bup vs Kanister
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?
bup
Efficient backup system based on the git packfile format
VS
Kanister
Application-level data management for Kubernetes
| Feature | bup | Kanister |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Backup & Recovery | Backup & Recovery |
| License | LGPL-2.1 | Apache-2.0 |
| Language | Python | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Hard |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 256 MB |
| Deployment | binary | kubernetes, helm |
| GitHub stars | ★ 7,337 | ★ 883 |
| First released | 2010 | 2018 |
| Replaces | Time Machine | Kasten K10 |
Why pick each one
Choose bup if…
- Released under the LGPL-2.1 license
- Mature project with 7.3k GitHub stars
- Written in Python
- Tiny footprint — runs in 128 MB RAM
Choose Kanister if…
- Released under the Apache-2.0 license
- Kubernetes-ready with Helm charts available
- Written in Go
- Tiny footprint — runs in 256 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is bup or Kanister better?
bup is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler medium setup. Consider Kanister if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are bup and Kanister free and open-source?
Yes. bup is licensed under LGPL-2.1 and Kanister under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run bup and Kanister with Docker?
bup: check the project docs for container support. Kanister: check the project docs for container support.