3 ms·

on an unrelated (to golang) note, does anyone have any experience they would like to share about iron.io? especially it vs rabbitmq or amazon sqs?

paddyforan 13y ago
We're friendly. Drop by get.iron.io/chat and we'll answer any and all questions you may have. :)
- carimura 13y ago
  that too.
carimura 13y ago
[Disclaimer/Warning I work there and this is about Iron.] Vs RabbitMQ: - Native cloud service over HTTP transport - Clean easy API - Scales to unlimited queues/clients - Push queues can have URL endpoints as subscribers - Highly available (our #1 priority is to keep it running at all times) - Nice UI to manage queues, stats, rate, etc. - IronWorker integration (workers as a service) Vs SQS: - Fast, clean API - FIFO - One time delivery - Multi-cloud - Push queues / pubsub / fanout as first class feature - IronWorker integration (workers as a service) Best way is to just try it out. It's already one of the leading cloud MQ's out there and we have a lot of big plans for IronMQ to make it the safest "bet your business" cloud message queue available.
- rabbitmq 13y ago
  RabbitMQ supports HTTP and has a clean easy API. Scales in lots of ways. Supports very high throughput on a single cheap AMI. Has awesome GUI and UI. Etc. YMMV.
anfleene 13y ago
I've used IronMq in production for about 6 months. It's easy to use but the uptime is terrible http://status.iron.io/history http://status.iron.io/history so if the messages are time sensitive I wouldn't recommend it. You should also queue the messages locally to ensure they end up in IronMq at all.
- carimura 13y ago
  Sorry for your issues anfleene. Reliability is our top top priority. FWIW our uptime has been 99.9% over the past year - and this is far from where we want it to be. We now also offer isolated clustering for production level highly available applications that need "4 nines" availability.

paddyforan 13y ago

We're friendly. Drop by get.iron.io/chat and we'll answer any and all questions you may have. :)

carimura 13y ago
that too.

carimura 13y ago

[Disclaimer/Warning I work there and this is about Iron.] Vs RabbitMQ: - Native cloud service over HTTP transport - Clean easy API - Scales to unlimited queues/clients - Push queues can have URL endpoints as subscribers - Highly available (our #1 priority is to keep it running at all times) - Nice UI to manage queues, stats, rate, etc. - IronWorker integration (workers as a service) Vs SQS: - Fast, clean API - FIFO - One time delivery - Multi-cloud - Push queues / pubsub / fanout as first class feature - IronWorker integration (workers as a service) Best way is to just try it out. It's already one of the leading cloud MQ's out there and we have a lot of big plans for IronMQ to make it the safest "bet your business" cloud message queue available.

rabbitmq 13y ago
RabbitMQ supports HTTP and has a clean easy API. Scales in lots of ways. Supports very high throughput on a single cheap AMI. Has awesome GUI and UI. Etc. YMMV.

anfleene 13y ago

I've used IronMq in production for about 6 months. It's easy to use but the uptime is terrible http://status.iron.io/history http://status.iron.io/history so if the messages are time sensitive I wouldn't recommend it. You should also queue the messages locally to ensure they end up in IronMq at all.

carimura 13y ago
Sorry for your issues anfleene. Reliability is our top top priority. FWIW our uptime has been 99.9% over the past year - and this is far from where we want it to be. We now also offer isolated clustering for production level highly available applications that need "4 nines" availability.