Garage vs SeaweedFS: when each one fits
Choose Garage when the store must span a few sites linked by ordinary internet connections, the hardware is modest, and the workload does not depend on S3 features Garage leaves out. Garage ships as one self-contained binary, its published requirements start at 1 GB RAM and at least 16 GB of disk per node, and it places copies across zones with a recommended minimum of three nodes for three-way replication. Its S3 compatibility page says it does not implement bucket versioning, object lock, bucket policies, ACLs, replication, event notifications or tagging, and its lifecycle rules support only AbortIncompleteMultipartUpload and Expiration. If your applications or backup tooling rely on any of those, Garage is the wrong base, and you should test that dependency before you commit.
Choose SeaweedFS when the main pressure is file volume, many small objects, or a larger cluster, and when your organization accepts a paid Enterprise Edition for recovery and self-healing features. SeaweedFS is Apache-2.0 licensed, stores blobs in append-only volume files with a 16-byte in-memory index per blob, and offers erasure coding, rack and data-center-aware replication, and AES256-GCM encryption at rest. Confirm with the project which features you need from the Enterprise Edition, what it costs under your licensing terms, and whether the community edition alone meets your recovery requirements. Ask your team to check the S3 API calls your tools use, since SeaweedFS exposes S3 alongside HTTP, WebDAV, SFTP and FUSE through its filer servers.
Four decision points should drive the choice: S3 feature needs (versioning, object lock and bucket policies point toward SeaweedFS or Ceph), the number of sites, the expected file count, and the license base you can accept. Garage is AGPL-3.0, which carries network-use source obligations for modified versions, while SeaweedFS is Apache-2.0 with a commercial tier on top. Write these four answers down before you request a quote, because they set the hardware plan, the support scope and the migration path off MinIO.
Which scenario points to Garage and which to SeaweedFS
This table maps common deployment scenarios to the platform that fits better, with the condition that makes each choice hold and what would change it. Use each row as a starting point for a test in your own environment. The main takeaway is that Garage suits small geo-distributed stores that do not need versioning or object lock, while SeaweedFS suits single-site file-heavy workloads and Iceberg data.
| Scenario | Better fit | Condition and what would change it |
|---|---|---|
| Two-site or three-site backup target | Garage | Holds when each site has ordinary internet links, at least three nodes spread across zones, and backup tools need only basic S3 calls. Changes if the backup tool depends on object lock or versioning. |
| Single site with many small files | SeaweedFS | Holds when one site stores very large numbers of small objects, since volume files and a per-blob in-memory index keep disk access direct. Confirm memory sizing for your object count. Changes if you need geo-distributed placement. |
| Workloads that depend on bucket versioning or object lock | Neither confirmed here | Garage documents no bucket versioning or object lock, so it is ruled out. Confirm SeaweedFS support for both features in your target release before committing. |
| Iceberg analytics data | SeaweedFS | Holds when the lake needs S3 Table Buckets with an integrated REST catalog. Changes if your query engines need catalog features that you have not verified with the vendor. |
| Air-gapped or edge sites with limited hardware | Garage | Holds when nodes meet the published 1 GB RAM and 16 GB disk minimums and links stay within 200 ms latency and 50 Mbps. Changes if you need erasure coding or encryption at rest, which SeaweedFS documents. |
| Licensing and support requirements | Depends on policy | Garage is AGPL-3.0, while SeaweedFS core is Apache-2.0 with a paid Enterprise Edition. Changes if legal review finds AGPL terms unacceptable or if you need the paid self-healing and data recovery features. |
How Garage and SeaweedFS are built and what that means for operations
Garage and SeaweedFS split storage work differently, and each split changes what your team patches, what fails first and how much memory and disk planning the cluster needs. The cards below follow the parts of each design that most affect day-to-day operations, from upgrades to failure handling to the skills your operators need.
Garage single binary and zones
Garage ships as one self-contained binary with no dependencies, so each node has fewer moving parts to install and patch. It stores each data chunk in three zones, where a zone is a group of servers, and its deployment guide recommends at least three nodes with copies placed in different locations. Operationally, map each zone to a real failure domain such as a site, rack or power feed, and confirm with the vendor how rolling upgrades should be sequenced across zones before you schedule them.
Garage metadata engine choice
Garage uses LMDB as the default and fastest metadata engine, but its deployment guide warns that LMDB files are not portable across CPU architectures and that corruption has been reported after unclean shutdowns. The guide offers SQLite as a more robust alternative. Decide this at build time, because changing it later is a migration. Check whether your nodes will mix CPU architectures, confirm how each node is protected against power loss, and assign someone to own the restore procedure for metadata.
