Samba 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?
FeatureSambaSeaweedFS
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseGPL-3.0Apache-2.0
LanguageCGo
Setup difficultyMediumHard
Min. RAM512 MB512 MB
Deploymentbare-metaldocker, kubernetes, binary
GitHub stars★ 33,952
First released20202015
ReplacesAmazon S3

Why pick each one

Choose Samba if…

  • Released under the GPL-3.0 license
  • Written in C
  • Lightweight — runs in 512 MB RAM
Samba 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 Samba or SeaweedFS better?

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

Are Samba and SeaweedFS free and open-source?

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

Can I run Samba and SeaweedFS with Docker?

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

Related comparisons