Amazon ElastiCache vs Celery

Overview

Amazon ElastiCache

Stacks1.3K

Followers1.0K

Votes151

Celery

Stacks1.7K

Followers1.6K

Votes280

GitHub Stars27.5K

Forks4.9K

Amazon ElastiCache vs Celery: What are the differences?

Introduction

In this Markdown code, we will discuss the key differences between Amazon ElastiCache and Celery. Amazon ElastiCache is a fully managed in-memory data store and cache service, while Celery is an asynchronous task queue/job queue based on distributed message passing. Let's dive into the key differences between these two platforms.

Scalability: Amazon ElastiCache is designed for high scalability and automatically scales the cache cluster as per the workload. It allows you to add or remove cache nodes to meet the changing demands of your applications. On the other hand, Celery allows you to distribute tasks across multiple workers, enabling high scalability and accommodating a large number of tasks in parallel.
Managed Service: Amazon ElastiCache is a fully managed service provided by Amazon Web Services (AWS). It handles administrative tasks like hardware provisioning, software patching, and cluster scaling. On the other hand, Celery is an open-source library that requires manual setup and configuration on your own infrastructure.
Data Storage: Amazon ElastiCache supports two popular caching engines, Redis and Memcached, providing optimized performance for different types of use cases. These caching engines offer advanced data storage features like data persistence, replication, and clustering. In contrast, Celery is not a data storage solution on its own. It relies on message brokers like RabbitMQ or Redis to handle task message passing and storage.
Workflow Orchestration: Celery is specifically designed for distributed task processing and workflow orchestration. It provides a powerful and flexible task management system that allows you to define, schedule, and execute complex workflows with dependencies and priorities. In comparison, Amazon ElastiCache focuses primarily on caching and data storage, lacking the extensive task management capabilities of Celery.
Monitoring and Instrumentation: Amazon ElastiCache provides built-in monitoring and instrumentation features, allowing you to monitor cache performance metrics and set alarms for various cache events. It integrates with AWS CloudWatch for detailed monitoring and analysis. On the other hand, Celery does not provide native monitoring and instrumentation capabilities. However, you can use third-party tools and libraries to achieve monitoring and logging functionality.
Cost and Pricing Model: Amazon ElastiCache has a separate cost associated with the cache cluster based on the instance types, storage, and data transfer. The pricing is mainly based on the resources utilized by the cache nodes. In contrast, Celery being an open-source library, does not have direct costs associated with it. However, you will need to consider the infrastructure costs for setting up and managing the underlying message brokers and workers.

In summary, the key differences between Amazon ElastiCache and Celery lie in their scalability capabilities, managed service offering, data storage options, workflow orchestration features, monitoring capabilities, and cost models.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs

CLI (Node.js)

Manual

Advice on Amazon ElastiCache, Celery

Shantha

Sep 30, 2020

Needs adviceon

RabbitMQ

Celery

MongoDB

I am just a beginner at these two technologies.

Problem statement: I am getting lakh of users from the sequel server for whom I need to create caches in MongoDB by making different REST API requests.

Here these users can be treated as messages. Each REST API request is a task.

I am confused about whether I should go for RabbitMQ alone or Celery.

If I have to go with RabbitMQ, I prefer to use python with Pika module. But the challenge with Pika is, it is not thread-safe. So I am not finding a way to execute a lakh of API requests in parallel using multiple threads using Pika.

If I have to go with Celery, I don't know how I can achieve better scalability in executing these API requests in parallel.

334k views334k

Comments

Detailed Comparison

Amazon ElastiCache	Celery
ElastiCache improves the performance of web applications by allowing you to retrieve information from fast, managed, in-memory caches, instead of relying entirely on slower disk-based databases. ElastiCache supports Memcached and Redis.	Celery is an asynchronous task queue/job queue based on distributed message passing. It is focused on real-time operation, but supports scheduling as well.
Support for two engines: Memcached and Redis;Ease of management via the AWS Management Console. With a few clicks you can configure and launch instances for the engine you wish to use.;Compatibility with the specific engine protocol. This means most of the client libraries will work with the respective engines they were built for - no additional changes or tweaking required.;Detailed monitoring statistics for the engine nodes at no extra cost via Amazon CloudWatch;Pay only for the resources you consume based on node hours used	-
Statistics
GitHub Stars -	GitHub Stars 27.5K
GitHub Forks -	GitHub Forks 4.9K
Stacks 1.3K	Stacks 1.7K
Followers 1.0K	Followers 1.6K
Votes 151	Votes 280
Pros & Cons
Pros 58 Redis 32 High-performance 26 Backed by amazon 21 Memcached 14 Elastic	Pros 99 Task queue 63 Python integration 40 Django integration 30 Scheduled Task 19 Publish/subsribe Cons 4 Sometimes loses tasks 1 Depends on broker

What are some alternatives to Amazon ElastiCache, Celery?

