Kafka vs RabbitMQ Performance (Latency - Throughput - Saturation)

[@AntonPutra]

► What should I test next? ► AWS is expensive - Infra Support Fund: buymeacoffee.com/antonputra ► Benchmarks: kzbin.info/aero/PLiMWaCMwGJXmcDLvMQeORJ-j_jayKaLVn&si=p-UOaVM_6_SFx52H

[@slavapol-v1553]

Похоже Elixir так и не дождемся

[@nehua6164]

Great video! Could you do a comparison between Go and Swift? They're both compiled languages that can be used for backend, but Go is super minimalistic, while Swift feels more like Rust with its rich feature set. Would love to see how they stack up against eack other.

[@JonCanning]

Golang vs Node Kafka consumer

[@n3v3rd1e]

would be very nice to add NATS to this comparison

[@MDFireX5]

@@slavapol-v1553 мы fastapi ждем уже полжизни

[@sweetcapitan5690]

I think a battle between NATS and Kafka would be a good continuation of this comparison.

[@TheBatmintun13]

Kafka vs redpanda 😊

[@unom8]

Yes, NATS please

[@PragmaticPragmatist]

Nats please

[@praveenperera]

yes NATS Jetstream comparison please

[@Z3U5.0g]

Hell yeah I thought I was the only one who liked NATS

[@x31tr0n7]

NATS vs KAFKA vs Pulsar vs AutoMQ should be a great addition to this series. This will be helpful for a lot of audience.

[@joshuadunham4954]

+1 For pulsar

[@TheCarlitozg]

Try comparison with NATS

[@jm-alan]

My company uses RabbitMQ as our communication backbone for an IOT-type deployment right now, so this is actually super interesting to see Also, I might have a PR - it looks like you're instantiating a connection for every RabbitMQ consumer, when Rabbit generally prefers that you try to use only one connection and multiple channels to dole out multiple logical connections to the broker. There might be performance to gain/some wasted CPU resources there, depending on how many individual consumers you're actually constructing

[@Qrzychu92]

As usual, great video. I never expected you to add a face cam, but it gives your videos a bit more personality, good job!

[@Demodude123]

Redpanda vs kafka would be an interesting test

[@davebrooks4605]

I agree. This would be a very interesting comparison

[@a.nk.r7209]

We're using redpanda in prod for our workload. Would love to see this comparison

[@drksbr]

Yesssss!

[@TheForge47]

Redpanda does not delivery what it promised, but there was a Problem with journaling File system in the past...

[@joswayski]

I don’t know about rabbit MQ streams, but the catch with things like Redis streams and even NATS is that you can process things out of order on the same partition or message subject if you have multiple consumers which makes it a non starter for a lot of projects As always, thanks for making these videos :)

[@unom8]

Nice, please try NATS Would love to see IBM message queue as well

[@yunocode]

Thank you for the videos, very useful Would love to see some kind of websocket benching for number of connections and throughput with go, rust, js, erlang/elixir

[@murtuzabagasrawala3324]

This is a good idea. This would be interesting to see

[@artursradionovs9543]

Thanks for a video. Can we also check Kafka vs Redpanda?

[@kronosthesoulshaker]

Please do a SQLite3 vs MySQL2 vs Postgres next. Thank you!

[@TweakMDS]

Love this, I would also love to see NATS thrown into the mix.

[@uwontlikeit]

Yes!🎉 Glad you got your talented hands on queues finally :) great job. Can't wait to see benchmarks of Apache Pulsar, NATS and RedPanda

[@ttrel787]

It would also be excellent to see a comparison when using production best practices, being 3 replications and min isr of 2. Not sure if rabbit mq streams has an analogue but it would be really interesting if so

[@PrestonThorpe-d1x]

I have to +1 asking for the NATS v. kafka test next!

[@AntonPutra]

ok

[@plefebvre]

It would be interesting to see how these two cope with slow consumers or consumer outages. One of the advantages of Kafka or Redpanda is the ability to accommodate differences in speed of processing between producer and consumer.

[@wety789]

Would love to see comparison of kafka against NATS and/or redpanda

[@AntonPutra]

soon

[@jansyren2252]

What you have in Kafka which is quite essential for many due to security is the append only and immutable lugs, the fact that they are stored to disk also retains the documents even in case of a crash. So for a banking system etc it is very important that you know the last transaction and that it isn't lost. RabbitMQ is more for less serious workloads, maybe in a web application backend but nothing I would use for anything that needs security.

