MinIO Reviews

We were trying to implement on object-storage a distributable solution and the main use was for cryptocurrency mining. The cryptocurrency uses block storage or different storage for crypto mining.

With MinIO, we managed to go forward with our cryptocurrency mining project. 

The ease of use, the low memory footprint, and the community is quite helpful as well. The web interface is also pretty nice.

At the time, they were rewriting their documentation and they had two versions of it: legacy. found at https://docs.min.io/, and the current, which has 3 versions at the time; one of them being: https://docs.min.io/minio/bare...

Some of the information was in one and some was in the other. There wasn't just one place to go and look for whatever you required. They still appear to have a warning on top of the "baremetal docs".

I've been using it for the last six months or so.

We've had a few crashes because of excessive use. We struggled a little to learn where the problem was. Everything was in containers and it sometimes made visibility hard to get to the logs so we could figure out exactly what the problem was. 

It seems to be pretty scalable because you just need to add more nodes for instances of MinIO and it connects automatically.

We did not use paid support, but the community communication channels, mainly Flat.

We were using OpenStack, Shift, and Keystone. They provided an optic-storage solution, but it's fairly complicated to install and to maintain and to upgrade. Performance wasn't great either because of our type of setup, so we decided to check MinIO out, and the managers liked it. We ended up implementing.

I deployed MinIO myself. Deployment is pretty easy and straightforward. The one thing that takes more time is the tuning because it's made to be very automatic, so you don't have to mess a lot with the configuration. But in the end, you need to tweak it. So, installation was easy. It took two hours, maybe less. Tuning probably took a few days.

We deployed it in-house. 

That is not my area, but I am sure it is high. The service works fine and the deployment cost was minimal.

We went with the open source version. I wouldn't know what to tell you about licensing. That said, I think the open source version is quite good and has everything one needs.

We were using OpenStack Swift at the time. It's kind of difficult to deploy and manage in standalone mode. Also, the performance isn't as good. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

There were two huge users, but at points, there were many sporadical users. So basically, the two users were consuming 80% or 90% of the resources, while the rest of the users, maybe ten of them, working just indirectly.

The premise required a bit of maintenance, which I was responsible for. They tried to update very often. In fact, every two weeks they tried to make a release or they urged you to check if there were any new releases. At the time, given the nature of cryptocurrency mining, we were using MinIO extensively.

My advice would be to go through the manual slowly to understand every aspect of MinIO. That helps you grasp how it works and how it needs to be installed and what the requirements are. They have very good representation.

My primary use case for MinIO is as a tool for document management and storage.

The benefit of MinIO is that it's more secure. It also facilitates our works due to the facility of its end-point course.

MinIO's most valuable feature is that we can send a lot of detail in the bottom of the core of the end-point, in a way that is easy and interactive. It also saves a lot of time in generating and managing documents.

An area that could be improved is the limited storage provided in the free version of this tool. When handling a lot of documents, the interaction can take a lot of time.

I've been using MinIO for the last two to three years.

The stability of this solution is fine, though sometimes the duration of responses is too long.

MinIO is easy to scale.

The initial setup was not easy at all. We had some problems since we weren't given the information on how many instances needed to be deployed the first time, which blocked our deployment. It took us one or two days to deploy the product. On the other hand, it was very easy to manipulate and interact with.

I think MinIO is the most efficient tool in the management of documents, and its performance facilitates our works. I would rate this tool as seven out of ten.

My primary use case is to help our customers integrate with MinIO to do file-sharing collaborations.

MinIO made it easy to collaborate with Amazon SDK.

The most valuable feature is file storage.

The product's security is open by default, without any SSL, which could be an area for improvement. I don't think I would request any new features in the next release, as the product currently meets all my needs.

I have been using MinIO for about six months.

The stability of this solution is great - with any file that we uploaded or downloaded, we found it was quick to respond.

My impression is that MinIO supports a wide range of clustering, and I believe it should work in a highly scalable environment for people with larger platforms and larger storage.

The initial setup was very easy - one click, and it was installed. That's what is great about MinIO.

MinIO is open source, but it also has an enterprise license available if preferred.

I feel MinIO is the best solution to recommend to anyone who requires on-premise S3-compatible storage. It is easy to install, easy to configure, and you can get it up and running in minutes, not hours or days. I would rate this product as nine out of ten.

We are a solution provider and I am working on a project that is using MinIO for storage.

The most valuable feature is the ease of management and administration. I do not have a system administrator in my project, so the simplicity of management is important to me.

The monitoring capability is really bad and needs to be improved. There are no monitoring tools available and there are several metrics that I would like to keep track of. Without good usage monitoring, it will be very hard to use in production.

In my opinion, the monitoring feature should be added to minIO in order to give administrators efficient data including bucket information(size, load on it, requests …), the CPU usage, running/ stuck/blocked threads, queue of thread pools, free/max heap percent, request per object in buckets and ...

I think providing REST API for monitoring and configuration makes it easier to use.

If I can set up MinIO to run as a service then it will be more stable.

Enhancing the user interface with more options would be a nice improvement.

I have been using MinIO for two years.

It is a stable product and I use it every day. If I were able to set it up as a service then the stability would be improved.

MinIO is scalable, although we do not rely on that right now. In the future, we will be expanding it. At this time, we have a team of five developers who are using MinIO.

I have not needed support to this point, as I seek help in the community when I have issues. Furthermore, because we are located in Iran and under sanctions, were are not able to purchase technical support.

I used to use Red Hat Ceph Storage, but it is more complex than MinIO and very difficult to manage because I do not have a system administrator on my team.

The initial setup is very simple. It took me about 15 minutes to deploy five instances that had Java on it.

I can easily deploy this solution using the command prompt.

This is an open-source solution but I am using the licensed version.

When I began this project, I researched several options for storage that were alternatives to Red Hat Ceph. I found that MinIO is the best choice for this project because of the API support.

My advice for anybody who is implementing MinIO is to visit the website and view the documentation. It is very complete and is helpful. 

This is a good product choice for startups that don't have a system administrator. It has a good API and it's easy to use. My main complaint is about the lack of monitoring tools.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.