Kafka vs RSMQ vs RabbitMQ

Overview

RabbitMQ

Stacks21.8K

Followers18.9K

Votes558

GitHub Stars13.2K

Forks4.0K

Kafka

Stacks24.2K

Followers22.3K

Votes607

GitHub Stars31.2K

Forks14.8K

RSMQ

Stacks4

Followers87

Votes6

GitHub Stars1.8K

Forks120

Kafka vs RSMQ vs RabbitMQ: What are the differences?

## Comparing Kafka, RSMQ, and RabbitMQ

1. **Architecture**: Kafka is designed as a distributed system that can handle large volumes of data in real-time, utilizing a pub/sub model and a message log system, making it suitable for big data and real-time processing. RSMQ is a lightweight message queue that works on Redis, suitable for smaller applications with a simple setup, while RabbitMQ is a robust message broker that supports multiple messaging protocols, making it versatile for various use cases.
2. **Scalability**: Kafka is horizontally scalable, allowing for easy addition of new nodes to handle increased data loads efficiently. RSMQ can scale vertically by upgrading the Redis server, limiting its scalability in comparison. RabbitMQ offers both horizontal and vertical scalability, enabling it to handle changes in workload demands effectively.
3. **Performance**: Kafka has high-throughput and low-latency capabilities, making it ideal for use cases requiring real-time data processing. RSMQ provides fast performance for smaller applications due to its simplicity and utilization of Redis for messaging. RabbitMQ offers reliable performance with support for features like message acknowledgments and persistence, important for critical message delivery requirements.
4. **Durability**: Kafka ensures data durability by storing messages in distributed commit logs, making it highly fault-tolerant. RSMQ relies on Redis for data storage, which may impact durability based on the Redis configurations and persistence options chosen. RabbitMQ provides durability through persistent messages and disk storage, ensuring messages are not lost in case of failures.
5. **Community and Ecosystem**: Kafka has a large and active community, with extensive support and a wide range of integrations and tools available. RSMQ, being lightweight, may not have as large a community but offers simplicity for specific use cases. RabbitMQ has a strong community backing, with a vast ecosystem of plugins and extensions for customization and integration with different systems.
6. **Ease of Use**: Kafka's setup and configuration can be complex due to its distributed nature, suitable for more experienced users and large-scale deployments. RSMQ is easy to set up and use, making it a good choice for developers looking for a simple message queue solution. RabbitMQ offers a user-friendly interface and management tools, making it easier to get started with messaging queues, but may require more in-depth knowledge for advanced configurations.

In Summary, Kafka, RSMQ, and RabbitMQ each offer unique strengths in terms of architecture, scalability, performance, durability, community support, and ease of use, catering to different requirements and use cases in the messaging queue ecosystem.

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 RabbitMQ, Kafka, RSMQ

Pulkit

Software Engineer

Oct 30, 2020

Needs adviceon

Django

Amazon SQS

RabbitMQ

Hi! I am creating a scraping system in Django, which involves long running tasks between 1 minute & 1 Day. As I am new to Message Brokers and Task Queues, I need advice on which architecture to use for my system. ( Amazon SQS, RabbitMQ, or Celery). The system should be autoscalable using Kubernetes(K8) based on the number of pending tasks in the queue.

474k views474k

Comments

Meili

Software engineer at Digital Science

Sep 24, 2020

Needs adviceon

ZeroMQ

RabbitMQ

Amazon SQS

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}|tool:1064| 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

