3 ms·
To be honest I think very many of us don't need Kafka. As with many other things as long as we aren't handling more than a few thousands messages/sec any decent
by reitanqild 10y ago
To be honest I think very many of us don't need Kafka. As with many other things as long as we aren't handling more than a few thousands messages/sec any decent ordinary nessage broker like ActiveMQ should do.
Caveat: do not install production message bus in a vm.
I recently listened to this talk which compares and explains very nicely: https://vimeo.com/181925293 https://vimeo.com/181925293
- ah- 10y agoKafka gives you vastly better delivery guarantees than the common ActiveMQ brokers. If you put a message into Kafka and have it configured correctly, it will come out on the other end at least once. This is not the case for most of the competitors.
- vidarh 10y agoA lot of the time you don't need at-least once, so even picking a broker without support for it is not necessarily an issue. And at-least once can be reasonably simply layered on top (require a response at a higher level layer) at a cost, so depending on your use-case, forgoing at-least once support in the broker can very well be the right choice.
- sgt101 10y agoThis is so, but also consider the profile of traffic; if you have 10k messages s-1 on average you might rarely get lots and lost more.