What is MQTT and what are its top alternatives?
MQTT (Message Queuing Telemetry Transport) is a lightweight messaging protocol commonly used for IoT applications. It is known for its simplicity, low bandwidth usage, and efficient message delivery. However, MQTT lacks built-in security features, and the protocol does not support message queuing or persistence by default, making it less suitable for scenarios requiring guaranteed message delivery or high security requirements.
- AMQP (Advanced Message Queuing Protocol): AMQP is a messaging protocol designed for enterprise use cases, providing features like message queuing, persistence, and advanced security mechanisms. It offers more robust message delivery guarantees and supports complex messaging patterns. However, AMQP is more complex to implement and may require more resources compared to MQTT.
- CoAP (Constrained Application Protocol): CoAP is a specialized messaging protocol for constrained IoT devices operating in low-power, low-bandwidth environments. It is designed to be lightweight, efficient, and suitable for resource-constrained devices. CoAP supports RESTful interactions and provides features like reliable delivery and multicast communication. However, CoAP may have limited support in some environments compared to MQTT.
- STOMP (Simple Text Oriented Messaging Protocol): STOMP is a text-based messaging protocol that offers simplicity and ease of integration for messaging applications. It provides basic features for message delivery and subscription, making it suitable for simple messaging requirements. STOMP is supported by various messaging brokers and libraries, but it may lack some advanced features compared to MQTT.
- XMPP (Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol): XMPP is an open messaging protocol designed for real-time communication, presence information, and messaging exchange. It supports features like authentication, encryption, and message routing, making it suitable for instant messaging and collaboration applications. XMPP is extensible and widely adopted in the domain of chat applications, but it may have higher overhead compared to MQTT.
- DDS (Data Distribution Service): DDS is a messaging standard for real-time and high-performance data distribution in distributed systems. It offers features like data-centric communication, Quality of Service policies, and scalable publish-subscribe messaging. DDS is suitable for applications requiring low latency, high throughput, and deterministic messaging behavior. However, DDS may have higher complexity and resource requirements compared to MQTT.
- Kafka: Apache Kafka is a distributed streaming platform that provides features for building real-time data pipelines and event-driven applications. It offers high throughput, fault tolerance, and scalable message processing capabilities. Kafka is widely used for data stream processing and event sourcing, making it suitable for scenarios requiring high volume data ingestion and processing. However, Kafka may have higher operational complexity and infrastructure requirements compared to MQTT.
- RabbitMQ: RabbitMQ is a popular open-source message broker that implements multiple messaging protocols, including AMQP, MQTT, and STOMP. It provides features like message queuing, routing, and clustering, making it suitable for building distributed messaging systems. RabbitMQ offers high flexibility and extensibility, but it may have higher resource overhead compared to MQTT.
- NATS: NATS is a lightweight and high-performance messaging system designed for cloud-native applications and microservices. It offers features like publish-subscribe messaging, request-reply communication, and streaming capabilities. NATS is known for its simplicity, speed, and scalability, making it suitable for modern cloud-native architectures. However, NATS may lack some advanced features and integrations compared to MQTT.
- WebSocket: WebSocket is a communication protocol that provides full-duplex communication channels over a single TCP connection. It allows for real-time, bi-directional data transfer between clients and servers, making it suitable for web-based messaging applications. WebSocket provides low latency, efficient data transfer, and cross-platform compatibility, but it may require additional considerations for security and reliability compared to MQTT.
- IoTivity: IoTivity is an open-source framework that provides a standard way to connect IoT devices and enable communication between them. It offers features for device discovery, data exchange, and secure communication, making it suitable for building interoperable IoT solutions. IoTivity is supported by the Open Connectivity Foundation and aims to create a unified IoT ecosystem. However, IoTivity may require more configuration and setup compared to MQTT for certain IoT use cases.
Top Alternatives to MQTT
- RabbitMQ
RabbitMQ gives your applications a common platform to send and receive messages, and your messages a safe place to live until received. ...
- REST
An architectural style for developing web services. A distributed system framework that uses Web protocols and technologies. ...
- XMPP
It is a set of open technologies for instant messaging, presence, multi-party chat, voice and video calls, collaboration, lightweight middleware, content syndication, and generalized routing of XML data. ...
