←back to thread

66 points enether | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.208s | source

The space is confusing to say the least.

Message queues are usually a core part of any distributed architecture, and the options are endless: Kafka, RabbitMQ, NATS, Redis Streams, SQS, ZeroMQ... and then there's the “just use Postgres” camp for simpler use cases.

I’m trying to make sense of the tradeoffs between:

- async fire-and-forget pub/sub vs. sync RPC-like point to point communication

- simple FIFO vs. priority queues and delay queues

- intelligent brokers (e.g. RabbitMQ, NATS with filters) vs. minimal brokers (e.g. Kafka’s client-driven model)

There's also a fair amount of ideology/emotional attachment - some folks root for underdogs written in their favorite programming language, others reflexively dismiss anything that's not "enterprise-grade". And of course, vendors are always in the mix trying to steer the conversation toward their own solution.

If you’ve built a production system in the last few years:

1. What queue did you choose?

2. What didn't work out?

3. Where did you regret adding complexity?

4. And if you stuck with a DB-based queue — did it scale?

I’d love to hear war stories, regrets, and opinions.

Show context
bilinguliar ◴[] No.44019341[source]
I am using Beanstalkd, it is small and fast and you just apt-get it on Debian.

However, I have noticed that oftentimes devs are using queues where Workflow Engines would be a better fit.

If your message processing time is in tens of seconds – talk to your local Workflow Engine professional (:

replies(2): >>44019401 #>>44019522 #
1. dkh ◴[] No.44019401[source]
A classic. Not something I personally use these days, but I think just as a piece of software it is an eternally good example of something simple, powerful, well-engineered, pleasant to use, and widely-compatible, all at the same time