RabbitMQ 4.0
github.com
RabbitMQ 4.0
1–10 of 120 posts
Re: RabbitMQ 4.0
#2This release includes a new (native, no longer a plugin) AMQP 1.0 implementation, new quorum queue features, and a new schema data store (Khepri)
Re: RabbitMQ 4.0
#3I'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.
Re: RabbitMQ 4.0
#4I'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.
This is how I feel about NATS: https://nats.io/
It's an infinitely more friendly version of Kafka, pub/sub, etc that is extremely lightweight. Yet every environment trends towards Kafka because it was "chosen" by the big corps.
Re: RabbitMQ 4.0
#5I'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.
Erlang is a secret weapon.
Re: RabbitMQ 4.0
#6I'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.
This is how I feel about NATS: https://nats.io/ It's an infinitely more friendly version of Kafka, pub/sub, etc that is extremely lightweight. Yet every environment trends towards Kafka because it was "chosen" by the big corps.
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?).
Re: RabbitMQ 4.0
#7I'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.
This is how I feel about NATS: https://nats.io/ It's an infinitely more friendly version of Kafka, pub/sub, etc that is extremely lightweight. Yet every environment trends towards Kafka because it was "chosen" by the big corps.
So how about NATS compared to RabbitMQ? If building from scratch, what would drive a design or team towards NATS?
Re: RabbitMQ 4.0
#8I'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.
Probably using it wrong if complaining about AMQP queue scale limits...
Perhaps people are still thinking in single point of ingress design paradigms. Admittedly RabbitMQ can be a pain to administer for Juniors, but then again so are the other options. =3
Re: RabbitMQ 4.0
#9I'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.
Agreed. I ran a log ingestion infra 8 years ago doing 20k msg/s sustained on RabbitMQ ... back then we went through a lot of instabilities though they settled over time with new releases. Great times. Besides a quality product the development/release process was very professional and mature.
The biggest issue back then was finding a quality client implementation for the language you were using. Not sure what the status of that is these days.
Re: RabbitMQ 4.0
#10I'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.
The real reason people don't use it is because they don't know about it or understand it. Then they apply the "it doesn't scale" retroactively.
You have to read a lot of docs or you WILL hold RabbitMQ wrong.