Open-source alternative to Nutanix Objects: the short answer
If you run Nutanix Objects on your own hardware and want an S3-compatible store that stays inside your data center, Ceph RGW is the broader production option and SeaweedFS is the lighter alternative. Which one fits depends on three things: whether you need WORM and object lock semantics that auditors will accept, how many sites you must replicate across and how you design that multisite topology, and whether your team already operates distributed storage. Ceph RGW ships with documented multisite configuration, compression, Keystone and LDAP authentication, multi-factor authentication, Open Policy Agent integration and AWS STS, IAM and SNS APIs, while SeaweedFS is simpler to stand up but has a smaller operational footprint and a paid Enterprise Edition for data recovery and self-healing features. Confirm each WORM and retention behavior directly with the project and with a test cluster before you commit.
Nutanix Objects is not sold alone. It is part of Nutanix Unified Storage, which combines file, block and object storage, so replacing Objects in isolation can leave Files and Block dependencies in place. Map which applications use the S3 endpoint, which use Nutanix Files shares and which depend on block volumes before you choose a store. Ceph is a natural fit if you want object, block and file (CephFS) on one RADOS cluster, while SeaweedFS covers object and file access (S3, HTTP, WebDAV, SFTP and FUSE) but does not replace block storage on its own. Licensing differs in a way that matters for procurement. Ceph's source is licensed under LGPL-2.1 or LGPL-3 with some bundled components under other licenses, and the project itself has no paid edition. SeaweedFS is Apache-2.0 licensed, with a commercial Enterprise Edition for specific features. Ask your legal team to review the bundled-component list for Ceph and the Enterprise Edition terms for SeaweedFS, since both affect what you can redistribute and what support you buy.
Which Nutanix Objects capabilities map to Ceph RGW and SeaweedFS
This table maps the capabilities Nutanix documents for Objects against what Ceph RGW and SeaweedFS document, and marks where a reader must test in their own environment. Read the true values as documented capabilities, and the null values as items to confirm with the vendor or in a proof of concept. The main takeaway is that S3 API coverage and multisite replication need client-level testing before any cutover decision.
| Capability | Nutanix Objects | Ceph RGW | SeaweedFS |
|---|---|---|---|
| S3 API compatibility | S3-compatible object storage per Nutanix product page | S3-compatible and Swift-compatible APIs documented by the Ceph Object Gateway | S3 API exposed through filer servers; confirm the operations your applications use |
| WORM policies and object lock | WORM policies documented as a Nutanix Objects feature | Confirm object lock and retention behavior for your S3 client tools and Ceph release | Confirm object lock and retention support for your release and client tools |
| Encryption at rest | Encryption documented with FIPS 140-2 support | Confirm encryption options and key management for your Ceph version | AES256-GCM encryption at rest documented in the README |
| FIPS 140-2 validation | FIPS 140-2 support stated by Nutanix; confirm the validation certificate for your release | Not documented as a validated module; obtain evidence from the project or your build | Not documented as a validated module; obtain evidence from the project or your build |
| Transport encryption | Confirm TLS configuration for your Objects deployment | Messenger v2 secure mode encrypts post-authentication traffic with AES-GCM | TLS or mTLS documented in the README |
| Horizontal scaling | Scale across clusters, as described on the Nutanix product page | Scales on a single RADOS cluster with a sizing and benchmarking process to complete | Volume servers added to the cluster; test metadata store choice at your object count |
| Replication across sites | Replication documented by Nutanix | Multisite configuration documented for RGW | Rack- and data-center-aware replication documented; confirm cross-site behavior for your design |
| Identity integration | Confirm integration with your directory and access model | Keystone, LDAP, multi-factor authentication, OPA, and AWS IAM and STS APIs documented | Confirm access control options and any external identity integration |
When Ceph RGW or SeaweedFS fits better
Both platforms speak the S3 API and can replace Nutanix Objects, but they fit different estates. The choice depends on whether object storage shares a cluster with block and file services, how many sites must replicate, and how much operational depth your team can carry.
