Processing, storing, and sending data is at the heart of how we communicate and get business done. This involves implementing various applications, software, and mobile devices that together form an intricate web to process data and information. Programmers will often use message brokers to facilitate this constant flow of information.
Message brokers and Pub/Sub messaging systems are instrumental in allowing applications, services, and systems to communicate effectively. RabbitMQ and Apache Kafka are types of software that play an important role in processing data and sending messages. The following is everything you should know about RabbitMQ and Kafka.
Message brokers are software that enables various systems, services, and applications to exchange information and communicate with one another. In simplest terms, message brokers act as middlemen to configure different services, such as web applications.
The process takes place when your message broker translates messages between different messaging protocols. Interdependent services will “talk” to each other even if they are on different platforms or written in different languages.
Message brokers are within message-oriented middleware, or MOM, solutions. This provides them with a means of handling data flow between the components so they can focus on the core logic.
Message brokers and Kafka clusters can validate, store, and send messages or docs to the correct destinations. This can occur even if senders don’t know where receivers are or even if they are active. This process involves decoupling within systems.
Publish/Subscribe (Pub/Sub) messaging systems are a type of service-to-service communication. Pub/Sub is primarily in use in microservices and serverless architectures. The Pub/Sub model means that all your subscribers to a topic immediately receive the messages after publishing.
The Pub/Sub model enables the sending of messages asynchronously, which allows your program to begin an extensive task while still maintaining the ability to respond to other events, even while the task is still running.
In cloud architecture, applications are often decoupled, or separate. These smaller, separate building blocks are easier to develop and maintain. Pub/Sub messaging can provide instant notification for distributed applications.
To increase performance, scalability, and reliability, you can use Pub/Sub messaging that enables the decoupling of applications and event-driven architectures. There are four basic concepts that make up the Pub/Sub model:
RabbitMQ is open-source software that facilitates effective message delivery in various routing scenarios. It is a type of message broker that can work on-premises and in the cloud.
The system has the ability to receive, deliver, and store data messages. RabbitMQ was released in 2007.
RabbitMQ is primarily for processing reliable background jobs and high throughput. Developers also use it for intercommunication and integration within applications and for performing complex routing. Other tasks it’s good for include the following:
RabbitMQ has a message broker design that enables it to excel in cases that have per-message guarantees and specific routing needs. Specific features of RabbitMQ include the following:
Kafka is also an open-source system that commercially supports Pub/Sub messaging. Kafka is a newer tool than RabbitMQ, released in 2011. It was built mainly for streaming scenarios and data replay.
Kafka stores records in different categories that are called topics. In each topic, the software keeps a partitioned log of messages with timestamps.
Kafka has three basic components.
Kafka offers an adapter SDK, so programmers can build their own integration system. Technically, however, Kafka ships with a Java client. Kafka consumers can operate the platform to:
Some developers may see both these technologies as interchangeable. While there are some cases where RabbitMQ and Kafka are similar, there are distinct differences between the platforms. Ultimately, RabbitMQ is a message broker, while Kafka is a distributed streaming platform. One of the primary differences between the two is that Kafka is pull-based, while RabbitMQ is push-based.
A pull-based system waits for consumers to ask for data. A push-based system automatically sends or “pushes” messages to subscribed consumers. Each of these tools will therefore respond differently in various circumstances. A pull model makes sense for Kafka because of the way its data is structured. The message order is in a partition that allows users to leverage messages for higher throughput and more effective delivery.
RabbitMQ has a push model with a prefetch limit. This works well with low-latency messaging. The primary goal of a push model is the distribution of messages quickly, yet individually. It also includes processing messages at the approximate order in which they arrive in the queue.
RabbitMQ is open-source, with commercial support available from vendors like Pivotal. Maintenance costs may include infrastructure and operational expenses, especially if running on-premises. While RabbitMQ is scalable, managing clusters and ensuring high availability can increase costs.
Kafka is also open-source, with commercial support available from Confluent. Kafka’s distributed nature can lead to higher maintenance costs due to the need for managing clusters and ensuring data replication. Kafka’s design for high throughput and low latency can lead to increased infrastructure costs, particularly when scaling up to handle large volumes of data.
Some other basic differences between RabbitMQ and Kafka include the following:
Both Kafka and RabbitMQ serve the same general purposes in that they both handle messaging. They are commercially supported and serve similar roles. They accomplish these roles and tasks in different capacities.
Both Kafka and RabbitMQ use asynchronous messages to send information from producers to consumers. Both of these platforms are built for scale; however, the way to scale on each is different. Kafka implements horizontal scaling, while RabbitMQ is primarily for vertical scaling.
Which one you choose depends on the requirements for your particular project. For example, if you’re looking for the best choice for microservices, RabbitMQ is a better choice for blocking tasks and for quicker server response times. Kafka, however, provides a high-performance routing approach that works well with big data use.
You would likely use Kafka for the following scenarios:
You would likely use RabbitMQ for the following scenarios:
In conclusion, RabbitMQ is a solid general purpose message broker, while Kafka is a message bus optimized for streaming and replay. There are many similarities between RabbitMQ and Kafka, but there are obvious differences you’ll want to keep in mind when deciding which is the best choice for your particular project.
At LogicMonitor, we empower companies with cutting-edge IT infrastructure monitoring and observability solutions to innovate and deliver exceptional experiences for both employees and customers.
Ready to take your business to the next level? Connect with us today to learn how our comprehensive monitoring platform can help you achieve your goals.
Blogs
See only what you need, right when you need it. Immediate actionable alerts with our dynamic topology and out-of-the-box AIOps capabilities.
