SeaweedFS vs Sharry

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?
FeatureSeaweedFSSharry
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseApache-2.0GPL-3.0
LanguageGoElm
Setup difficultyHardMedium
Min. RAM512 MB512 MB
Deploymentdocker, kubernetes, binarydocker
GitHub stars★ 33,952★ 1,338
First released20152025
ReplacesAmazon S3

Why pick each one

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

Choose Sharry if…

  • Released under the GPL-3.0 license
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Active community (1.3k GitHub stars)
  • Written in Elm
Sharry details

Frequently asked questions

Is SeaweedFS or Sharry better?

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

Are SeaweedFS and Sharry free and open-source?

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

Can I run SeaweedFS and Sharry with Docker?

SeaweedFS: yes. Sharry: yes.

Related comparisons