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

RabbitMQ 4.0

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 120 posts

Re: RabbitMQ 4.0

#21

Post by Karrot_Kream »

hyperadvanced wrote: post #14
shandor wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how about NATS compared to RabbitMQ? If building from scratch, what would drive a design or team towards NATS?

Have used both extensively: NATS, especially in its most elementary form, is braindead simple, stateless, and ootb functional. If I only want a message broker/pubsub, I pick that. If I know on day 1 that I need queues or persistence, I would probably pick Rabbit over NATS’ offering (Jetstream).

Would you use NATS over Redis PubSub or Postgres Notify/Listen? Postgres's option I'm wary of for reasons I've discussed here before but Redis PubSub seems fairly simple to use and likewise not as uber-scalable as Kafka and other more heavyweight message broker systems.

Re: RabbitMQ 4.0

#23

Post by stackskipton »

fidotron wrote: post #3

I've regarded RabbitMQ as a secret weapon in plain sight for years. The killer reason people don't use it more is it "doesn't scale" to truly enormous sizes, but for anyone with less than a million users it's great. Too many people end up with their own half rolled pubsub via things like grpc, and they'd be far better off using this, particularly in the early stages of development.

Also want to give a shoutout to BeanStalkd: https://github.com/beanstalkd/beanstalkd

If you are looking at RabbitMQ with "Maybe this is too much". Beanstalkd likely has features you need with almost none of the setup. Just don't web expose it ;)

Re: RabbitMQ 4.0

#24

Post by packetlost »

Zambyte wrote: post #12
packetlost wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've used both and NATS is definitely what I'd pick starting out. RabbitMQ is great too, but its heavier and harder to configure. Federation is the killer feature of RabbitMQ that NATS doesn't really have (afaik?).

I've never used RabbitMQ, but NATS supports clustering, super clustering, and leaf node connections. I'm guessing the latter is the closest to what would be considered "federation" in this context. Edit: spelling

None of them are close. RabbitMQ has traffic shaping, MQ->MQ routing (federation), and all sorts of stuff that is super important if you use it as a generalized routing system (vs plain IP). NATS doesn't have that and it's almost certainly firmly out of scope.

Re: RabbitMQ 4.0

#25

Post by wejick »

heipei wrote: post #18
fidotron wrote: post #3

I've regarded RabbitMQ as a secret weapon in plain sight for years. The killer reason people don't use it more is it "doesn't scale" to truly enormous sizes, but for anyone with less than a million users it's great. Too many people end up with their own half rolled pubsub via things like grpc, and they'd be far better off using this, particularly in the early stages of development.

I could say the same thing about NSQ which is a distributed message queue with very simple semantics and a great HTTP API for message publishing and control actions. What it doesn't offer natively is HA though.

People will be surprised on how far you can get NSQ. It doesn't come with any fancy guarantee like only-once or even ordered, this forced developer to think how to design better on the application side. Not saying it's ideal tho.

Re: RabbitMQ 4.0

#26

Post by stackskipton »

edweis wrote: post #17

For what reason should we move from SNS/SQS to RabbitMQ? Our SaaS processes ~20 events/second.

You TRULY NEED to be multicloud? That would be only reason. Otherwise, assuming SNS/SQS is meeting your needs well, I wouldn't even consider it. You are paying ~20 USD per month with no maintenance costs. That's hell of a deal.

Re: RabbitMQ 4.0

#27

Post by sevenf0ur »

fidotron wrote: post #3

I've regarded RabbitMQ as a secret weapon in plain sight for years. The killer reason people don't use it more is it "doesn't scale" to truly enormous sizes, but for anyone with less than a million users it's great. Too many people end up with their own half rolled pubsub via things like grpc, and they'd be far better off using this, particularly in the early stages of development.

How do you manage schema for exchanges, queues, and routing? The pattern seems to be for each client to set up the schema for the parts they touch before hand, but that doesn't scale well. The schema ends up siloed in each project and nobody knows what the current state should be.

Re: RabbitMQ 4.0

#28

Post by tamalsaha001 »

packetlost wrote: post #24
Zambyte wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never used RabbitMQ, but NATS supports clustering, super clustering, and leaf node connections. I'm guessing the latter is the closest to what would be considered "federation" in this context. Edit: spelling

None of them are close. RabbitMQ has traffic shaping, MQ->MQ routing (federation), and all sorts of stuff that is super important if you use it as a generalized routing system (vs plain IP). NATS doesn't have that and it's almost certainly firmly out of scope.

NATS can do traffic shaping

https://docs.nats.io/nats-concepts/subject_mapping#for-traff...

Re: RabbitMQ 4.0

#29

Post by heipei »

wejick wrote: post #25
heipei wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could say the same thing about NSQ which is a distributed message queue with very simple semantics and a great HTTP API for message publishing and control actions. What it doesn't offer natively is HA though.

People will be surprised on how far you can get NSQ. It doesn't come with any fancy guarantee like only-once or even ordered, this forced developer to think how to design better on the application side. Not saying it's ideal tho.

I don't know why / how messages should be ordered. NSQ is a message queue and not a log. Some messages take longer to process than others, and some messages need to be re-queued and re-tried out of order, and that is a very common use-case.

I would love to be able to use a distributed log like Kafka/Redpanda since it's HA out of the box, but it simply does not fit that use-case.

Re: RabbitMQ 4.0

#30

Post by packetlost »

tamalsaha001 wrote: post #28
packetlost wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of them are close. RabbitMQ has traffic shaping, MQ->MQ routing (federation), and all sorts of stuff that is super important if you use it as a generalized routing system (vs plain IP). NATS doesn't have that and it's almost certainly firmly out of scope.

NATS can do traffic shaping https://docs.nats.io/nats-concepts/subject_mapping#for-traff...

Oh cool, I didn't know it could! Regardless, advanced routing is still something that RabbitMQ has that isn't in NATS. It's not useful for every system, but it is a differentiator. I usually reach for NATS + Jetstream these days, with its object and KV systems it's a really great "all-in-one" for basic stuff.
Post reply on HN