Decision Workspace
tar vs astral-tokio-tar vs async-tar
Side-by-side comparison of Rust crates
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.
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
| tar | astral-tokio-tar | async-tar | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Health Score | 64 | 70 | 61 |
| Total Downloads | 190.0M | 16.1M | 7.2M |
| 30d Downloads | 9.1M | 1.8M | 193.2K |
| Dependents | 38.2K | 511 | 397 |
| Releases | 81 | 12 | 12 |
| Last Updated | 56d ago | 18d ago | 42d ago |
| Age | 11y 8m | 1y 5m | 6y 6m |
Health Breakdown
Technical Details
| tar | astral-tokio-tar | async-tar | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Version | 0.4.46 | 0.6.3 | 0.6.1 |
| Stable (≥1.0) | ✗ No | ✗ No | ✗ No |
| License | MIT OR Apache-2.0 | MIT OR Apache-2.0 | MIT/Apache-2.0 |
| Dependencies | 8 | 10 | 12 |
| Crate Size | 71KB | 77KB | 57KB |
| Features | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Yanked % | 1.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Edition | 2021 | 2021 | 2024 |
| MSRV | 1.63 | 1.83.0 | 1.85 |
| Owners | 1 | 3 | 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 (190.0M), suggesting wider adoption.
- •tar is depended on by 38.2K crates — strongest ecosystem trust.