Kafka

Kafka is a distributed, partitioned, replicated commit log service. It provides the functionality of a messaging system, but with a unique design.

RabbitMQ

RabbitMQ gives your applications a common platform to send and receive messages, and your messages a safe place to live until received.

Amazon SQS

Transmit any volume of data, at any level of throughput, without losing messages or requiring other services to be always available. With SQS, you can offload the administrative burden of operating and scaling a highly available messaging cluster, while paying a low price for only what you use.

NSQ

NSQ is a realtime distributed messaging platform designed to operate at scale, handling billions of messages per day. It promotes distributed and decentralized topologies without single points of failure, enabling fault tolerance and high availability coupled with a reliable message delivery guarantee. See features & guarantees.

ActiveMQ

Apache ActiveMQ is fast, supports many Cross Language Clients and Protocols, comes with easy to use Enterprise Integration Patterns and many advanced features while fully supporting JMS 1.1 and J2EE 1.4. Apache ActiveMQ is released under the Apache 2.0 License.

ZeroMQ

The 0MQ lightweight messaging kernel is a library which extends the standard socket interfaces with features traditionally provided by specialised messaging middleware products. 0MQ sockets provide an abstraction of asynchronous message queues, multiple messaging patterns, message filtering (subscriptions), seamless access to multiple transport protocols and more.

Apache NiFi

An easy to use, powerful, and reliable system to process and distribute data. It supports powerful and scalable directed graphs of data routing, transformation, and system mediation logic.

Gearman

Gearman allows you to do work in parallel, to load balance processing, and to call functions between languages. It can be used in a variety of applications, from high-availability web sites to the transport of database replication events.

MemCachier

MemCachier provides an easy and powerful managed caching solution for all your performance and scalability needs. It works with the ubiquitous memcache protocol so your favourite language and framework already supports it.

Memphis

Highly scalable and effortless data streaming platform. Made to enable developers and data teams to collaborate and build real-time and streaming apps fast.

Related Comparisons

Amazon ElastiCache vs Celery: What are the differences?

Introduction

Scalability: Amazon ElastiCache is designed for high scalability and automatically scales the cache cluster as per the workload. It allows you to add or remove cache nodes to meet the changing demands of your applications. On the other hand, Celery allows you to distribute tasks across multiple workers, enabling high scalability and accommodating a large number of tasks in parallel.
Managed Service: Amazon ElastiCache is a fully managed service provided by Amazon Web Services (AWS). It handles administrative tasks like hardware provisioning, software patching, and cluster scaling. On the other hand, Celery is an open-source library that requires manual setup and configuration on your own infrastructure.
Data Storage: Amazon ElastiCache supports two popular caching engines, Redis and Memcached, providing optimized performance for different types of use cases. These caching engines offer advanced data storage features like data persistence, replication, and clustering. In contrast, Celery is not a data storage solution on its own. It relies on message brokers like RabbitMQ or Redis to handle task message passing and storage.
Workflow Orchestration: Celery is specifically designed for distributed task processing and workflow orchestration. It provides a powerful and flexible task management system that allows you to define, schedule, and execute complex workflows with dependencies and priorities. In comparison, Amazon ElastiCache focuses primarily on caching and data storage, lacking the extensive task management capabilities of Celery.
Monitoring and Instrumentation: Amazon ElastiCache provides built-in monitoring and instrumentation features, allowing you to monitor cache performance metrics and set alarms for various cache events. It integrates with AWS CloudWatch for detailed monitoring and analysis. On the other hand, Celery does not provide native monitoring and instrumentation capabilities. However, you can use third-party tools and libraries to achieve monitoring and logging functionality.
Cost and Pricing Model: Amazon ElastiCache has a separate cost associated with the cache cluster based on the instance types, storage, and data transfer. The pricing is mainly based on the resources utilized by the cache nodes. In contrast, Celery being an open-source library, does not have direct costs associated with it. However, you will need to consider the infrastructure costs for setting up and managing the underlying message brokers and workers.

Amazon ElastiCache vs Celery

Overview

Amazon ElastiCache vs Celery: What are the differences?