Ceph RGW on a shared RADOS cluster
Ceph RGW runs S3 and Swift APIs on the same RADOS cluster that serves RBD block and CephFS file storage, which matches the consolidation Nutanix Unified Storage offers. Its documented features include multisite configuration, Keystone and LDAP authentication, multi-factor authentication, Open Policy Agent integration, and AWS STS, IAM and SNS APIs. Check whether your identity and policy model needs those hooks, because each one adds configuration to test. The shared cluster also means storage faults and capacity planning affect every service at once.
Ceph hardware and sizing demands
Ceph's hardware recommendations call for a dedicated drive per OSD, moving WAL and DB to shared SSDs for HDD-based OSDs, enterprise-class SSDs for metadata, and bonded network links across two switches. They also advise sizing memory for peak use and benchmarking before buying, because no two clusters are alike. Reusing Nutanix nodes may not meet these recommendations, so ask your integrator to compare drive layout and network design against your current hardware before committing to a replacement plan.
Cephadm and Rook deployment paths
Cephadm deploys Ceph as containers on bare metal or virtual machines, starting with one Monitor and one Manager and then adding hosts and services. For Kubernetes estates, the cephadm documentation points to Rook, which the CNCF lists as a Graduated project. Your team needs to pick one deployment model and stay with it, since operating both adds lifecycle work. Confirm which Ceph release line you will run, because Tentacle and Squid have different end-of-life dates.
SeaweedFS architecture and metadata stores
SeaweedFS separates master servers, which track volume locations, from volume servers that store blobs in append-only files and filer servers that manage directories and files. The filer can keep metadata in many stores, including PostgreSQL, MySQL, Cassandra, etcd and FoundationDB, so you can reuse a database your team already operates. Choose the metadata store early, because it sets the backup and failover model for your namespace. Test object listing performance at your expected object count before you commit.
SeaweedFS erasure coding and encryption
SeaweedFS supports erasure coding for warm data, rack and data center aware replication, AES256-GCM encryption at rest, and TLS or mTLS. These features cover the data placement and encryption controls that most regulated buyers ask about. Confirm object lock and WORM behavior with the project before you rely on it, because your retention requirements must be met by the platform, not assumed. Verify how erasure coding changes rebuild time after a disk failure.
SeaweedFS Enterprise Edition trade-off
SeaweedFS is Apache-2.0 licensed, but its README says the paid Enterprise Edition adds data recovery and self-healing storage. Those are the capabilities you may need most during a failure, so the open-source edition alone may not meet your recovery expectations. Ask the vendor which features are in each edition, what support is included, and how the license terms apply to your deployment. Budget for this question in the quote stage, not after go-live.
Iceberg tables and Kubernetes fit
SeaweedFS includes S3 Table Buckets for Apache Iceberg tables with an integrated REST catalog, which matters if your Nutanix Objects buckets feed analytics or lakehouse work. It can also run on Kubernetes through Helm charts, a CSI driver and an operator, or on Docker and bare metal. Ceph RGW covers S3 workloads but does not in this list include a comparable Iceberg catalog, so confirm that gap with your data team. Check whether your analytics stack reads the catalog directly.
How the deployment differs by environment
This path suits a team that will run storage on dedicated servers and wants Ceph managed as a set of containers on those hosts. cephadm bootstraps a single-node cluster with one Monitor and one Manager, then adds hosts and services, and it was introduced in v15.2.0 (Octopus), so older releases are outside its scope. The Ceph releases page lists Tentacle (20.2.x, first released November 18, 2025) and Squid (19.2.x, first released September 26, 2024) as the actively maintained lines, with estimated end-of-life dates of June 1, 2027 and October 31, 2026 respectively.
- Hardware layout: Plan a dedicated drive per OSD, and where HDD-based OSDs are used, move WAL and DB to shared SSDs.
- Metadata media: Use enterprise-class SSDs for metadata pools.
- Network: Bond links across two switches so a single switch failure does not isolate hosts.
- Memory: Size for peak use, not calm periods, and benchmark before buying because no two clusters are alike.
- Team skills: Staff need Linux, networking and storage operations, including upgrades that follow the release cadence.
Before committing, confirm with your hardware vendor that the chosen drives and controllers are supported for Ceph in your target release line.