- Google Cloud Messaging
Google Cloud Messaging (GCM) is a free service that enables developers to send messages between servers and client apps. This includes downstream messages from servers to client apps, and upstream messages from client apps to servers. ...
- Kafka
Kafka is a distributed, partitioned, replicated commit log service. It provides the functionality of a messaging system, but with a unique design. ...
- ZeroMQ
The 0MQ lightweight messaging kernel is a library which extends the standard socket interfaces with features traditionally provided by specialised messaging middleware products. 0MQ sockets provide an abstraction of asynchronous message queues, multiple messaging patterns, message filtering (subscriptions), seamless access to multiple transport protocols and more. ...
- gRPC
gRPC is a modern open source high performance RPC framework that can run in any environment. It can efficiently connect services in and across data centers with pluggable support for load balancing, tracing, health checking... ...
- MySQL
The MySQL software delivers a very fast, multi-threaded, multi-user, and robust SQL (Structured Query Language) database server. MySQL Server is intended for mission-critical, heavy-load production systems as well as for embedding into mass-deployed software. ...
MQTT alternatives & related posts
- It's fast and it works with good metrics/monitoring235
- Ease of configuration80
- I like the admin interface60
- Easy to set-up and start with52
- Durable22
- Standard protocols19
- Intuitive work through python19
- Written primarily in Erlang11
- Simply superb9
- Completeness of messaging patterns7
- Reliable4
- Scales to 1 million messages per second4
- Better than most traditional queue based message broker3
- Distributed3
- Supports MQTT3
- Supports AMQP3
- Clear documentation with different scripting language2
- Better routing system2
- Inubit Integration2
- Great ui2
- High performance2
- Reliability2
- Open-source2
- Runs on Open Telecom Platform2
- Clusterable2
- Delayed messages2
- Supports Streams1
- Supports STOMP1
- Supports JMS1
- Too complicated cluster/HA config and management9
- Needs Erlang runtime. Need ops good with Erlang runtime6
- Configuration must be done first, not by your code5
- Slow4
related RabbitMQ posts
As Sentry runs throughout the day, there are about 50 different offline tasks that we execute—anything from “process this event, pretty please” to “send all of these cool people some emails.” There are some that we execute once a day and some that execute thousands per second.
Managing this variety requires a reliably high-throughput message-passing technology. We use Celery's RabbitMQ implementation, and we stumbled upon a great feature called Federation that allows us to partition our task queue across any number of RabbitMQ servers and gives us the confidence that, if any single server gets backlogged, others will pitch in and distribute some of the backlogged tasks to their consumers.
#MessageQueue
Around the time of their Series A, Pinterest’s stack included Python and Django, with Tornado and Node.js as web servers. Memcached / Membase and Redis handled caching, with RabbitMQ handling queueing. Nginx, HAproxy and Varnish managed static-delivery and load-balancing, with persistent data storage handled by MySQL.
related REST posts
related XMPP posts
Google Cloud Messaging
- Free9
- Scalable6
- Easy setup4
- Easy iOS setup2
- IOS Support1
- Reliability1
related Google Cloud Messaging posts
- High-throughput126
- Distributed119
- Scalable92
- High-Performance86
- Durable66
- Publish-Subscribe38
- Simple-to-use19
- Open source18
- Written in Scala and java. Runs on JVM12
- Message broker + Streaming system9
- KSQL4
- Avro schema integration4
- Robust4
- Suport Multiple clients3
- Extremely good parallelism constructs2
- Partioned, replayable log2
- Simple publisher / multi-subscriber model1
- Fun1
- Flexible1
- Non-Java clients are second-class citizens32
- Needs Zookeeper29
- Operational difficulties9
- Terrible Packaging5
related Kafka posts
When I joined NYT there was already broad dissatisfaction with the LAMP (Linux Apache HTTP Server MySQL PHP) Stack and the front end framework, in particular. So, I wasn't passing judgment on it. I mean, LAMP's fine, you can do good work in LAMP. It's a little dated at this point, but it's not ... I didn't want to rip it out for its own sake, but everyone else was like, "We don't like this, it's really inflexible." And I remember from being outside the company when that was called MIT FIVE when it had launched. And been observing it from the outside, and I was like, you guys took so long to do that and you did it so carefully, and yet you're not happy with your decisions. Why is that? That was more the impetus. If we're going to do this again, how are we going to do it in a way that we're gonna get a better result?
