Flying Carpet 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?
FeatureFlying CarpetSeaweedFS
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseGPL-3.0Apache-2.0
LanguageRustGo
Setup difficultyEasyHard
Min. RAM128 MB512 MB
Deploymentbinary, bare-metaldocker, kubernetes, binary
GitHub stars★ 5,266★ 33,952
First released20172015
ReplacesAirDrop, SnapdropAmazon S3

Why pick each one

Choose Flying Carpet if…

  • Works fully offline
  • Cross-platform including mobile
Flying Carpet 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 Flying Carpet or SeaweedFS better?

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

Are Flying Carpet and SeaweedFS free and open-source?

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

Can I run Flying Carpet and SeaweedFS with Docker?

Flying Carpet: check the project docs for container support. SeaweedFS: yes.

Related comparisons