Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Amazon SQS vs Minio: What are the differences?
Introduction: In this article, we will compare the key differences between Amazon Simple Queue Service (SQS) and Minio, two popular cloud storage and messaging solutions.
API Compatibility: The major difference between Amazon SQS and Minio is the API compatibility. Amazon SQS is built on proprietary AWS services and provides an API specific to the AWS ecosystem. On the other hand, Minio follows the S3 API standard and provides compatibility with various other S3-compatible cloud storage providers. This means that applications designed to work with Amazon SQS may require modifications to work with Minio and vice versa.
Scalability and Management: Amazon SQS is a fully managed service provided by AWS, offering high scalability and reliability out of the box. It automatically handles all aspects of message delivery and queue management, allowing developers to focus on their application logic. In contrast, Minio is an open-source, self-hosted solution, providing the flexibility of managing the infrastructure yourself. It allows you to scale horizontally by distributing Minio instances across multiple servers as per your requirements.
Pricing Model: Another significant difference is the pricing model. Amazon SQS is a pay-per-use service, where you pay for the number of requests and data transfer. The cost depends on factors such as the number of messages, messages size, and API requests. On the other hand, Minio has no associated costs for the software itself, as it is open-source. However, you are responsible for hosting and managing the infrastructure, which may incur costs from cloud providers or server maintenance.
Storage Features: Amazon SQS primarily focuses on message queuing and does not provide built-in storage capabilities. It is designed to offer reliable and scalable messaging between distributed systems. In contrast, Minio is primarily a cloud object storage service that provides a fully compatible S3 API. It offers advanced storage features such as versioning, server-side encryption, event notifications, and access control policies, making it suitable for various data storage use cases.
Integration with Ecosystem: Amazon SQS seamlessly integrates with other AWS services like AWS Lambda, to build serverless architectures and trigger functions based on incoming messages. It also integrates well with Amazon S3 for storing larger payloads. While Minio provides compatibility with the S3 API, it may require additional configurations or custom integrations to work collaboratively with other AWS services.
Security and Compliance: Amazon SQS provides various security features and compliance certifications due to being an AWS service. It offers encryption at rest and in transit, access control through AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM), and compliance with various industry standards and regulations. Minio, being a self-hosted solution, offers similar security features, but the responsibility of implementing and maintaining security measures lies with the user.
In Summary, Amazon SQS and Minio differ in terms of API compatibility, scalability, management, pricing model, storage features, integration with the ecosystem, and security. The choice between these two solutions should depend on factors like the desired level of control, cost considerations, specific use case requirements, and compatibility with existing infrastructure or services.
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
Minio is a free and open source object storage system. It can be self-hosted and is S3 compatible. During the early stage it would save cost and allow us to move to a different object storage when we scale up. It is also fast and easy to set up. This is very useful during development since it can be run on localhost.
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 Minio
- Store and Serve Resumes & Job Description PDF, Backups10
- S3 Compatible8
- Simple4
- Open Source4
- Encryption and Tamper-Proof3
- Lambda Compute3
- Private Cloud Storage2
- Pluggable Storage Backend2
- Scalable2
- Data Protection2
- Highly Available2
- Performance1
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 Minio
- Deletion of huge buckets is not possible3
Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions
What is Amazon SQS?
What is Minio?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
What companies use Minio?
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
What tools integrate with Amazon SQS?
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
Blog Posts
+17
+47
+30+26
+23+37+25