SeaweedFS master servers
SeaweedFS master servers track which volume servers hold which volumes, and you can run one master or a Raft group of three. A single master is simpler to stand up but is the component whose loss stops assignment and lookup. A three-member Raft group removes that single point, but it needs a majority of members to elect a leader, so two failed masters halt the cluster. Ask how failover behaves in your version and test it during a planned outage before production.
SeaweedFS volume servers
Volume servers store blobs in append-only volume files, which keeps writes sequential and suits many small files. The trade-off for operators is that deleted or overwritten space is not returned to the disk immediately, so you need a plan for watching free space and reclaiming it. Size volumes and disks with growth in mind, back up volume files on a schedule that matches your recovery targets, and confirm how the Apache-2.0 edition and the paid Enterprise Edition handle repair after a lost volume server.
SeaweedFS filer and metadata stores
Filer servers manage directories and files on top of the volume layer, and they can keep metadata in many backends, including LevelDB, RocksDB, SQLite, MySQL, PostgreSQL and etcd. Your choice should follow what your team already runs and backs up well, because the filer is the path that S3 and file protocols depend on. Ask which store your team can restore fastest, confirm that filer metadata is included in your backup scope, and keep the store version aligned with your upgrade calendar.
Per-blob memory index
SeaweedFS keeps a 16-byte in-memory index per blob so each lookup reaches the disk in one step. Memory therefore grows with the number of objects, not only with total data size, which matters most for many small files. As a planning floor, multiply your expected blob count by 16 bytes for index memory alone, then add headroom for the operating system and other processes. Confirm this sizing with the current documentation and your own blob counts before you choose server memory.
Garage vs SeaweedFS on S3 coverage, scale, hardware and support
This table sets Garage's documented S3 coverage and hardware floor against SeaweedFS' storage features and access protocols. Read the S3 rows first if your applications depend on versioning, object lock or bucket policies, and read the hardware rows before you size either system.
| Capability | Garage | SeaweedFS |
|---|---|---|
| Core S3 operations | Implements multipart uploads, CORS, presigned URLs, signature v4, and both path-style and virtual-host-style URLs | Exposes an S3 API through its filer servers; confirm the exact operation list against your client applications |
| Bucket versioning, object lock and bucket policies | No | Confirm per release and per edition; these are not covered by the supplied facts for this comparison |
| Server-side encryption and SSE-C | SSE-C supported; server-side encryption configuration not implemented | AES256-GCM encryption at rest; confirm how it maps to S3 encryption headers in your client |
| Lifecycle rules | Limited to AbortIncompleteMultipartUpload and Expiration | Confirm lifecycle support in the S3 gateway before relying on tiering or expiry |
| Replication and event notifications | Bucket replication and event notifications not implemented | Rack- and data-center-aware replication for data placement; confirm S3 bucket replication or notifications separately |
| Additional access protocols | S3 only | S3, HTTP, WebDAV, SFTP and FUSE through filer servers |
| Erasure coding and data placement | Stores each chunk in three zones, with copies placed in different locations | Erasure coding for warm data plus rack- and data-center-aware replication |
| Iceberg and table workloads | Not part of the supplied Garage facts | S3 Table Buckets with an integrated REST catalog for Apache Iceberg tables |
| Hardware floor and sizing driver | x86_64 CPU from about the last decade or ARMv7/ARMv8, 1 GB RAM, at least 16 GB disk, 200 ms or less latency and 50 Mbps or more between nodes; at least three nodes for three-way replication | Sizing depends on the file mix; the per-blob in-memory index means small-file counts must be tested before you set memory and disk |
| Kubernetes and deployment options | Single self-contained binary with no dependencies; deploy on bare metal or VMs | Helm charts, a CSI driver and an operator, plus Docker or bare metal deployment |
| Support model | Open source under AGPL-3.0; no paid edition in the supplied facts | Apache-2.0 core with paid Enterprise Edition that adds data recovery and self-healing; ask vendors for support terms |
SeaweedFS licensing and Enterprise Edition, Garage AGPL-3.0 obligations
Garage is licensed under AGPL-3.0, a strong copyleft license that extends source-sharing duties to people who interact with a modified version over a network. Its main repository lives on Deuxfleurs' own Forgejo instance, with a read-only mirror on GitHub, so the mirror is a convenient place to read code and tags but is not the sole home of the project. Development has been funded through a sequence of grants, including NGI POINTER (2021 to 2022), NLnet and NGI0 Entrust (2023 to 2024) and the NLnet NGI0 Commons Fund (2025).