So we're moving quickly away from LAMP, I would say. So, right now, the new front end is React based and using Apollo. And we've been in a long, protracted, gradual rollout of the core experiences.
React is now talking to GraphQL as a primary API. There's a Node.js back end, to the front end, which is mainly for server-side rendering, as well.
Behind there, the main repository for the GraphQL server is a big table repository, that we call Bodega because it's a convenience store. And that reads off of a Kafka pipeline.
To provide employees with the critical need of interactive querying, we’ve worked with Presto, an open-source distributed SQL query engine, over the years. Operating Presto at Pinterest’s scale has involved resolving quite a few challenges like, supporting deeply nested and huge thrift schemas, slow/ bad worker detection and remediation, auto-scaling cluster, graceful cluster shutdown and impersonation support for ldap authenticator.
Our infrastructure is built on top of Amazon EC2 and we leverage Amazon S3 for storing our data. This separates compute and storage layers, and allows multiple compute clusters to share the S3 data.
We have hundreds of petabytes of data and tens of thousands of Apache Hive tables. Our Presto clusters are comprised of a fleet of 450 r4.8xl EC2 instances. Presto clusters together have over 100 TBs of memory and 14K vcpu cores. Within Pinterest, we have close to more than 1,000 monthly active users (out of total 1,600+ Pinterest employees) using Presto, who run about 400K queries on these clusters per month.
Each query submitted to Presto cluster is logged to a Kafka topic via Singer. Singer is a logging agent built at Pinterest and we talked about it in a previous post. Each query is logged when it is submitted and when it finishes. When a Presto cluster crashes, we will have query submitted events without corresponding query finished events. These events enable us to capture the effect of cluster crashes over time.
Each Presto cluster at Pinterest has workers on a mix of dedicated AWS EC2 instances and Kubernetes pods. Kubernetes platform provides us with the capability to add and remove workers from a Presto cluster very quickly. The best-case latency on bringing up a new worker on Kubernetes is less than a minute. However, when the Kubernetes cluster itself is out of resources and needs to scale up, it can take up to ten minutes. Some other advantages of deploying on Kubernetes platform is that our Presto deployment becomes agnostic of cloud vendor, instance types, OS, etc.
#BigData #AWS #DataScience #DataEngineering
ZeroMQ
- Fast23
- Lightweight20
- Transport agnostic11
- No broker required7
- Low level APIs are in C4
- Low latency4
- Open source1
- Publish-Subscribe1
- No message durability5
- Not a very reliable system - message delivery wise3
- M x N problem with M producers and N consumers1
related ZeroMQ posts
In our Spring Boot application, which encompasses various projects, we employ ZeroMQ (ZMQ) for communication via a req/resp pattern. Recently, I observed that data is persisted in the MongoDB database before being transmitted to other applications. I've identified a method to monitor changes to the database, and I'm contemplating whether to utilize this monitoring approach to detect changes and execute the necessary instructions.
Which approach is more advisable in this scenario: leveraging the database monitoring mechanism or sticking with the current ZMQ req/resp communication?
Essentially, I'm seeking guidance on whether to rely on database monitoring for change detection and subsequent actions or to continue with the existing ZMQ communication pattern.
Hi, we are in a ZMQ set up in a push/pull pattern, and we currently start to have more traffic and cases that the service is unavailable or stuck. We want to: * Not loose messages in services outages * Safely restart service without losing messages (ZeroMQ seems to need to close the socket in the receiver before restart manually)
Do you have experience with this setup with ZeroMQ? Would you suggest RabbitMQ or Amazon SQS (we are in AWS setup) instead? Something else?
Thank you for your time
- Higth performance24
- The future of API15
- Easy setup13
- Contract-based5
- Polyglot4
- Garbage2
related gRPC posts
We just launched the Segment Config API (try it out for yourself here) — a set of public REST APIs that enable you to manage your Segment configuration. Behind the scenes the Config API is built with Go , GRPC and Envoy.
At Segment, we build new services in Go by default. The language is simple so new team members quickly ramp up on a codebase. The tool chain is fast so developers get immediate feedback when they break code, tests or integrations with other systems. The runtime is fast so it performs great at scale.
For the newest round of APIs we adopted the GRPC service #framework.
