Amazon SQS vs Beanstalkd

Overview

Amazon SQS

Stacks2.8K

Followers2.0K

Votes171

Beanstalkd

Stacks111

Followers161

Votes74

Amazon SQS vs Beanstalkd: What are the differences?

Introduction:

Amazon Simple Queue Service (SQS) and Beanstalkd are both messaging systems that are commonly used for building distributed applications. While they have some similarities in terms of their purpose, there are several key differences between the two.

Message Persistence and Durability: Amazon SQS provides the option to make messages persistent and durable by storing them redundantly across multiple availability zones, ensuring message reliability even in the event of failures. On the other hand, Beanstalkd does not have built-in persistent storage capabilities, so messages are stored in memory only, which means they can be lost in the event of an unexpected failure.
Scalability and Message Volume: Amazon SQS is highly scalable and can handle a vast number of messages, making it suitable for applications that deal with high message volumes. It automatically scales horizontally to accommodate incoming messages. Beanstalkd, on the other hand, has limited scalability as it is designed to run on a single server, making it more suitable for smaller applications with lower message volumes.
Message Delivery Order: Amazon SQS guarantees the order of message delivery within a single queue, ensuring the first message sent is the first to be received. It provides a strictly ordered message processing system. Beanstalkd, on the other hand, does not guarantee the order of message delivery, making it more suitable for scenarios where message order is not essential.
Visibility Timeout: Amazon SQS provides a visibility timeout feature that allows a consumer to reserve a message for a specified period of time, preventing other consumers from processing it. Beanstalkd, on the other hand, does not have a built-in visibility timeout mechanism.
Integration and Ecosystem: Amazon SQS is part of the broader Amazon Web Services (AWS) ecosystem, which provides a wide range of services and integrations. It can easily be integrated with other AWS services like Amazon S3, Lambda, and more. Beanstalkd, on the other hand, is a standalone open-source messaging system and does not have the level of integration and ecosystem that AWS provides.
Deployment and Management: Amazon SQS is a fully managed service, which means AWS takes care of operational aspects such as deployment, monitoring, and maintenance. On the other hand, Beanstalkd requires manual setup and management, making it more suitable for applications where developers have more control over the infrastructure.

In summary, Amazon SQS and Beanstalkd differ in terms of message persistence, scalability, message delivery order, visibility timeout, integration, and management. Amazon SQS offers message durability and scalability with strict ordering, while Beanstalkd provides a lightweight solution without persistence and limited scalability.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs

CLI (Node.js)

Manual

Advice on Amazon SQS, Beanstalkd

Pulkit

Software Engineer

Oct 30, 2020

Needs adviceon

Django

Amazon SQS

RabbitMQ

Hi! I am creating a scraping system in Django, which involves long running tasks between 1 minute & 1 Day. As I am new to Message Brokers and Task Queues, I need advice on which architecture to use for my system. ( Amazon SQS, RabbitMQ, or Celery). The system should be autoscalable using Kubernetes(K8) based on the number of pending tasks in the queue.

474k views474k

Comments

Meili

Software engineer at Digital Science

Sep 24, 2020

Needs adviceon

ZeroMQ

RabbitMQ

Amazon SQS

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}|tool:1064| 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

500k views500k

Comments

MITHIRIDI

Software Engineer at LightMetrics

May 8, 2020

Needs adviceon

Amazon SQS

Amazon MQ

I want to schedule a message. Amazon SQS provides a delay of 15 minutes, but I want it in some hours.

Example: Let's say a Message1 is consumed by a consumer A but somehow it failed inside the consumer. I would want to put it in a queue and retry after 4hrs. Can I do this in Amazon MQ? I have seen in some Amazon MQ videos saying scheduling messages can be done. But, I'm not sure how.

