4 ms·

How does this compare to Redis Pub-Sub or RabbitMQ?

• xrd 7y ago
  Or Firebase?
  • Eikon 7y ago
    Or Kafka ?
    • sz4kerto 7y ago
      Kafka is primarily designed for streaming, pulsar is both for streaming and queueing. Firebase is a completely different animal.
    • qaq 7y ago
      Scales much better the storage layer is separate from brokers so you can scale things independently.
    • manigandham 7y ago
      Read the other comment thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21936523 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21936523
• sz4kerto 7y ago
  Very different. Pulsar is primarily a Kafka competitor. - it is much more performant than RabbitMQ - it's a commit log as well, not just a pub-sub system, ie. it is a good candidate as the storage backend for event sourcing - it supports geodistributed and tiered storage (eg. some data on NVMe drives, some on a coldline storage) - it's persistent, not in-memory (primarily) .. and so on.
  • EGreg 7y ago
    What about ZeroMQ? Why use RabbitMQ and Kafka if you can use ZeroMQ? Meaning, isn’t it far more performant and distributed? Maybe I am missing something here.
    • Joeri 7y ago
      Message queues and message logs do different things. The idea of the log is that subscribers can show up after the log is written and read or reread it from the beginning. In an event sourced architecture you use the log as the source of truth and all consumers can replay the log against a local store to reconstruct a view of the system’s state. You also can use a log for pubsub, but if that’s all you need one of the MQ solutions is usually a better fit.
    • sz4kerto 7y ago
      > Why use RabbitMQ and Kafka if you can use ZeroMQ? They are totally different, you're comparing apples with oranges. ZeroMQ gives you basic, very fast tooling to communicate between distributed processes. ZeroMQ does not provide tooling for e.g. maintaining a strictly ordered, multi-terabyte event log. And so on.
      • EGreg 7y ago
        Yes but isn’t this a bit like comparing git / bitkeeper vs subversion / perforce? Basically, one is decentralized and you can set up a massively parallel architecture, with eg each topic or subthread having its own pubsub. The other is a monolithic centralized pubsub architecture. You could argue that git in large institutional projects converges to a monolithic repo so at that point it’s less efficient even than svn. But for most use cases, ZeroMQ would allow far more flexible distributed systems topologies and solutions. No? Edit: HN and Google are both awesome: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9634925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9634925
        • frogger23123 7y ago
          > You could argue that git in large institutional projects converges to a monolithic repo so at that point it’s less efficient even than svn. Not true. Facebook and Google do not use Git. Microsoft does not use vanilla Git for their monorepo. They created this extension to make it scalable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_File_System_for_Git https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_File_System_for_Git
        • 7y ago
  • TuringNYC 7y ago
    I went to https://pulsar.apache.org https://pulsar.apache.org but didnt find a "Why Pulsar and not Kafka" -- is there an answer to that, or is this another Kafka competitor with the same strengths and not a specific differentiator?
    • cbartholomew 7y ago
      Here is a two-part blog post I wrote on why Pulsar and not Kafka: https://kafkaesque.io/5-more-reasons-to-choose-apache-pulsar-over-kafka/ https://kafkaesque.io/5-more-reasons-to-choose-apache-pulsar...
      • richdougherty 7y ago
        Thanks! And Part 1 seems like a good place to start: https://kafkaesque.io/7-reasons-we-choose-apache-pulsar-over-apache-kafka/ https://kafkaesque.io/7-reasons-we-choose-apache-pulsar-over...
  • dickjocke 7y ago
    Why is one Apache providing competing with another one?
    • spelunker 7y ago
      Plenty competing Apache projects exist, Pulsar and Kafka aren't unique in that regard. I don't think Apache cares if it's maintaining similar projects.
• qaq 7y ago
  This scales to multi-datacenter deployments well. Has strong multi-tenancy support if memory serves Yahoo is running a single cluster for all of their properties.
• tyingq 7y ago
  It's a persistent store, so that would be different from Redis Pub-Sub. Compared to RabbitMQ, Pulsar seems to favor strong ordering and protection from message loss. This blog post offers some more info and leaders to other posts comparing Pulsar to RabbitMQ and Kafka: https://jack-vanlightly.com/blog/2018/10/2/understanding-how-apache-pulsar-works https://jack-vanlightly.com/blog/2018/10/2/understanding-how...
• Joeri 7y ago
  It’s closer to redis streams, except like kafka you can scale topics beyond the limits of a single server because they can be distributed. You couldn’t run the twitter firehose over redis streams, but you can run it over pulsar or kafka, given enough hardware.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]