This path suits an organization that already runs Kubernetes and wants object storage to follow the same lifecycle as its workloads. The cephadm documentation points to Rook as the alternative way to deploy Ceph on Kubernetes, and the CNCF lists Rook as a Graduated project since October 7, 2020. Rook manages the Ceph daemons as Kubernetes resources, so the RGW endpoint, pools and users are declared and reconciled rather than configured by hand on each host.
- Platform dependency: Storage nodes and the Kubernetes cluster share failure domains, so plan node pools and taints deliberately.
- Operator skills: The team needs working knowledge of Kubernetes storage classes, custom resources and upgrades of both the operator and Ceph.
- Ceph knowledge still required: Pool design, OSD replacement and capacity planning are still Ceph tasks, even when Rook automates them.
- Ingress and TLS: Expose the RGW service through an ingress controller with certificates managed in the cluster.
- Support boundary: Confirm which parts of the stack your team, your Kubernetes distribution vendor and any third party support.
Check whether your Kubernetes version and Rook release are compatible with the Ceph line you intend to run before you design the cluster.
This path suits teams that want a smaller S3-compatible store with fewer moving parts, or that run a mixed estate and need one deployment model across Docker hosts, bare metal and Kubernetes. SeaweedFS is Apache-2.0 licensed and uses master servers that track volume locations, volume servers that store blobs and filer servers that expose S3 and manage directories. Its README describes Helm charts, a CSI driver and an operator for Kubernetes, along with Docker and bare-metal deployment options.
- Component layout: Run a master group of one or three nodes using Raft, volume servers for data, and filer servers for the S3 endpoint.
- Filer metadata store: Choose a backing store such as PostgreSQL, MySQL, etcd or others from the supported list, and confirm the store's own high availability.
- Kubernetes packaging: Deploy with the Helm chart and CSI driver, and check the operator's current maturity against your requirements.
- Enterprise edition: The README says the paid Enterprise Edition adds data recovery and self-healing storage, so confirm which of those features you need.
- Release tracking: Release 4.48 was published on September 28, 2026, after 4.47 on September 14, so plan a routine upgrade cadence.
Ask the vendor or community to confirm which deployment models they test and support for your target environment before you standardize on it.
Matching WORM and object lock requirements before choosing a store
Write-once-read-many (WORM) requirements are usually a compliance question before they are a storage question. Retention periods and legal holds decide how long an object must resist change or deletion, and who may lift a hold. Nutanix Objects documents WORM policies as part of its S3-compatible offering, so many teams have written those policies into their retention standards without checking how the replacement store enforces them. Before you choose between Ceph RADOS Gateway and SeaweedFS, write down the retention modes, legal hold behavior and deletion rules your policies require, and map each one to the controls your chosen store actually exposes.
Do not assume that S3 object lock semantics are identical across stores. Confirm with each application owner, your backup software vendor and your assessor which object lock behavior they expect, including whether they rely on compliance-style retention that cannot be shortened by any administrator, governance-style retention that privileged users can override, and per-object or per-bucket legal holds. Check the Ceph Object Gateway and SeaweedFS documentation for the exact feature set in the release you plan to run, and ask your backup vendor which store versions it has certified for immutable backups.
Test before you commit. In a pilot, write objects under each retention mode, attempt overwrites, deletions and retention shortening with ordinary and administrative credentials, then confirm that the store refuses what policy forbids and logs the attempt. Repeat the test after an upgrade and after a node failure during a retention period. Ask your assessor which evidence they accept for this control, such as configuration exports, test records, access logs or an independent verification, and collect that evidence during the pilot rather than after cutover. DeployOpen can plan and run this pilot as part of a fixed-scope engagement, but the retention rules and the acceptance criteria must come from your own policy owners and assessor.
Questions buyers ask before replacing Nutanix Objects
What drives the cost of replacing Nutanix Objects with self-hosted Ceph or SeaweedFS?
The biggest cost drivers are hardware, staff time, support and the one-time migration effort, and most of them depend on your capacity and growth. Hardware is paid once per refresh cycle and recurs as you add capacity. Staff time is the largest recurring item if you run the cluster yourself. Support is optional: Ceph is free to use with no paid edition from the project, while SeaweedFS offers a paid Enterprise Edition that its README says adds data recovery and self-healing storage. Compare these components against your current Nutanix Unified Storage terms, which bundle object storage with file and block storage. Ask any vendor or partner to split the quote into hardware, licensing, labor, support and migration so you can see what recurs.