500k views500k

Comments

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

RabbitMQ	Kafka	RSMQ
RabbitMQ gives your applications a common platform to send and receive messages, and your messages a safe place to live until received.	Kafka is a distributed, partitioned, replicated commit log service. It provides the functionality of a messaging system, but with a unique design.	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.
Robust messaging for applications;Easy to use;Runs on all major operating systems;Supports a huge number of developer platforms;Open source and commercially supported	Written at LinkedIn in Scala;Used by LinkedIn to offload processing of all page and other views;Defaults to using persistence, uses OS disk cache for hot data (has higher throughput then any of the above having persistence enabled);Supports both on-line as off-line processing	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
Statistics
GitHub Stars 13.2K	GitHub Stars 31.2K	GitHub Stars 1.8K
GitHub Forks 4.0K	GitHub Forks 14.8K	GitHub Forks 120
Stacks 21.8K	Stacks 24.2K	Stacks 4
Followers 18.9K	Followers 22.3K	Followers 87
Votes 558	Votes 607	Votes 6
Pros & Cons
Pros 235 It's fast and it works with good metrics/monitoring 80 Ease of configuration 60 I like the admin interface 52 Easy to set-up and start with 22 Durable Cons 9 Too complicated cluster/HA config and management 6 Needs Erlang runtime. Need ops good with Erlang runtime 5 Configuration must be done first, not by your code 4 Slow	Pros 126 High-throughput 119 Distributed 92 Scalable 86 High-Performance 66 Durable Cons 32 Non-Java clients are second-class citizens 29 Needs Zookeeper 9 Operational difficulties 5 Terrible Packaging	Pros 2 Simple, does one thing well 1 Comes with a visibility timeout feature similar to AWS 1 Backed by Redis 1 Written in Coffeescript 1 Written in TypeScript
Integrations
No integrations available	No integrations available	Redis

What are some alternatives to RabbitMQ, Kafka, RSMQ?

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.

IronMQ

An easy-to-use highly available message queuing service. Built for distributed cloud applications with critical messaging needs. Provides on-demand message queuing with advanced features and cloud-optimized performance.

Apache Pulsar

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.

Related Comparisons

Kafka vs RSMQ vs RabbitMQ: What are the differences?

## Comparing Kafka, RSMQ, and RabbitMQ

1. **Architecture**: Kafka is designed as a distributed system that can handle large volumes of data in real-time, utilizing a pub/sub model and a message log system, making it suitable for big data and real-time processing. RSMQ is a lightweight message queue that works on Redis, suitable for smaller applications with a simple setup, while RabbitMQ is a robust message broker that supports multiple messaging protocols, making it versatile for various use cases.
2. **Scalability**: Kafka is horizontally scalable, allowing for easy addition of new nodes to handle increased data loads efficiently. RSMQ can scale vertically by upgrading the Redis server, limiting its scalability in comparison. RabbitMQ offers both horizontal and vertical scalability, enabling it to handle changes in workload demands effectively.
3. **Performance**: Kafka has high-throughput and low-latency capabilities, making it ideal for use cases requiring real-time data processing. RSMQ provides fast performance for smaller applications due to its simplicity and utilization of Redis for messaging. RabbitMQ offers reliable performance with support for features like message acknowledgments and persistence, important for critical message delivery requirements.
4. **Durability**: Kafka ensures data durability by storing messages in distributed commit logs, making it highly fault-tolerant. RSMQ relies on Redis for data storage, which may impact durability based on the Redis configurations and persistence options chosen. RabbitMQ provides durability through persistent messages and disk storage, ensuring messages are not lost in case of failures.
5. **Community and Ecosystem**: Kafka has a large and active community, with extensive support and a wide range of integrations and tools available. RSMQ, being lightweight, may not have as large a community but offers simplicity for specific use cases. RabbitMQ has a strong community backing, with a vast ecosystem of plugins and extensions for customization and integration with different systems.
6. **Ease of Use**: Kafka's setup and configuration can be complex due to its distributed nature, suitable for more experienced users and large-scale deployments. RSMQ is easy to set up and use, making it a good choice for developers looking for a simple message queue solution. RabbitMQ offers a user-friendly interface and management tools, making it easier to get started with messaging queues, but may require more in-depth knowledge for advanced configurations.

In Summary, Kafka, RSMQ, and RabbitMQ each offer unique strengths in terms of architecture, scalability, performance, durability, community support, and ease of use, catering to different requirements and use cases in the messaging queue ecosystem.

Kafka vs RSMQ vs RabbitMQ

Overview