3 ms·
This doesn't address 0MQ's performance improvement claims, which I would have thought was the biggest thing the RabbitMQ guys would want to address.
by seldo 17y ago
This doesn't address 0MQ's performance improvement claims, which I would have thought was the biggest thing the RabbitMQ guys would want to address.
- evgen 17y agoIf you don't need to provide persistence and flow control it is amazing how much faster you can go...
- majke 17y agoAnd if you do, things can became pretty complicated.
- evgen 17y agoAbsolutely. I happen to need these bits so zeromq is a non-starter for me. I am mildly annoyed by the "we are faster" rhetoric without the "but we only support a small subset of the useful things you can do with a message queue" caveat, but it is a mostly meaningless bit of marketing so I can let it slide; anyone who really needs those sorts of speeds knows how to actually evaluate products and is unlikely to be suckered by a false dichotomy setup like the one on the zeromq home page.
- rabbitmq 17y agoIt turns out that RabbitMQ's throughput of tens of thousands of transient messages per second per CPU is enough for a lot of cases. Similar story with latency. ZeroMQ does a lot of neat stuff to make it go faster still, e.g taking out the server, and removing all routing info from the messages, but ends up being much more like an alternative to sockets as a result, which makes it less useful for general work. In summary - RabbitMQ and ZeroMQ are complementary, rather than really being alternatives to one another. alexis RabbitMQ