4 ms·
Would be nice to know why RabbitMQ/ZeroMQ didn't fit the bill [scale/speed?] -- I can somewhat understand the not relying on SQS but then there is anyways a rel
by ritwikt 12y ago
Would be nice to know why RabbitMQ/ZeroMQ didn't fit the bill [scale/speed?] -- I can somewhat understand the not relying on SQS but then there is anyways a reliance on EC2 right ?
- zackkitzmiller 12y agoI'm curious here as well.
- bjt 12y agoI thought the same thing about Rabbit. PinLater's ACK system feels like a questionable reinvention of AMQP. I'm probably missing something. Rabbit's advertised throughput doesn't reach 100,000/sec, but you should be able to shard your way around that. Or use Apache Kafka, which has the sharding built in.
- fintler 12y agoJust for comparison, LinkedIn is doing about 2.5 million messages per second (on average per day) with Apache Kafka. http://www.slideshare.net/ToddPalino/enterprise-kafka-kafka-as-a-service http://www.slideshare.net/ToddPalino/enterprise-kafka-kafka-...
- hatred 12y agoPrecisely, this is the same query I had when I glanced down the post. It will be great if the author or someone from the team respond to the various trade-offs and why they did not go ahead with Kafka ?
- omrvp 12y ago(I am the author of the blog post). I posted a reply below earlier this morning that hopefully addresses your question.
- bigtones 12y agoLooks like they needed to have built-in support for time based scheduled execution of jobs at a specific time in the future. Rabbit MQ does not have that (that I'm aware of) without doing some horrible hacks around one queue per message.