←back to thread

IBM to acquire Confluent

(www.confluent.io)
443 points abd12 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
zkmon ◴[] No.46192765[source]
Kafka is already past it's prime time. Time for new solutions for the oldest problem - sending a message.
replies(7): >>46193002 #>>46193131 #>>46193219 #>>46193482 #>>46193569 #>>46194911 #>>46211679 #
spyspy ◴[] No.46193131[source]
I'm still convinced the vast majority of kafka implementations could be replaced with `SELECT * FROM mytable ORDER BY timestamp ASC`
replies(4): >>46193299 #>>46193568 #>>46194052 #>>46197629 #
fatal94 ◴[] No.46193568[source]
Sure, if you're working on a small homelab with minimal to no processing volume.

The second you approach any kind of scale, this falls apart and/or you end up with a more expensive and worse version of Kafka.

replies(2): >>46193662 #>>46194109 #
devnull3 ◴[] No.46193662[source]
I think there is a wide spectrum between small-homelab and google scale.

I was surprised how far sqlite goes with some sharding on modern SSDs for those in-between scale services/saas

replies(1): >>46194230 #
fatal94 ◴[] No.46194230[source]
What you're doing is fine for a homelab, or learning. But barring any very specific reason other than just not liking Kafka, its bad. The second that pattern needs to be fanned out to support even 50+ producers/consumers, the overhead and complexity needed to manage already-solved problems becomes a very bad design choice.

Kafka already solves this problem and gives me message durability, near infinite scale out, sharding, delivery guarantees, etc out of the box. I do not care to develop, reshard databases or production-alize this myself.

replies(2): >>46195422 #>>46195596 #
NewJazz ◴[] No.46195422[source]
Some people don't and won't need 50+ producers/consumers for a long while, if ever. Rewriting the code at that point may be less costly than operating Kafka in the interim. Kafka is also has a higher potential for failure than sqlite.
replies(2): >>46196406 #>>46197555 #
umanwizard ◴[] No.46197555[source]
Okay, then those people don’t have to use Kafka. What is your point?
replies(1): >>46197783 #
1. NewJazz ◴[] No.46197783{3}[source]
I was responding to someone who was responding to someone that wasn't using Kafka telling them to use Kafka. What's yours?