Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why do message queue-based architectures seem less popular now?

news.ycombinator.com

141–150 of 376 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why do message queue-based architectures seem less popular now?

#141
ZeroMQ has never been a managed queue. It was always more of a networking library on top of which you could implement some interesting paradigms, but it has never been on the same playing field as MQs (on purpose).

SQS is still very much alive. It is more than likely the first or second most deployed resource in AWS in my daily work.

Re: Ask HN: Why do message queue-based architectures seem less popular now?

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, I worked on multiple projects removing queues at Google, so it's more than just that.

and mandates that virtually all new projects not directly use borg/kubernetes.

Can you extend it? How do they deploy, and where do they deploy their projects?

Re: Ask HN: Why do message queue-based architectures seem less popular now?

#143

> RabbitMQ, ZeroMQ There is literally nothing in common between RabbitMQ and ZeroMQ except for the two symbols 'MQ' in the name.

Well, the one thing they have in common is that both projects were originally designed by the same person, Pieter Hintjens.

Re: Ask HN: Why do message queue-based architectures seem less popular now?

#144
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Need no. But it’s nice especially since I have the know how. Creating a new deployment is just super fast. Developers can deploy their own apps etc. And then there is Helm. If we only decide by “need” then most of the time we also wouldn’t need object oriented programming.

> And then there is Helm Right, who doesn't want to template hundreds of lines of code in a language that uses whitespace for logic and was never made neither for templating nor complex long documents(YAML)? What could possibly go wrong ("error missing xxx at line 728, but it might be a problem elsewhere").

But my infrastructure is code! Can't you see how it's all in git?

Re: Ask HN: Why do message queue-based architectures seem less popular now?

#146
post #131
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think lots of microservices can be replaced with a monolith which in turn can be replaced with a set of composable libraries versioned separately. If anyone doubts that, this very browser used to read and write is built all the way up with dozens of libraries from compression, network, image encoding, decoding, video encoding decoding, encryption, graphics, sound and what not where each library is totally separate…

If you are using Chrome, it's also a combination of multiple well separated processes talking via RPC with each other, which is pretty similar to microservices, although the separation boundaries are more influenced by attack mitigation requirements than your typical microservice architecture would be.

And even that process separation is spinning up more processes from within the same binary or build artefact. The usual fork() and CreateProcessW() etc and then wait on them.

Unlike in Microservices where each process is possibly a totally different language, runtime and framework spun up individually that too possibly in totally different ways.

Re: Ask HN: Why do message queue-based architectures seem less popular now?

#147
We use message queues for everything that doesn't have to be real time. It's just another tool in the toolbox and pretty old and well known. I don't think it needs extensive blogging as pretty much anyone who need to use message queues knows how to do it.

It has some downsides as it if something happens it's harder to debug than just using good old REST API calls.

Re: Ask HN: Why do message queue-based architectures seem less popular now?

#148
post #18

My, perhaps overly cynical view, is that Message Queue architecture and blogging was all about "Resume Driven Development" - where almost everybody doing it was unlikely to ever need to scale past what a simple monolith could support running on a single laptop. All the same people who were building nightmare micro service disasters requiring tens of thousand of dollars a month of AWS services. These days all those pe…

I have also seen a lot of cases where engineers would use the more unnecessarily complex structure on purpose to make themselves less replaceable, as it would take longer time for newcomers to get familiar with the environment deployed.

Re: Ask HN: Why do message queue-based architectures seem less popular now?

#149

I like a lot of the answers, but something else I'd add: lots of "popular" architectures from the late 00s and early 2010s have fallen by the wayside because people realized "You're not Google. Your company will never be Google." That is, there was a big desire around that time period to "build it how the big successful companies built it." But since then, a lot of us have realized that complexity isn't necessary for…

> because people realized "You're not Google. Your company will never be Google." Is that also why almost no one is using microservices and Kubernetes?

> Is that also why almost no one is using microservices and Kubernetes?

I don’t know of a single 100+ sized organisation in my area which doesn’t use micro services in some form. A lot of places also use kubernetes indirectly through major cloud provider layers line Azure Container Apps.

Our frontend (and indeed quite a bit of our backend) lives in a NX mono-repo. As for how it actually works, however, it’s basically a lot of micro-services which are very independently maintainable. Meaning you can easily have different teams work on different parts of your ecosystem and not break things. It doesn’t necessarily deploy as what some people might consider micro services of course. But then micro services were always this abstract thing that is honestly more of a framework for management and change management than anything tech.

Re: Ask HN: Why do message queue-based architectures seem less popular now?

#150

I can offer one data point. This is from purely startup-based experience (seed to Series A). A while ago I moved from microservices to monolith because they were too complicated and had a lot of duplicated code. Without microservices there's less need for a message queue. For async stuff, I used RabbitMQ for one project, but it just felt...old and over-architected? And a lot of the tooling around it (celery) just was…

To your comment on Airflow, I’ve been around that block a few times. I’ve found Airflow (and really any orchestration) be the most manageable when it’s nearly devoid of all logic to the point of DAGs being little more than a series of function or API calls, with each of those responsible for managing state transfer to the next call (as opposed to relying on orchestration to do so). For example, you need some ETL to h…

Ok, so question (because I really like the DAG approach in principle but don't have enough experience to have had my fingers burned yet):

The way you use Airflow, what advantage does it have over crontab? Or to put it another way, once you remove the pipeline logic, what's left?

Post reply on HN