Amazon SQS vs Resque: What are the differences?
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; Resque: A Redis-backed Ruby library for creating background jobs, placing them on multiple queues, and processing them later. Background jobs can be any Ruby class or module that responds to perform. Your existing classes can easily be converted to background jobs or you can create new classes specifically to do work. Or, you can do both.
Amazon SQS and Resque are primarily classified as "Message Queue" and "Background Processing" tools respectively.
"Easy to use, reliable" is the primary reason why developers consider Amazon SQS over the competitors, whereas "Free" was stated as the key factor in picking Resque.
Resque is an open source tool with 8.54K GitHub stars and 1.57K GitHub forks. Here's a link to Resque's open source repository on GitHub.
Medium, Lyft, and Coursera are some of the popular companies that use Amazon SQS, whereas Resque is used by MAK IT, NoRedInk, and Yummypets. Amazon SQS has a broader approval, being mentioned in 384 company stacks & 103 developers stacks; compared to Resque, which is listed in 34 company stacks and 8 developer stacks.
What is Amazon SQS?
What is Resque?
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 Resque?
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.
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.
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.