[@krissukoco9294]

This channel keeps getting better and better! Kinda my breakfast companion at this time. A bit curious, do you have Indonesian or south east asia parents? Due to the "Putra" last name.

[@ericzorn3735]

Comparing two different AMQP message brokers such as RabbitMQ and LavinMQ would be really helpful. LavinMQ writes to disk as well, similar to Kafka

[@mitchellmnr]

So, I do feel your comparison and wording is a bit misleading. Since both can be clustered Its not a true apples to apples comparison. Now although we do know Kafka can push more due to the way it is designed. Rabbit can handle 50k msgs per second on a single node - ive tested and seen that. But it also depends on the node specs. However when you cluster, which is what most people would do (HA, reliability and scalability) - then we can see a really good test. Although I do get having the single nodes - but that should really be said. Since its not rabbit vs kafka - its a single rabbit and kafka node vs eachother - since both are designed to be clustered

[@a0flj0]

IME, RabbitMQ is a better choice when your messages are spread over a large number of queues/topics to which many distinct clients subscribe. It can't beat Kafka on throughput on a single queue on a single node, but IME Kafka can, in principle, manage many topics, but doesn't like it - it may unexpectedly crash nodes. If you scale your RabbitMQ cluster dynamically, based on node load, you can a humongous number of queues shared by an equally humongous number of clients with zero problems. Then again, my experience with both is a bit dated.

[@sPanKyZzZ1]

So my take from this is running a bunch of rabbitMQ instances with a load balancer might be a more efficient and cost effective solution then kafka.

[@efimovv]

In this configuration you have single point of failure while Kafka brokers distribute load across cluster without it.

[@sPanKyZzZ1]

@@efimovv okay, maybe I m missing more on kafka architecture but I guess if you really want rabbitmq you can find a way

[@efimovv]

​@@sPanKyZzZ1 Sure, if someone want to use RMQ it will use despite of any tests :)

[@raine-works]

You should include NATS

[@AntonPutra]

yes soon

[@Z3U5.0g]

@@AntonPutraCLOUD NATIVE 💪

[@DavidDLee]

Not sure this tells you very much. Kafka and RabbitMQ guarantees are very different. Sure, if you are OK to lose data by holding it in memory, go for RabbitMQ. If you can't, then RabbitMQ will be a dumb choice. While it is interesting to see what happens when CPU usage reaches 100%, it's not a safe place to be.

[@nedotraxxxx]

Did you bind stream into large queues setup or something else? I mean the kind of topology configuration that could affect the test? It seems to be weird as we easily handled 1kk message workload (RabbitMQ) with binary protocol client and there was a spot to get more. The all results are to be reasonable and expected (Kafka is definitely has maturity on a stream processing) but the numbers should be higher.

[@БорисМатвеев-в2и]

Beautiful video, best job, sugar.! 😊

[@Serizon_]

could you compare redwood and kafka and all other and give them points in term of specific points (like throughput , from 0 to 10) , and also a general winner when we add all the points from all metrics. This could be an interesting form of benchmark

[@gobdovan]

are you referring to redpanda vs kafka? I would also be interested in seeing that

[@AndreiBurchack]

If RMQ uses default settings - RMQ use some sort of "swap" for messages (which works ugly). It need to make some changes into config.

[@sonk4x4]

Nice vídeo, it could be nice to compare also RabbitMQ vs Amazon SNS, SQS vs Azure service bus. Thank you 😄

[@AntonPutra]

ok will do :)

[@sharon8811]

In RabbitMQ each queue is bound to one cpu core, did you publish to many queues or to just one queue, it makes a lot of difference

[@AntonPutra]

i created kafka topic/rabbitmq queue for each producer/consumer pair so a lot

[@faressaleh3693]

Dude I love your videosss

[@ramblexDa]

NATS vs Kafka would be a really interesting battle

[@recklessroges]

Thank you. This is very useful reference information.

[@GabrielPozo]

Great video! I hope you will try Kafka vs. Nats!! Can I ask you how much you spent on this test?

