REST, fuse mount). It's most appropriate for storing lots of small files.
I prefer the command line interface and data/synchronization model of Garage, though. It's easier to manage, probably because the developers aren't biting off more than they can chew.
I havn't tested it since a while, but it was pretty good and a lot simpler than MinIO.
Like in the old MinIO days, an S3 object is a file on the filesystem, not some replicated blocks. You could always rebuild the full object store content with a few rsync. I appreciate the simplicity.
My main concern was that you couldn't configure it easily through files, you had to use CLI, which wasn't very convenient. I hope this has changed.
Objects in Garage are broken up into 1MB (default) blocks, and compressed with zstandard. So, it would be difficult to reconstruct the files. I don't know if that was a recent change since you looked at it.
Configuration is still through the CLI, though it's fairly simple. If your usecase is similar to the way that the Deuxfleurs organization uses it -- several heterogeneous, geographically distributed nodes that are more or less set-it-and-forget-it -- then it's probably a good fit.
I guess this change was inevitable. But I like the possibility to reconstruct a broken distributed file storage system. GlusterFS also allowed this.
My use case is relatively common : I want small S3 compatible object stores that can be deployed in Kubernetes without manual intervention. The CLI part was a bit in the way last time, this could have been automated but it wasn't straightforward.
Is this just the open source portion? Minio is now a fully paid product then?
"For enterprise support and actively maintained versions, please see MinIO AIStor."
Probably yes.
What's the simplest replacement for mocking S3 in CI? We don't about performance or reliability.. it's just gotta act like S3.
I've been using the minio-go client for S3-compatible storage abstraction in a project I'm working on. This new change putting the minio project into maintenance mode means no new features or bug fixes, which is concerning for something meant to be a stable abstraction layer
Need to start reconsidering the approach now and looking for alternatives
Any good alternatives?
I saw this referenced a few days ago. Haven't investigated it at all.
https://garagehq.deuxfleurs.fr/
Edit: jeez, three of us all at once...
If you just need a simple local s3 server (e.g. for developing and testing), I recommend rclone.
rclone serve s3 path/to/buckets --addr :9000 --auth-key <key-id>,<secret>
A lot of them actually. Ceph personally I've used. But there's a ton, some open source, some paid. Backblaze has a product Buckets or something. Dell powerscale. Cloudian has one. Nutanix has one.
Ceph is awesome for software defined storage where you have multiple storage nodes and multiple storage devices on each. It's way too heavy and resource intensive for a single machine with loopback devices.
I've been looking at microceph, but the requirement to run 3 OSDs on loopback files plus this comment from the docs gives me pause:
`Be wary that an OSD, whether based on a physical device or a file, is resource intensive.`
Can anyone quantify "resource intensive" here? Is it "takes an entire Raspberry Pi to run the minimum set" or is it "takes 4 cores per OSD"?
Edit: This is the specific doc page https://canonical-microceph.readthedocs-hosted.com/stable/ho...
Ceph has multiple daemons that would need to be running: monitor, manager, OSD (1 per storage device), and RADOS Gateway (RGW). If you only had a single storage device it would still be 4 daemons.
ceph depends a lot on your use case
minio was also suited for some smaller use cases (e.g. running a partial S3 compatible storage for integration tests). Ceph isn't really good for it.
But if you ran large minio clusters in production ceph might be a very good alternative.
Have heard good things about Garage (https://garagehq.deuxfleurs.fr/).
Am forced to use MinIO for certain products now but will eventually move to better eventually. Garage is high on my list of alternatives.
Time to fork and bring back removed features. :). An advantage of it being AGPL licensed.
Any efforts to consolidate around a community fork yet?
I've been using Minio in ZeroFS' [0] CI (a POSIX compliant filesystem that works on top of s3). I guess I'll switch to MicroCeph [1].
[0] https://github.com/Barre/ZeroFS
[1] https://canonical-microceph.readthedocs-hosted.com/stable/
The best software is the one that doesn't change.
Raising 100 mil at 1 B valuation and then trying for an exit is a bitch!
