4 ms·
NATS and NSQ are better than SQS if you can deploy them yourself. ZeroMQ is a great option as well, but it probably will require some major brain changes, since
by gunapologist99 4y ago
NATS and NSQ are better than SQS if you can deploy them yourself. ZeroMQ is a great option as well, but it probably will require some major brain changes, since it doesn't fit most people's mental model of what a queuing server looks like.
- eropple 4y agoZeroMQ is too weird for me, yeah. NATS JetStream and NSQ are both promising but their durability options are unclear and while I have a background in devops/system architecture, I'm looking at building something whose entire staff is literally only me and so while I'm sure I can deploy it, I'm not sure I can effectively run it. SQS will do what I expect it to do, and that's pretty powerful.
- codegangsta 4y agodisclosure: I work at Synadia We do have a hosted version of NATS called NGS that is multi-cloud, multi-geo and is really easy to set up https://synadia.com/ngs https://synadia.com/ngs
- gunapologist99 4y agoYour pricing is really very fair, especially since it's based on resource consumption and not per-request. One suggestion: put your pricing right on the home page. I'm starting to wonder why I am running it myself! And, you probably know a little bit about NATS, too, since, you know, you wrote it! :) https://nats.io/support/ https://nats.io/support/
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]