Can our team run a Ceph object store in-house?
Your team can run Ceph in-house if it has storage operations skills and time for upgrades, monitoring and capacity work. Cephadm manages a cluster as containers and was introduced in v15.2.0 (Octopus), so older releases are not supported by it. For Kubernetes, the cephadm documentation points to Rook, which the CNCF lists as a Graduated project since October 7, 2020. Confirm that your staff can handle drive failures, OSD rebalancing and the upgrade path between Tentacle (20.2.x) and Squid (19.2.x). If the skills are thin, a fixed-scope engagement can cover design, deployment and handover, with ongoing support available as a retainer.
How long does a migration off Nutanix Objects take, and what drives the timeline?
The timeline depends on data volume, network throughput, the number of applications that write to the bucket and how much you can run in parallel. No duration is set by a researched fact here, so ask for an estimate tied to your own data set. Start by inventorying buckets, object counts, lifecycle rules, object lock settings and replication jobs. Then plan a bulk copy, a sync period in which both stores receive reads and writes, and a cutover window per application. Most time is usually spent on validation and on application endpoint changes, not on the copy itself. Ask the partner to name the milestones and the acceptance tests for each in the written scope.
Do our S3 clients and backup tools work without changes?
Most S3 clients work with minimal change because the Ceph Object Gateway offers S3-compatible and Swift-compatible APIs, and SeaweedFS exposes an S3 endpoint through its filer servers. The practical changes are the endpoint URL, credentials, region settings and any use of features that differ between platforms. Test each client and backup product against the target store before cutover, including multipart upload, versioning, lifecycle rules and object lock behavior. Confirm with the backup vendor that its S3 target configuration is supported on the platform you choose. Keep the test results as part of the migration record.
How do we verify WORM and object lock requirements on the new store?
Verify WORM by testing it, not by assuming it. Nutanix describes Objects with WORM policies, and the Ceph Object Gateway and SeaweedFS each have their own retention and lock behavior, so confirm the exact feature set for your release. Write a test plan that attempts to delete or overwrite protected objects under retention, checks that legal holds and retention periods are enforced, and records the results. Your compliance team decides what evidence is needed, and independent auditors assess it. DeployOpen prepares systems, controls and evidence for compliance assessments but does not issue audit reports or attestations.
How do we handle FIPS 140-2 and encryption requirements?
Start by identifying which cryptographic module your policy requires, because Nutanix describes Objects encryption as supporting FIPS 140-2 and that is a specific claim you must match. On the open-source side, SeaweedFS documents AES256-GCM encryption at rest and TLS or mTLS. Ceph messenger v2 offers a secure mode that encrypts post-authentication traffic with AES-GCM and adds integrity checks. Neither source states a FIPS validation, so confirm with the vendor and your assessor whether a validated module build is available and how it is deployed. Record the module version, configuration and key management approach as compliance evidence.
How does replication across sites compare with Nutanix Objects?
Nutanix Objects offers replication across clusters, and the Ceph Object Gateway documents multisite configuration. SeaweedFS supports rack- and data-center-aware replication and erasure coding for warm data. Confirm the consistency model, failover steps and bandwidth needs for your required recovery objectives with each platform. Ask for a test where you fail one site, measure what is missing on the other and time the recovery. Do not accept a replication design without a documented recovery test.
What should we ask an implementation partner for in a fixed-scope quote?
Ask for a written scope that lists the platform version, capacity target, hardware bill of materials, network design, replication design, migration waves, object lock and encryption tests, backup integration, documentation and handover. Require deliverables and acceptance criteria for each phase, plus named responsibilities for your team and the partner. Ask which items are one-time and which recur, such as support or upgrades. DeployOpen works on fixed-scope engagements agreed in writing before work starts, and does not publish a price list, so the quote follows from that scope. Ask how post-handover support and upgrades are priced as a retainer.
Moving buckets, users and data off Nutanix Objects
This sequence moves object buckets, client access and retained data from Nutanix Objects to a self-hosted S3-compatible store in phases, with counts and checksums confirmed before any client is cut over and the source kept intact until retention windows close.
