> 2026-03-02: Ruohang Feng has forked MinIO to pgsty/minio and is promising to maintain a stable, CVE-patched, distribution.
This is what I went with.
I use it in end to end tests as an S3 simulator that starts and stops instantly and reads & writes to a local directory, - as you'd expect it's great in that role. No complaints. Given the fork's maintainer puts their real name on it & stakes their reputation, you'd assume it can be trusted - but my use case is simpler than most.
I had switched some projects to SeaweedFS's Docker image. It worked well. This is good to know there is a successor open source project that would require no code changes to use. Will evaluate.
This is what I use. I had a minio instance that was replaced flawlessly with silo. This is an excellent project and needs more traction. All existing minio users must switch to Silo ASAP.
It's nice to hear about other products, but OP made it sound like Minio disappeared and was not an option. Neither are true. Yes the company moved on but the old source is sitting there and that version is pretty good as-is. We're still using it in prod, no issues for us. The old container images are floating around and you're free to copy them to wherever.
If you need support or newer features, fork it or use ^ this fork.
I've been using it for local development for a while now. My goal was to replace MinIO, which I could run and configure with a single Docker command. VersityGW works just as well for that.
Does anyone here have experience using some of the newer S3 family API features like locking with any of the self-hostable options? After reading about celld's Litestream + locking on S3 approach (https://github.com/denoland/celld) I got curious about that style of deployment as a way to consolidate small tools so their state is just centralize S3 buckets, but from a bit of reading support for the features like locking is uneven.
Its not locking, it needs consistent conditional PUT. Minio did have that, Rustfs does, Garage is eventually consistent so explicitly does not support it correctly.
Running Sentry on prem, I had to swap out their default SeaweedFS setup for Garage because the former kept failing under concurrent writes. I tried digging around for a bit, but found that the swap was easier and faster, Garage has also worked great for single node use cases (e.g. tested up to around 10 TB of data). I still think that SeaweedFS is a cool project, might have been a config issue or something, wasn’t worth tweaking.
The setup for Garage sucks, especially cause their Docker image doesn’t automatically create keys or buckets and permissions for you like for example various RDBMS images do. Doing that the first time manually was annoying, but their docs are pretty nice and an AI agent can build you your own Docker image with custom init in about 15 minutes.
Worst with it I’ve had were issues with hooking up WinSCP to it directly to browse saved satellite data, initial connections would hang for some reason, not sure what the problem was either.
Also used Zenko but kinda got the feeling that the project wasn’t as healthy and straight up felt abandoned (e.g. the outdated container images and such), though there is some activity.
Not without snapshot currently. I guess I could collect all writes in the (optional) WAL file while a backup is running, then the files would be consistent.
The title is 'for single node local S3' but what they actually mean is 'for minio-compatibility', which is an entirely different question.
When I abandoned minio a year or so ago, I also surveyed the options, and settled on Garage. It lacked the GUI, but felt about the same complexity as minio. Perhaps a smidge more complexity, as I moved to 3-node and 5-node separate instances of garage, running as containers under Nomad.
I don't recall it being onerous, but I was looking for some basic S3-alike capabilities, not just minio-alike.
(How many people set out to build an object storage system with some number of AWS S3 primitives, but primarily try to match a third-party proprietary system's foibles?)
> So, Garage does work, but gosh…it is not just a drop-in replacement in terms of code changes.
I think in terms of actual code that uses local S3, it pretty much was a drop-in replacement. (I have multiple distribution/registry, Grafana Loki / Mimir, influx3 - all backing onto my object storage system, and the config changes there were modest - key+secret, and url - just as you'd expect.)
I had previously used seaweedfs, which has more moving parts but seems more feature-rich. It was overkill for a homelab, so I went to garage.
Garage is very stable, but the metadata engine / file MUST live on NVMe. Otherwise it gets slow on small files. It also lacks features like per bucket retention settings and stuff. It really is "just" a S3 bucket.
Filestash (https://github.com/mickael-kerjean/filestash) has a s3 gateway plugin that I made. It proxy the S3 traffic to any downstream storage: SFTP, FTP, another S3, SMB, NFS, IPFS, ...
How does that handle concurrency (e.g. updates being atomic, conditional PUT) and data consistency after a crash? Getting that right over generic backends sounds challenging, to say the least.
Almost went past looking at this option, it has a far bigger ecosystem of both storage and auth plugins and otherwise looks to be more mature than I might have guessed from the passing comment.
Was the backend for an archiving service and we found it to work well on baremetal machines and seamlessly integrated with existing services that used the S3 api.
This was on an internal network so YMMV when it comes to running on the open internet especially with the CVE mentioned in the post.
Is there any "local"/minio-esque object store properly implements the full conditional GET/PUT/DELETE spec, ETag, etc.? I have struggled to find this in the past.
I wouldnt use Garage for Iceberg, Iceberg relies on conditional PUT working correctly, while Garage is eventually consistent, so they don't provide the correct guarantee.
- Filesystem backend
- Encrypted S3 backend
- Compressed S3 backend (Saving a ton of money here)
- Cross backend replication
- Full IAM
- Full GUI with OIDC auth
I'm still disappointed, that there is no S3 CNCF sponsored process. It seems to be such an important part of the cloud native ecosystem, every big use case needs some way to store blobs of data.
But no, I'm also not about to start one or try to make something like SeaweedFS a community supported project that has a chance to be picked up by the CNCF, so I'm part of the problem.
I run Scality S3 (Zenko Cloudserver in the blig) since about 2 years and it is quite capable and frequently updated. Just make sure to point it to the latest Github Registry, not the outdated Docker.com one.
I did try seaweedfs ~half a year ago and I had issues with setting up users through terraform module (if I recall correctly, users endpoint were not correctly responding on delete), and lack of S3 expiry rules (you needed to use seaweedfs configuration or API for that). Other than that, I was pretty happy with it.
Yup, same. We use RustFS in a production system with no issues. We switched over after MinIO license changes and after evaluating a few different stacks.
We have heavy concurrent usage, and we haven't had a single issue yet.
In the decades that open-source projects have existed on GitHub—even those backed by the Chinese government—there has never been an instance of them containing spyware; conversely, we frequently see NSA hacking tools exploiting open-source projects to launch massive cyberattacks and cause data breaches. Reality isn't like American movies where Americans are always the heroes; in fact, those GIs are usually the ones doing the invading. To me, your statement sounds like a resident living under Nazi rule telling everyone, "There's actually a pretty good project over on the Allied side—if you choose to believe it."
Ethnicity never mattered (other than for the people that think too many white people are doing something). It's culture, in particular government ties, that are the worry with China.
It's nice, I am just afraid of the pace Chris Lu can maintain with LLM assistance. Too many features are added in each new release, no stabilization time at all.
The same argument can be made for the other side: the customer can also trivially mount the S3 bucket as a filesystem, if you decide to ship the tool with filesystem support instead.
Because you want to mock the tools you are going to use in production locally or in CI. Really good reasons to not totally change what you are doing in your app between environments.
This is what I went with.
I use it in end to end tests as an S3 simulator that starts and stops instantly and reads & writes to a local directory, - as you'd expect it's great in that role. No complaints. Given the fork's maintainer puts their real name on it & stakes their reputation, you'd assume it can be trusted - but my use case is simpler than most.
reply