- Repository location: the authoritative repository is on Deuxfleurs' Forgejo instance, with the GitHub mirror kept read-only.
- Tag history: v2.0.0 was tagged on June 14, 2025, v2.4.0 on September 6, 2026 and v2.4.1 on September 7, 2026.
- Funding sources: grant funding from NGI POINTER, NLnet and NGI0 programs supported development from 2021 through 2025.
- No paid edition: the public materials supplied do not describe a commercial Garage edition, so confirm with Deuxfleurs before assuming one exists.
Before relying on Garage in a regulated environment, confirm the exact tag you plan to run and read the license text with your legal counsel.
The AGPL-3.0 obligations most teams miss are the network clause. If you modify Garage and let users interact with the modified version over a network, the license generally requires you to offer those users the corresponding source of your modifications. Running an unmodified release does not usually trigger that duty in the same way, and internal use is treated differently from offering a service to outside parties. These are general descriptions of the license, not legal advice, and the boundary cases are exactly what counsel should settle.
- Unmodified use: running a stock release for your own staff is the simplest position to document.
- Modified use: patches, configuration wrappers that change behavior, or forks may create source-offer duties if users reach the service over a network.
- Who is covered: the question is whether external customers, partners or contractors access the modified service, which changes the analysis.
- Derivative tooling: confirm whether your own integration code links to or embeds Garage in a way that counts as a modification.
- Record keeping: keep a versioned list of any patches so you can answer source requests quickly.
Ask counsel to confirm which of your deployment patterns fall under the network clause before go-live, and document the answer alongside the tag you run.
SeaweedFS is licensed under Apache-2.0, a permissive license that does not impose the source-sharing duties of AGPL-3.0 on users who modify and run the code internally or as a service. The project also offers a paid Enterprise Edition. The README says that edition adds data recovery and self-healing storage, so the distinction between the open core and the commercial build is a feature question as much as a licensing one.
- Core license: the open-source codebase is Apache-2.0, which is generally easier to embed and redistribute than AGPL-3.0.
- Paid edition: the Enterprise Edition is a separately licensed product, and the README names data recovery and self-healing storage as its additions.
- Scope of the paid features: confirm whether those features are required for your recovery objectives, since the community build is the default starting point.
- Pricing and terms: no pricing or contract terms were supplied, so request them in writing from the vendor.
Ask the vendor to list which features are in the Enterprise Edition and which are in the Apache-2.0 build, and get that comparison in writing before you design recovery procedures.
SeaweedFS publishes releases on GitHub, and the two most recent supplied release points are 4.47 on September 14, 2026 and 4.48 on September 28, 2026. That two-week gap is a useful signal of active development, but a release cadence alone does not show how long a version will be patched. Treat the release page as the place to check current status on the day you plan an upgrade.
- Recent cadence: 4.47 followed on September 14, 2026 and 4.48 was published on September 28, 2026.
- Upgrade planning: a short gap between releases means you should pin a version and test each upgrade rather than track the latest tag.
- Support windows: the supplied material does not give a support window for community releases, so ask the vendor for one.
- Enterprise patching: confirm whether Enterprise customers receive fixes on a different schedule from community releases.
Before committing, check the GitHub releases page for the current tag and ask the vendor how long each community release is patched.
What drives the running cost of each option
The running cost of Garage and SeaweedFS is set mostly by hardware, the network between sites and the people who upgrade and test recovery, not by a license fee. Both projects are open source, so the one-time and recurring spend you should price is infrastructure, staff time and any support contract you choose. For Garage, the infrastructure list is short but specific: Garage's deployment guide recommends metadata on SSD, data on large HDDs, XFS for the data directory and a checksumming filesystem such as BTRFS or ZFS for metadata. Each of those choices adds disk cost, and the SSD metadata tier is a line item many teams under-budget. Garage's published requirements of at least 16 GB of disk, 1 GB of RAM, 200 ms or less latency and 50 Mbps or more between nodes are minimums, so the cost of the inter-site links is the component most likely to grow with the number of sites.
