4 ms·
whats the advantage over e.g. nsq? im pretty comfortable with it at the moment.
by hoare 11y ago
whats the advantage over e.g. nsq? im pretty comfortable with it at the moment.
- dvirsky 11y agoI didn't compare it to other queues on purpose, just wrote my impressions of using it. It's easy to operate and set up, and it it's simple to work with. It's certainly not usable for production yet, and I'm not switching to using it as well - but given antirez's track record, I think it will do great eventually.
- antirez 11y agoA few key differences I noticed reading NSQ documentation right now: 1) Disque synchronously (or async if you want) replicate messages across the cluster, so N-1 nodes can fail (N is the replication factor) and the message will still be delivered. NSQ is different in that regard, quoting from the doc: "messages are delivered at least once. Closely related to above, this assumes that the given nsqd node does not fail." 2) Federation apparently is not built-in but uses "nsqlookupd", however this may be similar to what Disque provides, I'm not sure. In Disque you can have a single queue distributed among multiple nodes, it looks like using "nsqlookupd" this is the same in NSQ. 3) If I understand correctly, NSQ has no support for delayed messages. 4) I'm not sure if in NSQ you can specify a per job retry time for jobs to be re-delivered automatically, and if a TTL time is also available. 5) I'm not sure if NSQ is able to re-queue the message even without receiving a negative ACK from the client. Would be cool to have all this checked by NSQ authors.
- hoare 11y agoPoint 1) is a strong one, didnt think of that. thx for clarification:)