Is there a good overview of recent Open Source Rugpulls in the vein of killedbygoogle.com somewhere?
big L for all the cloud providers that made the mistake of using it instead of forging their own path, they're kind of screwed now
How are they screwed if they can adopt the source and continue patching it? Writing their own would incur a greater cost.
I had a minio server in my homelab and I have to replace it after the 15v because they capped almost all settings. So sad...
for those looking for a simple and reliable self hosted S3 thing, check out Garage . it's much simpler - no web ui, no fancy RS coding, no VC-backed AI company, just some french nerds making a very solid tool.
fwiw while they do produce Docker containers for it, it's also extremely simple to run without that - it's a single binary and running it with systemd is unsurprisingly simple[1].
0: https://garagehq.deuxfleurs.fr/
1: https://garagehq.deuxfleurs.fr/documentation/cookbook/system...
How do you sustain yourselves while developing this project?
What if the sponsorships run out?
Hopefully no one is shocked or surprised.
I'm both shocked and not surprised. Lots of questions: Are they doing that bad from the outcry? Or are they just keeping a private version and going completely commercial only? If so, how do they bypass the AGPL in doing so, I assume they had contributions under the AGPL.
"For enterprise support and actively maintained versions, please see MinIO AIStor."
Commercial only, they will replace the agpl contributions from external people. (Or at least they will say that)
I don't understand. They've seen the contributions. How can they possibly do a clean-room implementation to avoid copyright infringement? (Let alone how tangled up in the history of the codebase they must be...)
Disgusting. Build a product, make it open-source to gain traction, and when you are done completely abandon it. Shame on me that I have put this ^%^$hit on a project and advocated it.
That can happen to any project, hence why Plan B should be implemented right alongside Plan A whenever humanly possible.
“The real hell of life is everyone has his reasons.” ― Jean Renoir
I use Supabase Storage. It does S3-style signed download links (so I can switch to any S3 service if I like later).
Like many smart people they focused on telling people the "how", and assume visitors to their wall of "AI"/hype text already understand the use-case "why".
1. I like that it is written in Go
2. I saw nothing above what Apache Spark+Hadoop with _consistent_ object stores already offers on Amazon (S3), Google Cloud (GCS), and or Microsoft (Azure Storage, ADLS Gen2)
Best of luck, maybe folks should look around for that https://donate.apache.org/ button before the tax year concludes =3
> I saw nothing above what Apache Spark+Hadoop with _consistent_ object stores already offers on Amazon (S3), Google Cloud (GCS), and or Microsoft (Azure Storage, ADLS Gen2)
it was very simple to setup, and even if you just leased a bunch of servers off say OVH, far FAR cheaper to run your own than paying any of the big cloud providers.
It also had pretty low requirements, ceph can do all that but setup is more complex and RAM requirements far, far higher
MinIO still makes no sense, as Ceph is fundamentally already RADOS at its core (fully compatible with S3 API.)
For a proper Ceph setup, even the 45drives budget configuration is still not "hobby" grade.
I will have to dive into the MinIO manual at some point, as the value proposition still seems like a mystery. Cheers =3
> For enterprise support and actively maintained versions, please see [MinIO AIStor]
Naming the product “AIStor” is one of the most blatant forced AI branding pivots I’ve seen.
And the naming conflicts with NVidia's AIStore (https://github.com/NVIDIA/aistore). The two products are extremely similar. I don't know which came first, but Minio is going to want to do another pivot very soon if they want to survive. I doubt they have the resources to stand up to NVidia's army of extremely well-paid IP lawyers.
for maximum performance with MinIO AIStor, make sure to use one of Seagate's "AI hard drives":
https://www.seagate.com/products/video-analytics/skyhawk-ai-...
How it makes sense? If they are no longer open-source S3 and cloud only, I'll just use S3.
Oh, no! Anyway... Maybe it's for the best seeing as it's AGPL. I won't go within 39.5 feet of infected software like that, so no loss for me.
Downvoted because nobody knows how far a distance 39.5 feet is.
they do if they know the shoe size of the person who measured it
It's a reference to a fairly widely known, and presently topical, song:
Your brain is full of spiders
You've got garlic in your soul, Mr. Grinch
I wouldn't touch you with a
39 and a half foot pole!