Menu
Apache Pulsar (by Yahoo) seems to be the next generation of Apache Kafka.
Apache RocketMQ (by Alibaba) seems to be the next generation of Apache ActiveMQ.
Both are open source distributed messaging and streaming data platforms.
But how do they compare? When should I prefer one over another in terms of features and performance?
Is Pulsar (like Kafka) strictly better at streaming, and RocketMQ (like ActiveMQ) strictly better at messaging?
993
Apache Pulsar is adept at handling high-volume pub-sub messaging as well as the more complex messaging patterns typical in a message queuing system. And these complex messaging patterns are handled by Pulsar — not left to the software developer to code around using a complex application built on top of a simple client.
Pulsar is much faster than Kafka, thanks to its capability to deliver higher throughput with more consistent, significantly lower latency. However, the thing that really separates Pulsar from Kafka is one of its top-class features – geo-replication.
We wrote IronMQ from the ground up as a cloud-agnostic message queue service with a focus on performance and easy deployment and management.
Looks like you answer your own question.
To be fair, the main advantages of Pulsar against RocketMQ are:
Pulsar is oriented to topics and multi-topic. RocketMQ is more interesting in batch and keeps the index of the messages. RocketMQ you still need an adaptor to keep up with the backwards, Pulsar in the other hand comes built-in. RabbitMQ is push model and RocketMQ is pulling model since has zero-loss tolerance. Pulsar offers message priority and RocketMQ since it's a queue doesn't support that.
163
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With
