Apache Pulsar vs Azure Service Bus

Overview

Azure Service Bus

Stacks553

Followers536

Votes7

Apache Pulsar

Stacks119

Followers199

Votes24

Apache Pulsar vs Azure Service Bus: What are the differences?

Introduction

Apache Pulsar and Azure Service Bus are both messaging systems used for reliable and scalable communication between applications. However, there are key differences between the two platforms.

Scalability: Apache Pulsar is designed to handle massive scale-out scenarios, with the ability to horizontally scale to millions of topics. On the other hand, Azure Service Bus is built for moderate scale scenarios and has limitations on the number of concurrent connections and topics.
Messaging Model: Apache Pulsar follows a publish-subscribe messaging model, where messages are published to topics and consumers subscribe to those topics to receive messages. Azure Service Bus supports multiple messaging models, including publish-subscribe, request-response, and message queuing.
Protocol Support: Apache Pulsar supports multiple protocols, including its own native Pulsar protocol, as well as MQTT and Apache Kafka protocols. Azure Service Bus uses the AMQP (Advanced Message Queuing Protocol) and the HTTP REST protocol.
Geo-Replication: Apache Pulsar provides built-in geo-replication capabilities, allowing data to be replicated and distributed across multiple geographic regions. Azure Service Bus does not have built-in geo-replication and requires additional configurations or services to achieve geo-replication.
Message Retention: Apache Pulsar has a flexible message retention policy, allowing messages to be retained for a configurable period of time or until a specific storage limit is reached. Azure Service Bus has a fixed maximum retention period of 7 days for messages.
Programming Language Support: Apache Pulsar offers client libraries for multiple programming languages, including Java, Python, and Go. Azure Service Bus provides client libraries primarily for .NET languages.

In summary, Apache Pulsar provides greater scalability, supports multiple protocols, offers built-in geo-replication, and has a flexible message retention policy compared to Azure Service Bus.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs

CLI (Node.js)

Manual

Advice on Azure Service Bus, Apache Pulsar

André

Technology Manager at GS1 Portugal - Codipor

Jul 30, 2020

Needs adviceon

.NET Core

Hello dear developers, our company is starting a new project for a new Web App, and we are currently designing the Architecture (we will be using .NET Core). We want to embark on something new, so we are thinking about migrating from a monolithic perspective to a microservices perspective. We wish to containerize those microservices and make them independent from each other. Is it the best way for microservices to communicate with each other via ESB, or is there a new way of doing this? Maybe complementing with an API Gateway? Can you recommend something else different than the two tools I provided?

We want something good for Cost/Benefit; performance should be high too (but not the primary constraint).

Thank you very much in advance :)

461k views461k

Comments

Detailed Comparison

Azure Service Bus	Apache Pulsar
It is a cloud messaging system for connecting apps and devices across public and private clouds. You can depend on it when you need highly-reliable cloud messaging service between applications and services, even when one or more is offline.	Apache Pulsar is a distributed messaging solution developed and released to open source at Yahoo. Pulsar supports both pub-sub messaging and queuing in a platform designed for performance, scalability, and ease of development and operation.
-	Unified model supporting pub-sub messaging and queuing; Easy scalability to millions of topics; Native multi-datacenter replication; Multi-language client API; Guaranteed data durability; Scalable distributed storage leveraging Apache BookKeeper
Statistics
Stacks 553	Stacks 119
Followers 536	Followers 199
Votes 7	Votes 24
Pros & Cons
Pros 4 Easy Integration with .Net 2 Cloud Native 1 Use while high messaging need Cons 1 Lacking in JMS support 1 Skills can only be used in Azure - vendor lock-in 1 Limited features in Basic tier 1 Observability of messages in the queue is lacking	Pros 7 Simple 4 Scalable 3 High-throughput 2 Multi-tenancy 2 Geo-replication Cons 1 No guaranteed dliefvery 1 No one and only one delivery 1 LImited Language support(6) 1 Very few commercial vendors for support 1 Only Supports Topics

What are some alternatives to Azure Service Bus, Apache Pulsar?

Kafka

Kafka is a distributed, partitioned, replicated commit log service. It provides the functionality of a messaging system, but with a unique design.

RabbitMQ

RabbitMQ gives your applications a common platform to send and receive messages, and your messages a safe place to live until received.

Celery

Celery is an asynchronous task queue/job queue based on distributed message passing. It is focused on real-time operation, but supports scheduling as well.

Amazon SQS

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.

NSQ

NSQ is a realtime distributed messaging platform designed to operate at scale, handling billions of messages per day. It promotes distributed and decentralized topologies without single points of failure, enabling fault tolerance and high availability coupled with a reliable message delivery guarantee. See features & guarantees.

ActiveMQ

Apache ActiveMQ is fast, supports many Cross Language Clients and Protocols, comes with easy to use Enterprise Integration Patterns and many advanced features while fully supporting JMS 1.1 and J2EE 1.4. Apache ActiveMQ is released under the Apache 2.0 License.

ZeroMQ

The 0MQ lightweight messaging kernel is a library which extends the standard socket interfaces with features traditionally provided by specialised messaging middleware products. 0MQ sockets provide an abstraction of asynchronous message queues, multiple messaging patterns, message filtering (subscriptions), seamless access to multiple transport protocols and more.

Apache NiFi

An easy to use, powerful, and reliable system to process and distribute data. It supports powerful and scalable directed graphs of data routing, transformation, and system mediation logic.

Gearman

Gearman allows you to do work in parallel, to load balance processing, and to call functions between languages. It can be used in a variety of applications, from high-availability web sites to the transport of database replication events.

Memphis

Highly scalable and effortless data streaming platform. Made to enable developers and data teams to collaborate and build real-time and streaming apps fast.

Related Comparisons

Bootstrap vs Materialize

Django vs Laravel vs Node.js

Bootstrap vs Foundation vs Material UI

Node.js vs Spring-Boot

Flyway vs Liquibase

Apache Pulsar vs Azure Service Bus: What are the differences?

Introduction

Apache Pulsar and Azure Service Bus are both messaging systems used for reliable and scalable communication between applications. However, there are key differences between the two platforms.

Scalability: Apache Pulsar is designed to handle massive scale-out scenarios, with the ability to horizontally scale to millions of topics. On the other hand, Azure Service Bus is built for moderate scale scenarios and has limitations on the number of concurrent connections and topics.
Messaging Model: Apache Pulsar follows a publish-subscribe messaging model, where messages are published to topics and consumers subscribe to those topics to receive messages. Azure Service Bus supports multiple messaging models, including publish-subscribe, request-response, and message queuing.
Protocol Support: Apache Pulsar supports multiple protocols, including its own native Pulsar protocol, as well as MQTT and Apache Kafka protocols. Azure Service Bus uses the AMQP (Advanced Message Queuing Protocol) and the HTTP REST protocol.
Geo-Replication: Apache Pulsar provides built-in geo-replication capabilities, allowing data to be replicated and distributed across multiple geographic regions. Azure Service Bus does not have built-in geo-replication and requires additional configurations or services to achieve geo-replication.
Message Retention: Apache Pulsar has a flexible message retention policy, allowing messages to be retained for a configurable period of time or until a specific storage limit is reached. Azure Service Bus has a fixed maximum retention period of 7 days for messages.
Programming Language Support: Apache Pulsar offers client libraries for multiple programming languages, including Java, Python, and Go. Azure Service Bus provides client libraries primarily for .NET languages.

In summary, Apache Pulsar provides greater scalability, supports multiple protocols, offers built-in geo-replication, and has a flexible message retention policy compared to Azure Service Bus.