hash-calendar 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?
Featurehash-calendarSeaweedFS
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseMITApache-2.0
LanguageJavaScriptGo
Setup difficultyMediumHard
Min. RAM512 MB512 MB
Deploymentbare-metaldocker, kubernetes, binary
GitHub stars★ 69★ 33,952
First released20262015
ReplacesGoogle Agenda, Microsoft OutlookAmazon S3

Why pick each one

Choose hash-calendar if…

  • Released under the MIT license
  • Written in JavaScript
  • Lightweight — runs in 512 MB RAM
hash-calendar 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 hash-calendar or SeaweedFS better?

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

Are hash-calendar and SeaweedFS free and open-source?

Yes. hash-calendar is licensed under MIT and SeaweedFS under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run hash-calendar and SeaweedFS with Docker?

hash-calendar: check the project docs for container support. SeaweedFS: yes.

Related comparisons