303k views303k

Comments

Detailed Comparison

Amazon SQS	Beanstalkd
Transmit any volume of data, at any level of throughput, without losing messages or requiring other services to be always available. With SQS, you can offload the administrative burden of operating and scaling a highly available messaging cluster, while paying a low price for only what you use.	Beanstalks's interface is generic, but was originally designed for reducing the latency of page views in high-volume web applications by running time-consuming tasks asynchronously.
A queue can be created in any region.;The message payload can contain up to 256KB of text in any format. Each 64KB ‘chunk’ of payload is billed as 1 request. For example, a single API call with a 256KB payload will be billed as four requests.;Messages can be sent, received or deleted in batches of up to 10 messages or 256KB. Batches cost the same amount as single messages, meaning SQS can be even more cost effective for customers that use batching.;Long polling reduces extraneous polling to help you minimize cost while receiving new messages as quickly as possible. When your queue is empty, long-poll requests wait up to 20 seconds for the next message to arrive. Long poll requests cost the same amount as regular requests.;Messages can be retained in queues for up to 14 days.;Messages can be sent and read simultaneously.;Developers can get started with Amazon SQS by using only five APIs: CreateQueue, SendMessage, ReceiveMessage, ChangeMessageVisibility, and DeleteMessage. Additional APIs are available to provide advanced functionality.	-
Statistics
Stacks 2.8K	Stacks 111
Followers 2.0K	Followers 161
Votes 171	Votes 74
Pros & Cons
Pros 62 Easy to use, reliable 40 Low cost 28 Simple 14 Doesn't need to maintain it 8 It is Serverless Cons 2 Has a max message size (currently 256K) 2 Difficult to configure 2 Proprietary 1 Has a maximum 15 minutes of delayed messages only	Pros 23 Fast 12 Free 12 Does one thing well 9 Scalability 8 Simplicity

What are some alternatives to Amazon SQS, Beanstalkd?

Kafka

Kafka is a distributed, partitioned, replicated commit log service. It provides the functionality of a messaging system, but with a unique design.

RabbitMQ

RabbitMQ gives your applications a common platform to send and receive messages, and your messages a safe place to live until received.

Sidekiq

Sidekiq uses threads to handle many jobs at the same time in the same process. It does not require Rails but will integrate tightly with Rails 3/4 to make background processing dead simple.

Celery

Celery is an asynchronous task queue/job queue based on distributed message passing. It is focused on real-time operation, but supports scheduling as well.

NSQ

NSQ is a realtime distributed messaging platform designed to operate at scale, handling billions of messages per day. It promotes distributed and decentralized topologies without single points of failure, enabling fault tolerance and high availability coupled with a reliable message delivery guarantee. See features & guarantees.

ActiveMQ

Apache ActiveMQ is fast, supports many Cross Language Clients and Protocols, comes with easy to use Enterprise Integration Patterns and many advanced features while fully supporting JMS 1.1 and J2EE 1.4. Apache ActiveMQ is released under the Apache 2.0 License.

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.

Apache NiFi

An easy to use, powerful, and reliable system to process and distribute data. It supports powerful and scalable directed graphs of data routing, transformation, and system mediation logic.

Gearman

Gearman allows you to do work in parallel, to load balance processing, and to call functions between languages. It can be used in a variety of applications, from high-availability web sites to the transport of database replication events.

Memphis

Highly scalable and effortless data streaming platform. Made to enable developers and data teams to collaborate and build real-time and streaming apps fast.

Related Comparisons

Amazon SQS vs Beanstalkd: What are the differences?

Introduction:

Message Persistence and Durability: Amazon SQS provides the option to make messages persistent and durable by storing them redundantly across multiple availability zones, ensuring message reliability even in the event of failures. On the other hand, Beanstalkd does not have built-in persistent storage capabilities, so messages are stored in memory only, which means they can be lost in the event of an unexpected failure.
Scalability and Message Volume: Amazon SQS is highly scalable and can handle a vast number of messages, making it suitable for applications that deal with high message volumes. It automatically scales horizontally to accommodate incoming messages. Beanstalkd, on the other hand, has limited scalability as it is designed to run on a single server, making it more suitable for smaller applications with lower message volumes.
Message Delivery Order: Amazon SQS guarantees the order of message delivery within a single queue, ensuring the first message sent is the first to be received. It provides a strictly ordered message processing system. Beanstalkd, on the other hand, does not guarantee the order of message delivery, making it more suitable for scenarios where message order is not essential.
Visibility Timeout: Amazon SQS provides a visibility timeout feature that allows a consumer to reserve a message for a specified period of time, preventing other consumers from processing it. Beanstalkd, on the other hand, does not have a built-in visibility timeout mechanism.
Integration and Ecosystem: Amazon SQS is part of the broader Amazon Web Services (AWS) ecosystem, which provides a wide range of services and integrations. It can easily be integrated with other AWS services like Amazon S3, Lambda, and more. Beanstalkd, on the other hand, is a standalone open-source messaging system and does not have the level of integration and ecosystem that AWS provides.
Deployment and Management: Amazon SQS is a fully managed service, which means AWS takes care of operational aspects such as deployment, monitoring, and maintenance. On the other hand, Beanstalkd requires manual setup and management, making it more suitable for applications where developers have more control over the infrastructure.

Amazon SQS vs Beanstalkd

Overview