Lufi 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?
FeatureLufiSeaweedFS
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseAGPL-3.0Apache-2.0
LanguagePerlGo
Setup difficultyMediumHard
Min. RAM128 MB512 MB
Deploymentdocker, bare-metaldocker, kubernetes, binary
GitHub stars★ 300★ 33,952
First released20152015
ReplacesWeTransfer, Firefox SendAmazon S3

Why pick each one

Choose Lufi if…

  • Released under the AGPL-3.0 license
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Written in Perl
  • Tiny footprint — runs in 128 MB RAM
Lufi 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 Lufi or SeaweedFS better?

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

Are Lufi and SeaweedFS free and open-source?

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

Can I run Lufi and SeaweedFS with Docker?

Lufi: yes. SeaweedFS: yes.

Related comparisons