3 ms·
It is a *very bad* replacement for an MQ system, for the simple reason you can't quickly and effortlessly scale int/out consumers.
by guhcampos 1y ago
It is a *very bad* replacement for an MQ system, for the simple reason you can't quickly and effortlessly scale int/out consumers.
- saberience 1y agoWhy can't you? In my experience, scaling Kafka was far easier than scaling our RabbitMQ cluster. We started running into issues when our RabbitMQ cluster hit 25k TPS, our Kafka cluster of equivalent resources didn't break a sweat at 500k TPS.
- otterley 1y agoScaling consumers, not throughput. And it’s both directions (in and out, not just out).
- jdswain 1y agoWhat sort of systems do you work on to require this kind of traffic volume? I've worked on one project that I'd consider relatively high volume (UK Post Office Horizon Online) and we were only targeting 500 TPS.
- saberience 1y agoThink extremely popular multiplayer videogames. We used these systems for all the backend infra, logins, logouts, chat messages, purchases. We often had millions of players online at a given moment which means lots of transactions!
- guhcampos 1y agoHow did you handle re-partitioning and rebalancing every time you scaled your cluster in or out?