[@thomaseckert5691]

I would love to see a comparison between Kafka and Redpanda. Redpanda is a drop in Kafka replacement in C++. (I work at Redpanda)

[@j________k]

Would like to see kafka vs redpanda

[@StoneWeaver_RU]

I think RabbitMQ streams matches better with Kafka Streams over usual Kafka. And no words said about kafka partitions count

[@AntonPutra]

well i have only 1 kafka broker 😊 you can only scale throughput if your partitions located on different brokers

[@StoneWeaver_RU]

@@AntonPutra of course. What I meant was - kafka can perform much better in cluster mode over rabbitmq in cluster mode. You're right, it's different case

[@NizamRamli-vg3il]

Comparing the performance for which one is better i think not suitable. It is more sense when as a solution architect or developer to decide which broker you will choose as your solution for specific project requirement and if choose one of its you know at what time you need to scale and estimating additional cost.

[@liandermedeiros]

Excellent content as always!! If possible, could you do Kafka vs ActiveMQ in a future video?

[@AntonPutra]

ok will do

[@ПавелПавлович-д8ц]

НУ НАКОНЕЦ ТО! )))

[@gahshunker]

Great stuff🎉

[@spxnr]

Nice! What is the dashboard where you have your plots set up in?

[@marknefedov]

I know it is barely used by anyone, but I'm curious how Pulsar will perform.

[@lufenmartofilia5804]

Me too !

[@LtdJorge]

Worse than NATS and Kafka from the benchmarks I’ve seen.

[@efimovv]

Nice compare. But now I really curious about how topic(s) are created in Kafka. I found num.partitions=1 in Kafka config, if topic created without explicit number of partitions it basically mean single thread for producer/consumer.

[@AntonPutra]

i have a topic and single partition per producer/consumer pair just for the test - github.com/antonputra/tutorials/blob/main/lessons/218/client/kafka/producer.go#L31

[@konga8165]

You should do NATS

[@AntonPutra]

will do

[@spruslaks26]

Thanks!

[@AntonPutra]

thank you!!

[@arfathahmed3433]

I would love timescaleDB vs clickhouse and to make sense of clickbench.

[@vani_maki]

I’d live to see ZeroMQ vs Kafka. zmq claims to be the fastest message broker

[@mrpocock]

Now you've got me wanting to write a message broker :/ I'm guessing there are a ton of tricks to improve stability and throughout which would be fun to explore.

[@marko95g]

Can you compere pulsar with kafka?

[@longshin4299]

Why you test Rabbit MQ with option keep msg memory but Kafka written to disk? That's is not fair. Can you test RabbitMQ ( Amazon MQ in AWS) with config mode lazy( written to disk).

[@djmusti7]

I wonder how this will go with the new GraalVM image for kafka.

[@mustafayazlmc3973]

nice work

[@WaseemAshraf]

Redis queue vs RabbitMQ should be interesting.

[@AntonPutra]

redis queue?

[@rafaeltab]

Could you also include redpanda and NATS?

[@miladamiryshahrabi6503]

What about using a cluster of kafka brokers because no one will use a single instance of kafka in real production environments

[@AntonPutra]

you can scale both by increasing number of brokers, this gives you a baseline for single broker/node

[@miladamiryshahrabi6503]

@@AntonPutra As long as my knowledge helps me kafka cluster is active-active, means load and data is distributed between its nodes according to topic partitions and each partition has a different leader in cluster but rabbitmq cluster is meant for HA (active-passive cluster). a replica of master node is there so if something bad happens for master node the replica node takes its place (May be im wrong but if im correct then kafka cluster is Way stronger than a rabbitmq cluster)

[@spicynoodle7419]

Kafka and RabbitMQ are used in different scenarios. It's kind of apples and oranges

[@Qrzychu92]

RabbitMQ Streams are basically Kafka

[@toTheMuh]

There is a difference between RabbitMQ and RabbitMQ Streams

[@Qrzychu92]

@@toTheMuh yeah, and he is testing both

[@dy0mber847]

What the difference?

[@SAsquirtle]

FastAPI benchmarks pls!

