Decision Workspace
astral-tokio-tar vs tar vs async-tar
Side-by-side comparison of Rust crates
A Rust implementation of an async TAR file reader and writer. This library does not currently handle compression, but it is abstract over all I/O readers and writers. Additionally, great lengths are taken to ensure that the entire contents are never required to be entirely resident in memory all at once.
A Rust implementation of a TAR file reader and writer. This library does not currently handle compression, but it is abstract over all I/O readers and writers. Additionally, great lengths are taken to ensure that the entire contents are never required to be entirely resident in memory all at once.
A Rust implementation of an async TAR file reader and writer. This library does not currently handle compression, but it is abstract over all I/O readers and writers. Additionally, great lengths are taken to ensure that the entire contents are never required to be entirely resident in memory all at once.
Core Metrics
| astral-tokio-tar | tar | async-tar | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Health Score | 70 | 68 | 60 |
| Total Downloads | 6.7M | 143.3M | 6.4M |
| 30d Downloads | 1.9M | 10.1M | 802.7K |
| Dependents | 223 | 24.3K | 331 |
| Releases | 8 | 80 | 11 |
| Last Updated | 4d ago | 8d ago | 63d ago |
| Age | 1y 1m | 11y 4m | 6y 3m |
Health Breakdown
Technical Details
| astral-tokio-tar | tar | async-tar | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Version | 0.6.0 | 0.4.45 | 0.6.0 |
| Stable (≥1.0) | ✗ No | ✗ No | ✗ No |
| License | MIT OR Apache-2.0 | MIT OR Apache-2.0 | MIT/Apache-2.0 |
| Dependencies | 10 | 8 | 12 |
| Crate Size | 66KB | 68KB | 55KB |
| Features | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Yanked % | 0.0% | 1.3% | 0.0% |
| Edition | 2021 | 2021 | 2024 |
| MSRV | 1.83.0 | 1.63 | 1.85 |
| Owners | 3 | 2 | 1 |
Links
Quick Verdict
- •astral-tokio-tar leads with a health score of 70/100, but none of the options score above 80.
- •tar has the most downloads (143.3M), suggesting wider adoption.
- •tar is depended on by 24.3K crates — strongest ecosystem trust.