Barman vs zrepl
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted backup & recovery options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
Barman
Backup and recovery manager for PostgreSQL
VS
zrepl
Automated ZFS snapshot replication and pruning
| Feature | Barman | zrepl |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Backup & Recovery | Backup & Recovery |
| License | GPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Language | Python | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal | binary, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 3,214 | ★ 1,151 |
| First released | 2012 | 2017 |
| Replaces | Veeam | Veeam |
Why pick each one
Choose Barman if…
- Released under the GPL-3.0 license
- Active community (3.2k GitHub stars)
- Written in Python
- Tiny footprint — runs in 256 MB RAM
Choose zrepl if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Active community (1.2k GitHub stars)
- Written in Go
- Tiny footprint — runs in 128 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is Barman or zrepl better?
Neither is universally better. Barman has the larger community, while zrepl is simpler to set up (medium difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Barman and zrepl free and open-source?
Yes. Barman is licensed under GPL-3.0 and zrepl under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Barman and zrepl with Docker?
Barman: check the project docs for container support. zrepl: check the project docs for container support.