[@AntonPutra]

ok :)

[@alexanderalexander8902]

Please compare NATS and Kafka

[@AntonPutra]

ok

[@kvs7720]

your videos all heplfull

[@oztro12345]

Please add comparase with NATS

[@soufianosse333]

Can you do Kafka vs Pulsar? Thanks in advance ☺️

[@dimasarestu2043]

helo bro, can you compare laravel with some other framework thx

[@huuphong3657]

please compare fastapi and golang (gin)

[@arytiwa4351]

Benchmarking guru

[@hegelwin]

Please compare Pulsar and Kafka

[@aaliboyev]

Yo, interesting comparison

[@cengytech497]

Nats vs Kafka

[@AntonPutra]

will do soon

[@chivesltd]

kafka vs automq!

[@prosenjitjoy]

please add pulsar and nats too

[@AntonPutra]

ok

[@ThomazMartinez]

What about BullMQ?

[@mateusz5216]

Unfortunately this test is flawed: it does not show completely what use case is, 99% of the time you'll use both for different use cases, not for performance itself. If you use Kafka/RabbitMQ for performance, simply sending/receiving then you probably doing this wrong. As a result, this is essentially comparing apples vs oranges. RabbitMQ has superstream, introduced not very long time ago, which is close to Kafka in way how it works, but it still not Kafka, it does not have Kafka guarantees and replication of data (replication is random and can't be changed by anything or key). Moreover, rabbit and kafka can be tuned for performance, but still - use case is a king here, you probably will sacrifice some capabilities that you need.

[@pavanchaithanya9633]

Pulsar vs Kafka

[@AntonPutra]

noted

[@philipehusani]

Nats Jetstream vs Kafka!!!!

[@andytroo]

the requests per second ramp too quickly - i think that once you hit 100% cpu and the latency is building up, all you're doing is increasing the size of an internal queue - you can see that most clearly with rabbitMQ how the ram consumed just shoots through the roof - your requests per second are just being fired off without consideration of the response. once you are sending more requests than can be answered in 1 second, the completed requests per second should stop going up, even if you are sending more.

[@ВалерийСидорин-я8о]

Eclipse Mosquitto vs EMQX

[@handleking1]

How much did it cost?

[@AntonPutra]

i'm too afraid to log into my aws account again 😂

[@piotrpiotr1454]

Test redpanda pls

[@minininja5505]

rabbit performance great before fail.

[@RobTheQuant]

Great video! Please test Kestrel Web Server on Linux vs on Windows vs Node JS. Please 🙏

[@alexferreira1534]

Make a filesystems battle

[@AntonPutra]

i'll think about it 😊

[@warrenhenning8064]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="257">4:17</a> oof

[@AntonPutra]

it did good :)

[@ryanlog]

Why using your own expenses ? Just get a dummy email everytime and use the free credits

[@OlegKorsak]

try Pulsar

[@aykutakguen3498]

I am wondering how Kafka kept up at 100% cpu usage, thats wreid

[@JohnEckhart]

Kafka is architected to push the messages to disk pretty much instantly and attempts to use the kernel’s page cache instead of a lot of internal caching. The result is that it can ingest and insane amount of data per node. The cpu in this test comes more from the consumers, so as the cpu maxes out you can see that latency increases. The other significant design in that helps it continue to operate at higher volumes is that both producer and consumer batch messages by default. So a producer isn’t ack’ing single messages, but instead it’s ack’ing a batch of messages. So even at max CPU with higher latency, throughout keeps going up because the batch sizes continue to climb.

[@aykutakguen3498]

@@JohnEckhart OHHH

[@LtdJorge]

It can keep going up by trading latency, the CPUs wait a bit more per operation, but are able to handle more throughput in average.

[@PonyMa-i9q]

Python vs C++

[@AntonPutra]

ok

[@voidwalker7774]

zeroMQ !!!!

[@asdfsavs6846]

we need nuts

[@AntonPutra]

nuts coming :)

[@Takatou__Yogiri]

Next video mongoDB vs postgresql

[@AntonPutra]

yes i remember soon 😊

[@darkoplax7688]

Drizzle vs Prisma ?

[@krellin]

no one should use either of these if they care about performance and since you dont care about performance you'll probably use kafka anyway those who want performance will use aeron UDP (multicast/broadcast) for pub/sub and persis in/out queues with archive or chronicle queue... and if you do its not even comparable to kafka, chronicle alone was 750x faster and had consistent latency, i will gues aeron is even better

[@vipinfarswan6555]

PHP vs NodeJs