Digirecord vs SeaweedFS

A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted file sync & storage options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.

Not the right match-up?
FeatureDigirecordSeaweedFS
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseAGPL-3.0Apache-2.0
LanguageNodejsGo
Setup difficultyMediumHard
Min. RAM512 MB512 MB
Deploymentbare-metaldocker, kubernetes, binary
GitHub stars★ 33,952
First released20202015
ReplacesAmazon S3

Why pick each one

Choose Digirecord if…

  • Released under the AGPL-3.0 license
  • Written in Nodejs
  • Lightweight — runs in 512 MB RAM
Digirecord details

Choose SeaweedFS if…

  • Released under the Apache-2.0 license
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Kubernetes-ready with Helm charts available
  • Mature project with 34k GitHub stars
SeaweedFS details

Frequently asked questions

Is Digirecord or SeaweedFS better?

Neither is universally better. SeaweedFS has the larger community, while Digirecord is simpler to set up (medium difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.

Are Digirecord and SeaweedFS free and open-source?

Yes. Digirecord is licensed under AGPL-3.0 and SeaweedFS under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run Digirecord and SeaweedFS with Docker?

Digirecord: check the project docs for container support. SeaweedFS: yes.

Related comparisons