SeaweedFS shifts more of the cost onto the file profile. Its in-memory index of 16 bytes per blob means memory grows with the number of stored objects, so a workload of many small files needs RAM planned from the file count, not from capacity alone. Its filer metadata can sit in stores such as PostgreSQL or MySQL, which are one-time design choices but carry recurring database operating cost. The licensing decision is the clearest recurring cost difference: SeaweedFS is Apache-2.0 with a paid Enterprise Edition that its README says adds data recovery and self-healing storage. Ask the vendor for the Enterprise price basis, what it covers and whether support terms are separate, and compare that against the staff hours needed to run community releases, including the 4.48 release published September 28, 2026 and the monthly upgrade cadence your own change process requires.
Implementation services are a one-time cost, and DeployOpen's engagements are fixed-scope, with scope, deliverables and timelines agreed in writing before work starts. Ongoing upgrades, recovery drills and continuous support are available as retainers, so separate them from the build in any quote. Ask for the following in writing: the scope and number of sites, the expected file profile (object size distribution and file count), the S3 features you need (Garage omits bucket versioning, object lock and bucket policies, so any gap there may add engineering or a different design), the hardware and network assumptions behind each site, the recovery-testing frequency, and the support terms, including who answers for SeaweedFS Enterprise features. DeployOpen does not publish a price list, so a quote follows from that scope. Confirm current Garage and SeaweedFS release terms directly with each project before you commit.
Moving buckets off MinIO to either platform
This sequence moves object data and keys off the archived MinIO community edition onto Garage or SeaweedFS in a controlled order. It ends with the target cluster verified, clients cut over and the source retired, with access controls rebuilt on the new platform rather than copied.
Inventory buckets and the S3 features in use
Start by listing every bucket, its size, object count and the access keys that read or write it. For each bucket, record whether it uses versioning, object lock, bucket policies, lifecycle rules, event notifications, tagging, server-side encryption configuration or replication, since these are the features that decide what can move as is. The application owners and the platform team should sign off on the inventory together. The step is done when every bucket has a row showing its features, its clients and an owner.
Decide which features to rebuild or drop
Compare the inventory against the S3 compatibility status of the target. Garage's S3 compatibility page says it does not implement bucket versioning, object lock, bucket policies, ACLs, server-side encryption configuration, replication, event notifications or tagging, and it supports only AbortIncompleteMultipartUpload and Expiration in lifecycle rules. Confirm SeaweedFS coverage for each feature your inventory lists with the SeaweedFS documentation and your own tests. For each gap, decide whether the application will handle it, a replacement job will handle it, or the feature is dropped. The output is a signed decision list that names the owner of each rebuilt item.
Size the target cluster in a test
Build a small test cluster on the chosen platform using the same hardware class you plan to buy or reuse. For Garage, check the published minimums for CPU, RAM, disk and inter-node latency and bandwidth, and confirm the three-zone layout you intend to run. For SeaweedFS, confirm the master, volume and filer layout, the metadata store and the replication settings. Load a representative sample of your small and large objects, then measure throughput, disk use and recovery behavior after a node stop. The output is a written sizing decision that your architecture review accepts.
Create buckets, keys and permissions on the target
Recreate each bucket on the target with the same name where possible, then configure access. Garage uses its own permission system, granting each access key rights per bucket, so map every MinIO policy to explicit key and bucket grants rather than expecting policy documents to carry over. SeaweedFS access controls also need to be set up on its side and verified against the decision list from the earlier step. Test each application identity with the minimum rights it needs. The step is done when a test request from each identity succeeds and a request outside its grant is refused.
Copy data and verify checksums
Copy objects from MinIO to the target through the S3 API using a tool your team trusts for bulk transfer, and run it per bucket so failures are isolated. Object data and keys transfer this way, but tags, object metadata that the target does not store, and anything tied to versions or object lock do not. After each bucket finishes, compare object counts, total sizes and checksums between source and target, and log every mismatch for re-copy. The output is a per-bucket reconciliation report that shows zero unexplained differences.
Rebuild monitoring and backup jobs
Recreate the operational jobs that surrounded MinIO, since they do not move with the data. Add health and capacity monitoring for the new cluster, set alerts for disk, node and replication state, and rebuild backup jobs that copy the target to a separate location. Test one restore from the new backup before relying on it. The step is done when alerts fire on a test fault and a restored object matches its original checksum.
Cut over clients and endpoints
Move applications to the new endpoint in small groups, starting with the least critical buckets. Update endpoint settings, path-style or virtual-host-style addressing and access keys, and confirm each client uses the new credentials. Keep MinIO read-only for the cutover window so that no write lands on the old source after the final copy. Re-run the checksum comparison for any bucket that changed during its window. The output is a log showing every client is on the target and writes succeed.