Inventory buckets, clients and retention rules
Your storage team lists every bucket, its size and object count, its versioning and WORM or retention settings, its lifecycle rules, and the applications, scripts and backup jobs that read or write it. Access keys and the identity source behind them are recorded alongside. Ask Nutanix to confirm how object lock and WORM policies are exported, since those settings determine whether data can be copied without breaking retention. The step is done when every bucket has an owner, a client list and a documented retention state.
Build the target cluster and confirm S3 behavior
Build the target store on dedicated hardware, either Ceph with RADOS Gateway or SeaweedFS, following the vendor's hardware guidance for drives, metadata devices and bonded network links. Your platform engineers configure the S3 endpoint, TLS, and the authentication path your identity team chooses. Test the exact S3 calls your applications use, including multipart uploads, versioning and any object lock behavior, because compatibility is rarely total. The step is done when a test client passes the agreed call list against the new endpoint.
Pilot with one application and one bucket
Select a low-risk application and a single bucket, then copy its data and point only that application at the new endpoint. Your application owners confirm reads, writes, deletes and error handling, and your operations team reviews logs and monitoring for the pilot period. Record any differences in response codes or headers so they can be fixed before wider rollout. The step is done when the pilot owner signs off in writing and the rollback path has been exercised once.
Copy objects and reconcile counts and checksums
Use an S3 sync or replication tool, or a copy job your team writes, to mirror each bucket while the source stays writable, then run a final delta pass. Compare object counts, total bytes, and per-object checksums such as ETags or hashes computed on both sides, and investigate every mismatch, including objects with versions or delete markers. Retention metadata must be checked separately, because a plain copy does not carry object lock state. The step is done when a reconciliation report shows zero unexplained differences for each bucket.
Move client endpoints in phases
Move remaining applications in groups, starting with those that have the least coupling to other systems. Each group changes its endpoint and credentials through configuration management, and the old endpoint remains reachable for rollback. Keep a change record that names the owner, the cutover window and the reconciliation result for each bucket. The step is done when no client references the Nutanix Objects endpoint in its configuration and access logs show no recent traffic to it.
Hold the source read-only through retention
Switch the Nutanix Objects buckets to read-only or remove write permissions, and keep them intact until every retention and legal hold period has passed. Your compliance lead confirms which obligations apply and documents the decision, since retention periods come from your policies and regulators, not from this guide. Continue to monitor for unexpected reads that would reveal forgotten integrations. The step is done when the compliance owner records that the retention windows have closed.
Decommission the Nutanix Objects service
After the retention record is closed, remove the Objects service, delete access keys, and revoke any integration accounts in the identity system. Confirm with Nutanix how licensing for Objects and Unified Storage changes once the service is no longer in use, since terms vary by agreement. Update the CMDB, backup schedules and the disaster recovery runbook to show the new store as the system of record. The step is done when the decommission checklist is signed and no object workload depends on the old cluster.
What the total cost of ownership includes
The main cost change in this move is that Nutanix Unified Storage is licensed separately from Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure, so a Nutanix Objects line item on a renewal quote is a distinct cost from the NCI term subscription. Ask the vendor to itemize Unified Storage licensing, its term length and whether it is priced on usable capacity, because the supplied material does not state the unit of measure for Objects. On the open-source side, the software itself carries no license fee for Ceph (LGPL-2.1 or LGPL-3) or SeaweedFS (Apache-2.0), but you still pay for the object cluster hardware, for staff time to run it and for any support contract you choose. For SeaweedFS, ask whether the paid Enterprise Edition is needed for the data recovery and self-healing features its README describes, and get that price in writing before you compare totals.
Separate the costs into one-time and recurring groups before comparing. One-time costs include the object cluster hardware (dedicated drives per OSD, shared SSDs for WAL and DB on HDD-based OSDs, enterprise-class SSDs for metadata, and dual-switch network links, as the Ceph hardware recommendations describe), migration of buckets and objects, and the design work for replication across sites and object lock. Recurring costs include staff time for patching and capacity growth, hardware refresh, third-party support if purchased, and the upgrade work that follows the Ceph release cadence. Tentacle (20.2.x) has an estimated end of life of June 1, 2027 and Squid (19.2.x) of October 31, 2026, so plan for at least one major upgrade cycle inside a typical contract horizon. Ask any integrator for a fixed-scope quote that lists these components separately.
