rustypaste 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?
FeaturerustypasteSeaweedFS
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseMITApache-2.0
LanguageRustGo
Setup difficultyEasyHard
Min. RAM32 MB512 MB
Deploymentdocker, binarydocker, kubernetes, binary
GitHub stars★ 1,192★ 33,952
First released20212015
ReplacesWeTransfer, ImgurAmazon S3

Why pick each one

Choose rustypaste if…

  • Released under the MIT license
  • Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Active community (1.2k GitHub stars)
rustypaste 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 rustypaste or SeaweedFS better?

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

Are rustypaste and SeaweedFS free and open-source?

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

Can I run rustypaste and SeaweedFS with Docker?

rustypaste: yes. SeaweedFS: yes.

Related comparisons