The Protocol Buffer service definition language makes it easy to design type-safe and consistent APIs, thanks to ecosystem tools like the Google API Design Guide for API standards, uber/prototool
for formatting and linting .protos and lyft/protoc-gen-validate
for defining field validations, and grpc-gateway
for defining REST mapping.
With a well designed .proto, its easy to generate a Go server interface and a TypeScript client, providing type-safe RPC between languages.
For the API gateway and RPC we adopted the Envoy service proxy.
The internet-facing segmentapis.com
endpoint is an Envoy front proxy that rate-limits and authenticates every request. It then transcodes a #REST / #JSON request to an upstream GRPC request. The upstream GRPC servers are running an Envoy sidecar configured for Datadog stats.
The result is API #security , #reliability and consistent #observability through Envoy configuration, not code.
We experimented with Swagger service definitions, but the spec is sprawling and the generated clients and server stubs leave a lot to be desired. GRPC and .proto and the Go implementation feels better designed and implemented. Thanks to the GRPC tooling and ecosystem you can generate Swagger from .protos, but it’s effectively impossible to go the other way.
I used GraphQL extensively at a previous employer a few years ago and really appreciated the data-driven schema etc alongside the many other benefits it provided. At that time, it seemed like it was set to replace RESTful APIs and many companies were adopting it.
However, as of late, it seems like interest has been waning for GraphQL as opposed to increasing as I had assumed it would. Am I missing something here? What is the current perspective regarding this technology?
Currently, I'm working with gRPC and was curious as to the state of everything now.
- Sql800
- Free679
- Easy562
- Widely used528
- Open source490
- High availability180
- Cross-platform support160
- Great community104
- Secure79
- Full-text indexing and searching75
- Fast, open, available26
- Reliable16
- SSL support16
- Robust15
- Enterprise Version9
- Easy to set up on all platforms7
- NoSQL access to JSON data type3
- Relational database1
- Easy, light, scalable1
- Sequel Pro (best SQL GUI)1
- Replica Support1
- Owned by a company with their own agenda16
- Can't roll back schema changes3
related MySQL posts
When I joined NYT there was already broad dissatisfaction with the LAMP (Linux Apache HTTP Server MySQL PHP) Stack and the front end framework, in particular. So, I wasn't passing judgment on it. I mean, LAMP's fine, you can do good work in LAMP. It's a little dated at this point, but it's not ... I didn't want to rip it out for its own sake, but everyone else was like, "We don't like this, it's really inflexible." And I remember from being outside the company when that was called MIT FIVE when it had launched. And been observing it from the outside, and I was like, you guys took so long to do that and you did it so carefully, and yet you're not happy with your decisions. Why is that? That was more the impetus. If we're going to do this again, how are we going to do it in a way that we're gonna get a better result?
So we're moving quickly away from LAMP, I would say. So, right now, the new front end is React based and using Apollo. And we've been in a long, protracted, gradual rollout of the core experiences.
React is now talking to GraphQL as a primary API. There's a Node.js back end, to the front end, which is mainly for server-side rendering, as well.
Behind there, the main repository for the GraphQL server is a big table repository, that we call Bodega because it's a convenience store. And that reads off of a Kafka pipeline.
We've been using PostgreSQL since the very early days of Zulip, but we actually didn't use it from the beginning. Zulip started out as a MySQL project back in 2012, because we'd heard it was a good choice for a startup with a wide community. However, we found that even though we were using the Django ORM for most of our database access, we spent a lot of time fighting with MySQL. Issues ranged from bad collation defaults, to bad query plans which required a lot of manual query tweaks.
We ended up getting so frustrated that we tried out PostgresQL, and the results were fantastic. We didn't have to do any real customization (just some tuning settings for how big a server we had), and all of our most important queries were faster out of the box. As a result, we were able to delete a bunch of custom queries escaping the ORM that we'd written to make the MySQL query planner happy (because postgres just did the right thing automatically).
And then after that, we've just gotten a ton of value out of postgres. We use its excellent built-in full-text search, which has helped us avoid needing to bring in a tool like Elasticsearch, and we've really enjoyed features like its partial indexes, which saved us a lot of work adding unnecessary extra tables to get good performance for things like our "unread messages" and "starred messages" indexes.
I can't recommend it highly enough.