Celery vs ZeroMQ

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


+ 1

+ 1
Add tool

Celery vs ZeroMQ: What are the differences?

Developers describe Celery as "Distributed task queue". 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. On the other hand, ZeroMQ is detailed as "Fast, lightweight messaging library that allows you to design complex communication system without much effort". 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.

Celery and ZeroMQ can be categorized as "Message Queue" tools.

"Task queue" is the top reason why over 84 developers like Celery, while over 17 developers mention "Fast" as the leading cause for choosing ZeroMQ.

Celery and ZeroMQ are both open source tools. Celery with 12.9K GitHub stars and 3.33K forks on GitHub appears to be more popular than ZeroMQ with 5.33K GitHub stars and 1.57K GitHub forks.

According to the StackShare community, Celery has a broader approval, being mentioned in 272 company stacks & 77 developers stacks; compared to ZeroMQ, which is listed in 35 company stacks and 12 developer stacks.

Advice on Celery and ZeroMQ
Needs advice

I am just a beginner at these two technologies.

Problem statement: I am getting lakh of users from the sequel server for whom I need to create caches in MongoDB by making different REST API requests.

Here these users can be treated as messages. Each REST API request is a task.

I am confused about whether I should go for RabbitMQ alone or Celery.

If I have to go with RabbitMQ, I prefer to use python with Pika module. But the challenge with Pika is, it is not thread-safe. So I am not finding a way to execute a lakh of API requests in parallel using multiple threads using Pika.

If I have to go with Celery, I don't know how I can achieve better scalability in executing these API requests in parallel.

See more
Replies (1)

For large amounts of small tasks and caches I have had good luck with Redis and RQ. I have not personally used celery but I am fairly sure it would scale well, and I have not used RabbitMQ for anything besides communication between services. If you prefer python my suggestions should feel comfortable.

Sorry I do not have a more information

See more
Meili Triantafyllidi
Software engineer at Digital Science · | 6 upvotes · 299.9K views
Needs advice
Amazon SQSAmazon SQSRabbitMQRabbitMQ

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 (2)
Shishir Pandey

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
Kevin Deyne
Principal Software Engineer at Accurate Background · | 5 upvotes · 101.1K views

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.

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