Amazon SQS vs Google Cloud Storage: What are the differences?
What is Amazon SQS? Fully managed message queuing service. 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.
What is Google Cloud Storage? Durable and highly available object storage service. Google Cloud Storage allows world-wide storing and retrieval of any amount of data and at any time. It provides a simple programming interface which enables developers to take advantage of Google's own reliable and fast networking infrastructure to perform data operations in a secure and cost effective manner. If expansion needs arise, developers can benefit from the scalability provided by Google's infrastructure.
Amazon SQS and Google Cloud Storage are primarily classified as "Message Queue" and "Cloud Storage" tools respectively.
Some of the features offered by Amazon SQS are:
- 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.
On the other hand, Google Cloud Storage provides the following key features:
- High Capacity and Scalability
- Strong Data Consistency
- Google Developers Console Projects
"Easy to use, reliable" is the top reason why over 45 developers like Amazon SQS, while over 22 developers mention "Scalable" as the leading cause for choosing Google Cloud Storage.
Medium, Lyft, and Coursera are some of the popular companies that use Amazon SQS, whereas Google Cloud Storage is used by Evernote, Teleport, and Wix. Amazon SQS has a broader approval, being mentioned in 384 company stacks & 103 developers stacks; compared to Google Cloud Storage, which is listed in 183 company stacks and 79 developer stacks.
What is Amazon SQS?
What is Google Cloud Storage?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Sign up to add, upvote and see more prosMake informed product decisions
What are the cons of using Google Cloud Storage?
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
In the beginning we thought we wanted to start using something like RabbitMQ or maybe Kafka or maybe ActiveMQ. Back then we only had a few developers and no ops people. That has changed now, but we didn't really look forward to setting up a queuing cluster and making sure that all works.
What we did instead was we looked at what services Amazon offers to see if we can use those to build our own messaging system within those services. That's basically what we did. We wrote some clients in Ruby that can basically do the entire orchestration for us, and we run all our messaging on both SNS and SQS. Basically what you can do in Amazon services is you can use Amazon Simple Notification Service, so SNS, for creating topics and you can use queues to subscribe to these topics. That's basically all you need for a messaging system. You don't have to worry about scalability at all. That's what really appealed to us.
This isn't exactly low-latency (10s to 100s of milliseconds), but it has good throughput and a simple API. There is good reliability, and there is no configuration necessary to get up and running. A hosted queue is important when trying to move fast.
Amazon / Google... Google / Amazon ... we decided to take the plunge and go for Google Cloud services as their services seem to be a bit more thought through and structured as they have not developed so organically.
SQS is the bridge between our new Lambda services and our incumbent Rails applications. Extremely easy to use when you're already using other AWS infrastructure.
When creating proofs of concept or small personal projects that are hosted primarily in GCP, this is the object storage service I usually pair them with.
We use Google Cloud Storage to store the images and other files that are added (uploaded) or generated in the Flutter application.
All comments, votes, and other actions live here as a highly-scalable, reliable, multi-region storage solution.
Primary message queue. Enqueueing operations revert to a local file-system-based queue when SQS is unavailable.
I can't afford to lose data if Dynamo throttles my writes, so everything goes into a message queue first.