Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Amazon SQS vs CloudAMQP: What are the differences?
Introduction
Amazon Simple Queue Service (SQS) and CloudAMQP are both message queuing services that are commonly used in cloud computing applications. While they share some similarities in terms of their core functionalities, there are several key differences between these two services. In this article, we will explore these differences in detail.
Messaging Model: The messaging model in Amazon SQS is based on the "at least once" delivery semantics, which means that a message can be delivered to a consumer multiple times but guarantees that it will be delivered at least once. On the other hand, CloudAMQP relies on the "at most once" delivery semantics, which ensures that a message will be delivered once or not at all. This fundamental difference in delivery semantics affects how developers design their applications to handle duplicate or missing messages.
Management Console: Amazon SQS provides a comprehensive web-based management console that allows users to easily create, configure, and monitor their queues. It offers a user-friendly interface with built-in charts and metrics for queue visibility. In contrast, CloudAMQP does not have its own management console but relies on the RabbitMQ management API. Users need to use external tools or develop custom applications to interact with CloudAMQP queues.
Pricing Structure: Amazon SQS has a pay-as-you-go pricing model based on the number of requests and the data transfered. It offers different pricing tiers depending on the region and provides a free tier for low-volume usage. CloudAMQP, on the other hand, follows a usage-based pricing model where users are billed for the number of connections, the rate of messages, and the amount of data stored. It does not offer a free tier but provides a 30-day free trial.
Integration with Cloud Services: As part of the Amazon Web Services (AWS) ecosystem, Amazon SQS seamlessly integrates with other AWS services such as AWS Lambda, AWS Elastic Beanstalk, and AWS CloudFormation. This allows developers to build scalable and resilient applications by leveraging the full suite of AWS offerings. CloudAMQP also provides integrations with various cloud platforms and services, but it may require additional configuration and setup compared to using standard AWS services.
Load Balancing and Scaling: Amazon SQS automatically handles load balancing and scaling for message processing. It distributes messages across multiple servers, ensuring high availability and fault tolerance. CloudAMQP, on the other hand, relies on the underlying RabbitMQ infrastructure for load balancing and scaling. Users need to manually configure and manage RabbitMQ clusters to achieve high availability and scalability.
Advanced Features: Amazon SQS offers additional advanced features such as dead-letter queues, which allow you to isolate and troubleshoot messages that cannot be processed successfully. It also provides long-polling capabilities for efficient message retrieval and delayed message delivery for scheduling tasks. While CloudAMQP supports most of the core RabbitMQ features, some advanced features may require additional configuration or customization.
In Summary, Amazon SQS and CloudAMQP differ in their messaging model, management console, pricing structure, integration with cloud services, load balancing and scaling mechanisms, and advanced features. These differences should be considered when choosing the appropriate message queuing service for your cloud-based application.
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.
Hello, i highly recommend Apache Kafka, to me it's the best. You can deploy it in cluster mode inside K8S, thus you can have a Highly available system (also auto scalable).
Good luck
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
ZeroMQ is fast but you need to build build reliability yourself. There are a number of patterns described in the zeromq guide. I have used RabbitMQ before which gives lot of functionality out of the box, you can probably use the worker queues example from the tutorial, it can also persists messages in the queue.
I haven't used Amazon SQS before. Another tool you could use is Kafka.
Both would do the trick, but there are some nuances. We work with both.
From the sound of it, your main focus is "not losing messages". In that case, I would go with RabbitMQ with a high availability policy (ha-mode=all) and a main/retry/error queue pattern.
Push messages to an exchange, which sends them to the main queue. If an error occurs, push the errored out message to the retry exchange, which forwards it to the retry queue. Give the retry queue a x-message-ttl and set the main exchange as a dead-letter-exchange. If your message has been retried several times, push it to the error exchange, where the message can remain until someone has time to look at it.
This is a very useful and resilient pattern that allows you to never lose messages. With the high availability policy, you make sure that if one of your rabbitmq nodes dies, another can take over and messages are already mirrored to it.
This is not really possible with SQS, because SQS is a lot more focused on throughput and scaling. Combined with SNS it can do interesting things like deduplication of messages and such. That said, one thing core to its design is that messages have a maximum retention time. The idea is that a message that has stayed in an SQS queue for a while serves no more purpose after a while, so it gets removed - so as to not block up any listener resources for a long time. You can also set up a DLQ here, but these similarly do not hold onto messages forever. Since you seem to depend on messages surviving at all cost, I would suggest that the scaling/throughput benefit of SQS does not outweigh the difference in approach to messages there.
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.
Mithiridi, I believe you are talking about two different things. 1. If you need to process messages with delays of more 15m or at specific times, it's not a good idea to use queues, independently of tool SQM, Rabbit or Amazon MQ. you should considerer another approach using a scheduled job. 2. For dead queues and policy retries RabbitMQ, for example, doesn't support your use case. https://medium.com/@kiennguyen88/rabbitmq-delay-retry-schedule-with-dead-letter-exchange-31fb25a440fc I'm not sure if that is possible SNS/SQS support, they have a maximum delay for delivery (maxDelayTarget) in seconds but it's not clear the number. You can check this out: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/sns/latest/dg/sns-message-delivery-retries.html
In addition to being a lot cheaper, Google Cloud Pub/Sub allowed us to not worry about maintaining any more infrastructure that needed.
We moved from a self-hosted RabbitMQ over to CloudAMQP and decided that since we use GCP anyway, why not try their managed PubSub?
It is one of the better decisions that we made, and we can just focus about building more important stuff!
Pros of Amazon SQS
- Easy to use, reliable62
- Low cost40
- Simple28
- Doesn't need to maintain it14
- It is Serverless8
- Has a max message size (currently 256K)4
- Triggers Lambda3
- Easy to configure with Terraform3
- Delayed delivery upto 15 mins only3
- Delayed delivery upto 12 hours3
- JMS compliant1
- Support for retry and dead letter queue1
- D1
Pros of CloudAMQP
- Some of the best customer support you'll ever find4
- Easy to provision3
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Amazon SQS
- Has a max message size (currently 256K)2
- Proprietary2
- Difficult to configure2
- Has a maximum 15 minutes of delayed messages only1
Cons of CloudAMQP
Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions
What is Amazon SQS?
What is CloudAMQP?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
What companies use CloudAMQP?
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
What tools integrate with Amazon SQS?
What tools integrate with CloudAMQP?
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
Blog Posts
+17
+47
+30+26
+23+37+25+24