Apache Pulsar vs RSMQ

Overview

RSMQ

Stacks4

Followers87

Votes6

GitHub Stars1.8K

Forks120

Apache Pulsar

Stacks119

Followers199

Votes24

Apache Pulsar vs RSMQ: What are the differences?

Introduction

In this article, we will compare Apache Pulsar and RSMQ, two popular messaging systems, and highlight their key differences.

Messaging Model: Apache Pulsar follows a publish-subscribe messaging model, where publishers send messages to topics and subscribers receive messages from those topics. RSMQ, on the other hand, follows a message queue model, where messages are stored in queues and subscribers consume messages from those queues in a FIFO (First-In, First-Out) manner.
Scalability: Apache Pulsar is highly scalable and distributed, capable of handling millions of messages per second and providing strong consistency across multiple clusters. RSMQ, although it supports multiple queues, is designed to run on a single server and may have limitations in terms of scalability and high message throughput.
Storage and Persistence: Apache Pulsar provides native support for durable message storage and persistence with its built-in Apache BookKeeper component. RSMQ, on the other hand, utilizes Redis as its storage backend, where the message data is stored in-memory and can be optionally persisted to disk.
Message Retention: Apache Pulsar allows configurable message retention policies, where messages can be retained in the system for a specified period of time or until they are explicitly acknowledged by subscribers. RSMQ, on the other hand, does not have built-in message retention policies and relies on subscribers to consume and delete messages from the queues.
Message Ordering: Apache Pulsar guarantees strict message ordering within a topic, ensuring that subscribers receive messages in the order they were produced. RSMQ, on the other hand, does not provide guaranteed ordering of messages within a queue, and messages may be consumed out of order depending on the consumption speed of subscribers.
Language Support: Apache Pulsar supports multiple client libraries for various programming languages, including Java, Python, Go, and C++. RSMQ, on the other hand, primarily focuses on providing client libraries for JavaScript and Node.js.

In Summary, Apache Pulsar and RSMQ differ in their messaging models, scalability, storage and persistence mechanisms, message retention policies, message ordering guarantees, and language support.

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

Detailed Comparison

RSMQ	Apache Pulsar
tl;dr: If you run a Redis server and currently use Amazon SQS or a similar message queue you might as well use this fast little replacement. Using a shared Redis server multiple Node.js processes can send / receive messages.	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.
Lightweight: Just Redis and ~500 lines of javascript.;Guaranteed delivery of a message to exactly one recipient within a messages visibility timeout.;Received messages that are not deleted will reappear after the visibility timeout.;Test coverage;Optional RESTful interface via rest-rsmq	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
GitHub Stars 1.8K	GitHub Stars -
GitHub Forks 120	GitHub Forks -
Stacks 4	Stacks 119
Followers 87	Followers 199
Votes 6	Votes 24
Pros & Cons
Pros 2 Simple, does one thing well 1 Backed by Redis 1 Written in TypeScript 1 Comes with a visibility timeout feature similar to AWS 1 Written in Coffeescript	Pros 7 Simple 4 Scalable 3 High-throughput 2 Geo-replication 2 Multi-tenancy Cons 1 Only Supports Topics 1 Not jms compliant 1 No guaranteed dliefvery 1 No one and only one delivery 1 LImited Language support(6)
Integrations
Redis	No integrations available

What are some alternatives to RSMQ, 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 RSMQ: What are the differences?

Introduction

In this article, we will compare Apache Pulsar and RSMQ, two popular messaging systems, and highlight their key differences.

Messaging Model: Apache Pulsar follows a publish-subscribe messaging model, where publishers send messages to topics and subscribers receive messages from those topics. RSMQ, on the other hand, follows a message queue model, where messages are stored in queues and subscribers consume messages from those queues in a FIFO (First-In, First-Out) manner.
Scalability: Apache Pulsar is highly scalable and distributed, capable of handling millions of messages per second and providing strong consistency across multiple clusters. RSMQ, although it supports multiple queues, is designed to run on a single server and may have limitations in terms of scalability and high message throughput.
Storage and Persistence: Apache Pulsar provides native support for durable message storage and persistence with its built-in Apache BookKeeper component. RSMQ, on the other hand, utilizes Redis as its storage backend, where the message data is stored in-memory and can be optionally persisted to disk.
Message Retention: Apache Pulsar allows configurable message retention policies, where messages can be retained in the system for a specified period of time or until they are explicitly acknowledged by subscribers. RSMQ, on the other hand, does not have built-in message retention policies and relies on subscribers to consume and delete messages from the queues.
Message Ordering: Apache Pulsar guarantees strict message ordering within a topic, ensuring that subscribers receive messages in the order they were produced. RSMQ, on the other hand, does not provide guaranteed ordering of messages within a queue, and messages may be consumed out of order depending on the consumption speed of subscribers.
Language Support: Apache Pulsar supports multiple client libraries for various programming languages, including Java, Python, Go, and C++. RSMQ, on the other hand, primarily focuses on providing client libraries for JavaScript and Node.js.

In Summary, Apache Pulsar and RSMQ differ in their messaging models, scalability, storage and persistence mechanisms, message retention policies, message ordering guarantees, and language support.