Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon Launches New RabbitMQ Message Broker Service

aws.amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 78 posts

Re: Amazon Launches New RabbitMQ Message Broker Service

#41

Post by manigandham »

awinder wrote: post #30
bot41 wrote: post #18

Cloud computing seems to be a winner take all scenario. For example, if you use AWS and need a message broker service then you'll use this. If you use Azure, you'll use their version. Development seems like just hooking up this components. I can't tell if this is a good thing or a bad thing.

AWS has sqs & kinesis which are much better queueing options in that scenario where you’re in AWS doing new dev and can pick a technology. This is more likely to do with opening doors for large and complex applications that can’t be rewritten to come into the AWS cloud. Unsexy stuff but there’s some fun engineering to be done in that realm, if you find like puzzles and shitshows to be fun anyways :-)

Neither SQS nor Kinesis support the same functionality as RabbitMQ.

Re: Amazon Launches New RabbitMQ Message Broker Service

#43

Post by ctvo »

throwaway7281 wrote: post #4

From the FAANG, Amazon strikes me as the one using most open source code while at the same time not having much to show as open source - firecracker is a (relative) toy.

Firecracker has 13K stars on Github [1]. I'm not in this space. Why does a toy have so much activity (issues, pull requests) and stars?

1 - https://github.com/firecracker-microvm/firecracker

Re: Amazon Launches New RabbitMQ Message Broker Service

#44

Post by avinassh »

awinder wrote: post #30
bot41 wrote: post #18

Cloud computing seems to be a winner take all scenario. For example, if you use AWS and need a message broker service then you'll use this. If you use Azure, you'll use their version. Development seems like just hooking up this components. I can't tell if this is a good thing or a bad thing.

AWS has sqs & kinesis which are much better queueing options in that scenario where you’re in AWS doing new dev and can pick a technology. This is more likely to do with opening doors for large and complex applications that can’t be rewritten to come into the AWS cloud. Unsexy stuff but there’s some fun engineering to be done in that realm, if you find like puzzles and shitshows to be fun anyways :-)

> AWS has sqs & kinesis which are much better queueing options in that scenario where you’re in AWS doing new dev and can pick a technology.

Why are they better?

Re: Amazon Launches New RabbitMQ Message Broker Service

#45

Post by awinder »

avinassh wrote: post #44
awinder wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AWS has sqs & kinesis which are much better queueing options in that scenario where you’re in AWS doing new dev and can pick a technology. This is more likely to do with opening doors for large and complex applications that can’t be rewritten to come into the AWS cloud. Unsexy stuff but there’s some fun engineering to be done in that realm, if you find like puzzles and shitshows to be fun anyways :-)

> AWS has sqs & kinesis which are much better queueing options in that scenario where you’re in AWS doing new dev and can pick a technology. Why are they better?

They’ve been around for quite some time so they have a much wider customer base & bigger teams supporting them. AWS services can be a bit choppy in the beginning so imo, especially with queues, I’d wait for it to bake.

Re: Amazon Launches New RabbitMQ Message Broker Service

#46

Post by constantine42 »

awinder wrote: post #30
bot41 wrote: post #18

Cloud computing seems to be a winner take all scenario. For example, if you use AWS and need a message broker service then you'll use this. If you use Azure, you'll use their version. Development seems like just hooking up this components. I can't tell if this is a good thing or a bad thing.

AWS has sqs & kinesis which are much better queueing options in that scenario where you’re in AWS doing new dev and can pick a technology. This is more likely to do with opening doors for large and complex applications that can’t be rewritten to come into the AWS cloud. Unsexy stuff but there’s some fun engineering to be done in that realm, if you find like puzzles and shitshows to be fun anyways :-)

"sqs & kinesis"? These are two vastly different queuing systems. It's like saying "SSDs and Tape" are a better storage system than X.

Re: Amazon Launches New RabbitMQ Message Broker Service

#47

Post by whatsmyusername »

avinassh wrote: post #44
awinder wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AWS has sqs & kinesis which are much better queueing options in that scenario where you’re in AWS doing new dev and can pick a technology. This is more likely to do with opening doors for large and complex applications that can’t be rewritten to come into the AWS cloud. Unsexy stuff but there’s some fun engineering to be done in that realm, if you find like puzzles and shitshows to be fun anyways :-)

> AWS has sqs & kinesis which are much better queueing options in that scenario where you’re in AWS doing new dev and can pick a technology. Why are they better?

They aren't. They're technically more correct but not always the practical best choice.

RabbitMQ is a smart play as Rabbit is very easy to use, understand, and troubleshoot at the low end (which is where I suspect the vast majority of queue systems live).

It also has a feature which is actually really hard to do (and sqs doesn't do). Guaranteed delivery of a message once.

That was THE reason we never migrated to SQS, there are scenarios where SQS can double deliver. Our codebase was built up from nothing over time and couldn't gracefully handle double delivery of messages in all scenarios. We could have refactored, but it wasn't worth the work when we were already doing a half billion in revenue without getting even close to the limitations of rabbit AND were close to selling (which we ultimately did).

AWS is great at selling multiple slight variations of the same product. If you look you can usually find ONE variation that works for you. The real test will be if the billing isn't garbage (garbage billing is why we didn't use their other AMQP service and part of the reason why we don't use things like EKS or Managed SFTP despite having the need).

Re: Amazon Launches New RabbitMQ Message Broker Service

#48

Post by pmiller2 »

awinder wrote: post #45
avinassh wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AWS has sqs & kinesis which are much better queueing options in that scenario where you’re in AWS doing new dev and can pick a technology. Why are they better?

They’ve been around for quite some time so they have a much wider customer base & bigger teams supporting them. AWS services can be a bit choppy in the beginning so imo, especially with queues, I’d wait for it to bake.

I agree. SQS has done nothing but improve over time.

Re: Amazon Launches New RabbitMQ Message Broker Service

#49

Post by dodobirdlord »

anaganisk wrote: post #38
dodobirdlord wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Toy in the sense that it’s not a significant contribution to the open source community. Edit: In comparison to the scale of Amazon and the scale of contribution of other similarly-sized tech companies. Firecracker would rank as a more major contribution in my book if it wasn’t a cut-down fork of a pre-existing (and still active!) project.

Define significant? If you're expecting every open source software user to push a million commits before they can be called "contributors" apart from Microsoft/Facebook I dont see any significant contributors.

The context up thread is that Amazon contributes a remarkably small amount to open source compared to the amount of code that Amazon produces and the amount of open source projects that Amazon depends on. Also I find it interesting that you don’t think that Microsoft and Facebook are comparable to Amazon.

Re: Amazon Launches New RabbitMQ Message Broker Service

#50

Post by hardwaresofton »

sciurus wrote: post #42

RIP https://www.cloudamqp.com/

Nah, they support so many platforms and AWS is only one of them. I also think their Heroku business might actually benefit from this. Now they don't even have to manage the servers themselves -- they can essentially re-sell AWS's service with custom support if they wanted and charge customers to move the cost to Heroku's bill rather than AWS's (you'd be surprised how many do this).
Post reply on HN