3 ms·

I agree with the general sentiment of your post, but the idea that Kafka is somehow less painful to operate than Rabbit is ridiculous. I love Kafka, but I can't

I agree with the general sentiment of your post, but the idea that Kafka is somehow less painful to operate than Rabbit is ridiculous. I love Kafka, but I can't think of a more painful software to maintain in production.

neeleshs 8y ago
In my experience, Kafka has been relatively painless. Sure, it needs zookeeper. But zk has turned out to be start it and forget it kind of infrastructure for us.
- gunnihinn 8y ago
  It will come for you, too, one day. We all float down here.
- StreamBright 8y ago
  Util one day ZK fails in the most spectacular way and nobody knows the internals of it and you lose data. Just because is something fine for a time does not mean that it is reliable. Without telling us how many nodes you are running ZK/Kafka on this information is useless. Others were not so lucky: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-801 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-801
  - neeleshs 8y ago
    I'm not claiming it's perfect. Our cluster of > 15 Kafka nodes and 3 node zk ensemble has had no major issues in over 4 years in production. That's something. And from the bug - "GC logging/tuning is clearly where I dropped the ball, just using the defaults;"