delayed_job vs RabbitMQ: What are the differences?
Developers describe delayed_job as "Database backed asynchronous priority queue -- Extracted from Shopify". Delayed_job (or DJ) encapsulates the common pattern of asynchronously executing longer tasks in the background. It is a direct extraction from Shopify where the job table is responsible for a multitude of core tasks. On the other hand, RabbitMQ is detailed as "A messaging broker - an intermediary for messaging". RabbitMQ gives your applications a common platform to send and receive messages, and your messages a safe place to live until received.
delayed_job can be classified as a tool in the "Background Processing" category, while RabbitMQ is grouped under "Message Queue".
"Easy to get started" is the top reason why over 2 developers like delayed_job, while over 203 developers mention "It's fast and it works with good metrics/monitoring" as the leading cause for choosing RabbitMQ.
delayedjob and RabbitMQ are both open source tools. It seems that RabbitMQ with 5.95K GitHub stars and 1.78K forks on GitHub has more adoption than delayedjob with 4.46K GitHub stars and 915 GitHub forks.
According to the StackShare community, RabbitMQ has a broader approval, being mentioned in 940 company stacks & 549 developers stacks; compared to delayed_job, which is listed in 8 company stacks and 5 developer stacks.
What is delayed_job?
What is RabbitMQ?
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 delayed_job?
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
What tools integrate with delayed_job?
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
As Sentry runs throughout the day, there are about 50 different offline tasks that we execute—anything from “process this event, pretty please” to “send all of these cool people some emails.” There are some that we execute once a day and some that execute thousands per second.
Managing this variety requires a reliably high-throughput message-passing technology. We use Celery's RabbitMQ implementation, and we stumbled upon a great feature called Federation that allows us to partition our task queue across any number of RabbitMQ servers and gives us the confidence that, if any single server gets backlogged, others will pitch in and distribute some of the backlogged tasks to their consumers.
delayed_job is a great Rails background job library for new projects, as it only uses what you already have: a relational database. We happily used it during the company’s first two years.
But it started to falter as our web and database transactions significantly grew. Our app interacted with users via SMS texts sent inside background jobs. Because the delayed_job daemon ran every couple seconds, this meant that users often waited several long seconds before getting text replies, which was not acceptable. Moreover, job processing was done inside AWS Elastic Beanstalk web instances, which were already under stress and not meant to handle jobs.
We needed a fast background job system that could process jobs in near real-time and integrate well with AWS. Sidekiq is a fast and popular Ruby background job library, but it does not leverage the Elastic Beanstalk worker architecture, and you have to maintain a Redis instance.
We ended up choosing active-elastic-job, which seamlessly integrates with worker instances and Amazon SQS. SQS is a fast queue and you don’t need to worry about infrastructure or scaling, as AWS handles it for you.
We noticed significant performance gains immediately after making the switch.
The question for which Message Queue to use mentioned "availability, distributed, scalability, and monitoring". I don't think that this excludes many options already. I does not sound like you would take advantage of Kafka's strengths (replayability, based on an even sourcing architecture). You could pick one of the AMQP options.
I would recommend the RabbitMQ message broker, which not only implements the AMQP standard 0.9.1 (it can support 1.x or other protocols as well) but has also several very useful extensions built in. It ticks the boxes you mentioned and on top you will get a very flexible system, that allows you to build the architecture, pick the options and trade-offs that suite your case best.
For more information about RabbitMQ, please have a look at the linked markdown I assembled. The second half explains many configuration options. It also contains links to managed hosting and to libraries (though it is missing Python's - which should be Puka, I assume).
I used Kafka originally because it was mandated as part of the top-level IT requirements at a Fortune 500 client. What I found was that it was orders of magnitude more complex ...and powerful than my daily Beanstalkd , and far more flexible, resilient, and manageable than RabbitMQ.
So for any case where utmost flexibility and resilience are part of the deal, I would use Kafka again. But due to the complexities involved, for any time where this level of scalability is not required, I would probably just use Beanstalkd for its simplicity.
I tend to find RabbitMQ to be in an uncomfortable middle place between these two extremities.
We use Sidekiq to process millions of Ruby background jobs a day under normal loads. We sometimes process more than that when running one-off backfill tasks.
With so many jobs, it wouldn't really make sense to use delayed_job, as it would put our main database under unnecessary load, which would make it a bottleneck with most DB queries serving jobs and not end users. I suppose you could create a separate DB just for jobs, but that can be a hassle. Sidekiq uses a separate Redis instance so you don't have this problem. And it is very performant!
I also like that its free version comes "batteries included" with:
- A web monitoring UI that provides some nice stats.
- An API that can come in handy for one-off tasks, like changing the queue of certain already enqueued jobs.
Sidekiq is a pleasure to use. All our engineers love it!
Automations are what makes a CRM powerful. With Celery and RabbitMQ we've been able to make powerful automations that truly works for our clients. Such as for example, automatic daily reports, reminders for their activities, important notifications regarding their client activities and actions on the website and more.
We use Celery basically for everything that needs to be scheduled for the future, and using RabbitMQ as our Queue-broker is amazing since it fully integrates with Django and Celery storing on our database results of the tasks done so we can see if anything fails immediately.
I developed one of the largest queue based medical results delivery systems in the world, 18,000+ queues and still growing over a decade later all using MQSeries, later called Websphere MQ. When I left that company I started using RabbitMQ after doing some research on free offerings.. it works brilliantly and is incredibly flexible from small scale single instance use to large scale multi-server - multi-site architectures.
If you can think in queues then RabbitMQ should be a viable solution for integrating disparate systems.
The poster child for scalable messaging systems, RabbitMQ has been used in countless large scale systems as the messaging backbone of any large cluster, and has proven itself time and again in many production settings.
Rabbit acts as our coordinator for all actions that happen during game time. All worker containers connect to rabbit in order to receive game events and emit their own events when applicable.
Used as central Message Broker; off-loading tasks to be executed asynchronous, used as communication tool between different microservices, used as tool to handle peaks in incoming data, etc.
RabbitMQ is the enterprise message bus for our platform, providing infrastructure for managing our ETL queues, real-time event notifications for applications, and audit logging.