Retire the MinIO source
Once every client has run on the target for a period your operations team agrees on, take a final backup of the MinIO data, then decommission the source. Remove its keys, revoke access, and record the date and the backup location in the change log. Because MinIO's community repository is archived, confirm with your own records that no service still depends on it before deleting data. The step is done when the source is offline, the final backup is verified and the decommission record is signed.
Where Garage and SeaweedFS projects usually run long
Garage projects tend to slip at the network and disk design stage, not at installation. Garage ships as one self-contained binary, but its deployment guide expects at least three nodes for three-way replication with copies placed in different zones, and its published requirements include 200 ms or less latency and 50 Mbps or more between nodes. Confirm those links with your network team before the first node is built, because a site-to-site path that meets the numbers on paper can still fail under load. Choosing the metadata engine is the other early decision. LMDB is the default, but the deployment guide warns that LMDB files are not portable across CPU architectures and that corruption has been reported after unclean shutdowns. SQLite is offered as the more robust alternative. Decide this with your platform team, record the choice, and plan power-loss and node-reboot tests against it. Disk layout also needs a decision: the guide recommends metadata on SSD, data on large HDDs and XFS for the data directory, and says Garage handles multiple HDDs per node without RAID. Teams used to RAID-backed volumes often need a change of habit here.
SeaweedFS projects tend to slip in cluster topology and metadata design. The master tier is one server or a Raft group of three, and the filer tier manages directories and files on top of a metadata store. Choosing that store (the README lists LevelDB, RocksDB, SQLite, MySQL, PostgreSQL, Cassandra, MongoDB, Redis, Elasticsearch, etcd, TiKV and FoundationDB, among others) is a decision with operational consequences, so settle it before data arrives and test failover of the store itself. Deployment target is the next choice: the README covers Kubernetes with Helm charts, a CSI driver and an operator, as well as Docker and bare metal. Sizing needs particular care for the small-file workload this product is tuned for, because blob index memory grows with object count (the README cites a 16-byte in-memory index per blob). Ask for a sizing model based on your expected object count rather than total capacity. Finally, TLS or mTLS between masters, volume servers and filers, and client-facing S3 endpoints, adds certificate issuance and rotation work that is easy to defer and hard to retrofit.
Both products need the client team to supply three things before any timeline is credible. First, an application inventory listing every system that writes to or reads from the store, the S3 calls it makes, and any use of versioning, object lock, bucket policies or lifecycle rules. Garage does not implement several of these, so each gap needs a named owner and a code change or a decision to accept the loss. Second, access patterns: object size distribution, write and read rates, peak hours, and expected growth, which drive the metadata and sizing choices above. Third, an acceptance test written before build starts, covering the S3 operations your applications actually use, node or site failure, disk replacement, backup and restore, and recovery after an unclean shutdown. Agree the pass criteria in writing with DeployOpen so the scope and quote follow from them.
Questions buyers ask before choosing Garage or SeaweedFS
What drives the cost and effort of running Garage or SeaweedFS?
Neither open-source build carries a license fee, so the cost is hardware, staff time and any paid support. For Garage, the site lists minimum node specifications of 1 GB RAM and at least 16 GB of disk, but a production cluster needs at least three nodes for three-way replication, SSD for metadata and large HDDs for data. SeaweedFS has more moving parts, including master servers (one, or a Raft group of three), volume servers and filer servers, plus a metadata store such as PostgreSQL or Redis. Its paid Enterprise Edition is an added cost, so confirm its price and scope directly with SeaweedFS. For a quote, ask for hardware, licensing, support and implementation as separate lines, with one-time and recurring costs marked.
Can our team run Garage or SeaweedFS without outside help?
A team with Linux, storage and S3 client experience can run either one, but the answer depends on how much operating load it can carry. Garage ships as one self-contained binary with no dependencies, so routine work centers on node health, failed drives and zone placement across sites. SeaweedFS has more components to watch, and its README describes Kubernetes deployment through Helm charts, a CSI driver and an operator, which shifts work toward whoever owns the platform. Either way, your team owns backups, upgrades and incident response. Many teams bring in an implementation partner for the first build and then keep ongoing support on a retainer. DeployOpen plans, implements, hardens, backs up and supports self-hosted platforms inside your own infrastructure, under a written scope.
What work must our own team provide during a deployment?
Your team supplies the infrastructure, the application knowledge and the decisions that only the data owner can make. The main items are:
- Compute and disks: at least three Garage nodes in different locations, with SSD for metadata and large HDDs for data.
