Amazon SQS vs IronMQ

Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!

Amazon SQS

1.9K
1.6K
+ 1
165
IronMQ

35
46
+ 1
36
Add tool

Amazon SQS vs IronMQ: 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 IronMQ? Message Queue for any deployment. An easy-to-use highly available message queuing service. Built for distributed cloud applications with critical messaging needs. Provides on-demand message queuing with advanced features and cloud-optimized performance.

Amazon SQS and IronMQ can be categorized as "Message Queue" tools.

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, IronMQ provides the following key features:

  • Instant High Availability- Runs on top cloud infrastructures and uses multiple high-availability data centers. Uses reliable datastores for message durability and persistence.
  • Easy to Use- IronMQ is super easy to use. Simply connect directly to the API endpoints and you're ready to create and use queues. There are also client libraries available in any language you want – Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, .NET, Go, Node.JS, and more
  • Scalable / High Performance- Built using high-performance languages designed for concurrency and runs on industrial-strength clouds. Push messages and stream data at will without worrying about memory limits or adding more servers.

"Easy to use, reliable" is the primary reason why developers consider Amazon SQS over the competitors, whereas "Great Support" was stated as the key factor in picking IronMQ.

Medium, Lyft, and Coursera are some of the popular companies that use Amazon SQS, whereas IronMQ is used by HotelTonight, Coinbase, and Hubble. Amazon SQS has a broader approval, being mentioned in 384 company stacks & 103 developers stacks; compared to IronMQ, which is listed in 9 company stacks and 5 developer stacks.

Advice on Amazon SQS and IronMQ
Pulkit Sapra
Needs advice
on
RabbitMQ
Kubernetes
and
Amazon SQS

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.

See more
Replies (1)
Anis Zehani
Recommends
Kafka

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

See more
Meili Triantafyllidi
Software engineer at Digital Science · | 5 upvotes · 151.9K views
Needs advice
on
ZeroMQ
RabbitMQ
and
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 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

See more
Replies (1)
Shishir Pandey
Recommends
RabbitMQ

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.

See more
MITHIRIDI PRASANTH
Software Engineer at LightMetrics · | 4 upvotes · 95.7K views
Needs advice
on
Amazon SQS
and
Amazon MQ
in

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.

See more
Replies (1)
Andres Paredes
Lead Senior Software Engineer at InTouch Technology · | 1 upvotes · 72.1K views
Recommends
Amazon SQS

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

See more
Get Advice from developers at your company using Private StackShare. Sign up for Private StackShare.
Learn More