Running the object store beside Nutanix Files, Block and AHV
Replacing Nutanix Objects rarely happens in isolation. The object store has to fit alongside the file shares, block volumes, hypervisors and backup jobs that already depend on the same hardware and identity systems. The cards below cover the decisions that connect the object store to the rest of the estate and the checks to make before cutover.
Keep Nutanix Files or move to CephFS
Nutanix Files is licensed as part of Nutanix Unified Storage, so an object-only move does not remove it from the renewal. Decide whether SMB and NFS shares stay on Nutanix for now or move to CephFS on the same RADOS cluster that serves RGW. Running both on one Ceph cluster means sizing for file metadata load as well as object traffic. Confirm with your storage team which share protocols, permission models and snapshot schedules must survive the change.
Ceph Dashboard single sign-on
The Ceph Dashboard supports single sign-on through SAML 2.0, and through OAuth2 when cephadm runs the Management Gateway and OAuth2 Proxy services. Map the administrator roles in your identity provider to Ceph Dashboard roles before go-live, so that storage administrators do not depend on shared local accounts. Check whether your identity provider can issue the attributes Ceph expects, and test a break-glass local account for outages in the identity layer.
Backup targets for the object store
Object data needs its own recovery path, separate from the copies held in the cluster itself. Options include Proxmox Backup Server, Bareos and Velero, each suited to different sources. Proxmox Backup Server fits VM images on Proxmox VE, Bareos fits file and database backups to tape or disk, and Velero fits Kubernetes objects and persistent volumes. Ask which backup tool holds the copy that you would restore from if the Ceph cluster itself fails, and test restores into a separate failure domain.
Network separation and msgr2 secure mode
Ceph messenger v2 listens on port 3300 and its secure mode encrypts all post-authentication traffic with AES-GCM and adds integrity checks. Enable secure mode where the cluster design allows it, and place the public and cluster networks on separate, bonded links across two switches. Confirm that clients, RGW hosts and monitors can all reach port 3300 through your firewall rules, and that the replication network is isolated from application traffic. Check CPU headroom, since encryption adds load on busy nodes.
Sharing the cluster with Proxmox VE or Harvester
Running VM disks on the same Ceph cluster as the object store is a common design, but it mixes workloads with different latency and throughput patterns. Proxmox VE can use Ceph for RBD VM disks, and Harvester uses Longhorn rather than Ceph, so a Harvester estate would need a separate storage plan or a Rook-managed Ceph cluster. Decide whether object traffic, VM block I/O and backups share pools, and confirm the failure domains and capacity headroom each workload needs before any shared design is approved.
How DeployOpen scopes and delivers object storage replacement
DeployOpen plans, implements, hardens, backs up, documents and supports self-hosted open-source platforms inside your own infrastructure, so an object storage replacement is delivered as a written, fixed-scope engagement. The work covers the S3 endpoint, replication, WORM and access controls, and the operating evidence your team and assessors will need.
How we scope
- Inventory which buckets, applications and backup jobs use the Nutanix Objects S3 endpoint and its WORM policies.
- Agree whether Ceph RGW or SeaweedFS fits the required S3 features, replication topology and team skills.
- Write capacity, site count and failure-domain assumptions into the scope before any hardware is ordered.
How we build
- Deploy the chosen store with cephadm or Helm, using hardware sized and benchmarked against your workload.
- Configure bucket policies, object lock or retention rules, encryption at rest, TLS or mTLS, and access keys.
- Test S3 client compatibility, multisite or cross-site replication, and restore paths before any application cutover.
How we hand over
- Deliver architecture, configuration and runbook documents covering buckets, users, replication and key rotation.
- Provide test records showing WORM retention, replication lag and restore results for your own review.
- Walk your operations and security staff through monitoring, capacity alerts and incident procedures before sign-off.
How we support
- Ongoing support, upgrades and continuous testing are available as a retainer after handover.
- Plan upgrades against the Ceph release lifecycle or SeaweedFS releases, with your change windows agreed in writing.
- Prepare control evidence for your compliance assessment; independent auditors and certification bodies issue the actual opinions.