- Application inventory: which services call the object store, which S3 operations they use and which features they depend on.
- Access design: how keys and per-bucket permissions map to teams, since Garage uses its own permission system.
- Operating runbooks: upgrade windows, backup targets, monitoring thresholds and on-call ownership.
Agree these owners before the scope is signed, because most schedule slips trace back to missing inventory or unclear access decisions.
How long does a migration off MinIO take, and what sets that time?
The duration depends on drivers you can measure in your own environment, so ask for an estimate only after an inventory. The first driver is data volume and object count, since SeaweedFS is designed for many small files and the migration pattern changes with file size. The second is feature dependence: buckets that rely on versioning, object lock, bucket policies or event notifications need a different target design before any copy starts. The third is the number of applications and their S3 client behavior, which determines how much testing and configuration change is needed. Other drivers include available network bandwidth between the old and new stores, how much downtime each system can tolerate for cutover, and whether data must be verified object by object. Ask any implementation partner to show how each driver was measured.
Can Garage replace bucket versioning or object lock?
No, Garage does not implement either feature. Its S3 compatibility status page says it also omits bucket policies, ACLs, server-side encryption configuration, replication, event notifications and tagging. Lifecycle rules support only AbortIncompleteMultipartUpload and Expiration. Garage does implement multipart uploads, CORS, presigned URLs, SSE-C and signature v4, and it uses its own per-access-key, per-bucket permissions. If an application or a control depends on versioning or object lock, you need to move that requirement elsewhere, such as into the application, a backup system or a documented control design, or choose a different target. For regulated retention, confirm with your auditor how the replacement control will be evidenced before you move data.
When is the SeaweedFS Enterprise Edition worth reviewing?
Review the Enterprise Edition when your requirements include the features its README says it adds, namely data recovery and self-healing storage, and when the community build cannot meet your recovery expectations with the staff you have. The Apache-2.0 build already covers S3, HTTP, WebDAV, SFTP and FUSE access, erasure coding for warm data, rack- and data-center-aware replication, AES256-GCM encryption at rest, TLS or mTLS and S3 Table Buckets for Apache Iceberg. If those are enough, the Enterprise Edition is an added expense rather than a requirement. Before signing, ask SeaweedFS exactly what is included, what support terms apply, how pricing is set and whether each feature maps to a recovery target you have written down.
Does Garage's AGPL-3.0 license create obligations if we modify it?
Garage is licensed under AGPL-3.0, and that license includes a network-use clause that can require source disclosure to users who interact with a modified version over a network. Whether it applies to your deployment depends on whether you change the code and how users reach the service, so have your legal team review the specific use case. Garage's main repository is on Deuxfleurs' own Forgejo instance, with a read-only mirror on GitHub. If you plan to run unmodified upstream releases, the obligations are simpler to document. If you plan patches, document each change, the release it applies to and who is responsible for publishing source when required.
How DeployOpen helps choose, implement or migrate object storage
DeployOpen plans, implements, hardens, backs up, documents and supports self-hosted open-source platforms inside your own cloud accounts, data centers or air-gapped networks. For Garage vs SeaweedFS, we start by testing which S3 features your applications need, then build and hand over the option that fits your sites, hardware and operating model.
How we scope
- We list the S3 features your applications call, including versioning, object lock, bucket policies and lifecycle rules, and check each against both platforms.
- We record site count, expected object sizes, hardware and latency between nodes so the Garage or SeaweedFS design matches your footprint.
- Engagements are fixed-scope, so the written scope fixes deliverables, timelines and acceptance criteria before any work starts.
How we build
- We deploy the chosen platform in your environment, including node layout, zone or rack placement, disk layout and metadata store selection.
- We configure TLS or mTLS, encryption at rest where the platform supports it, and per-bucket access controls that match your permission model.
- We test S3 client compatibility, failure and node-loss scenarios, and restore procedures against your real workloads before go-live.
How we hand over
- You receive architecture notes, runbooks for node replacement, backup and restore steps, and a record of every configuration decision.
- Migration plans cover bucket-by-bucket copy, checksum verification and cutover, with rollback steps written into the handover.
- Your team walks through the runbooks with us, and we document which platform features are intentionally out of scope.
How we support
- Ongoing support, upgrades and continuous testing are available as retainers, scoped in writing like the original engagement.
- We track upgrade paths for Garage and SeaweedFS releases and agree in advance how each upgrade is tested and rolled out.
- Ask any quote to state which items recur under a retainer and which are one-time, so budgeting stays clear over the platform's life.
