Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Google Cloud Storage vs ZeroMQ: What are the differences?
Introduction
In this comparison, we will analyze key differences between Google Cloud Storage and ZeroMQ.
Data Storage vs. Messaging: Google Cloud Storage is primarily used for storing and retrieving data in a scalable, secure, and durable manner, making it ideal for managing large datasets and backups. On the other hand, ZeroMQ is a messaging library that facilitates message-based communication between distributed systems, enabling efficient and fast data exchange between components.
Use Case: Google Cloud Storage is commonly used in cloud computing scenarios where data storage and retrieval are crucial, such as backups, data archiving, and serving static website content. ZeroMQ, on the other hand, is utilized in building distributed applications that require high-performance, asynchronous messaging capabilities for inter-process communication and coordination.
Protocol Support: Google Cloud Storage provides a RESTful API for user interaction, making it easier to integrate with a wide range of programming languages and environments. In contrast, ZeroMQ offers support for various messaging patterns, such as publish-subscribe, request-reply, and push-pull, enabling developers to design flexible communication architectures based on their specific requirements.
Scalability and Performance: Google Cloud Storage is designed to handle massive volumes of data and can automatically scale storage capacity to accommodate growing needs. ZeroMQ, on the other hand, focuses on achieving low-latency and high-throughput message processing, making it suitable for applications that demand real-time data exchange and processing efficiency.
Summary
In summary, Google Cloud Storage excels in data storage and retrieval capabilities, while ZeroMQ shines in facilitating efficient and high-performance messaging for distributed applications.
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
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.
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.
We choose Backblaze B2 because it makes more sense for storing static assets.
We admire Backblaze's customer service & transparency, plus, we trust them to maintain fair business practices - including not raising prices in the future.
Lower storage costs means we can keep more data for longer, and lower bandwidth means cache misses don't cost a ton.
We offer our customer HIPAA compliant storage. After analyzing the market, we decided to go with Google Storage. The Nodejs API is ok, still not ES6 and can be very confusing to use. For each new customer, we created a different bucket so they can have individual data and not have to worry about data loss. After 1000+ customers we started seeing many problems with the creation of new buckets, with saving or retrieving a new file. Many false positive: the Promise returned ok, but in reality, it failed.
That's why we switched to S3 that just works.
Pros of Google Cloud Storage
- Scalable28
- Cheap19
- Reliable14
- Easy9
- Chealp3
- More praticlal and easy1
Pros of ZeroMQ
- Fast23
- Lightweight20
- Transport agnostic11
- No broker required7
- Low level APIs are in C4
- Low latency4
- Open source1
- Publish-Subscribe1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Google Cloud Storage
Cons of ZeroMQ
- No message durability5
- Not a very reliable system - message delivery wise3
- M x N problem with M producers and N consumers1