Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!

Amazon SQS

+ 1

+ 1
Add tool

Amazon SQS vs Resque: What are the differences?

Key differences between Amazon SQS and Resque

  1. Message transport: One of the main differences between Amazon Simple Queue Service (SQS) and Resque is the way they handle message transport. SQS is a fully managed message queuing service that uses a distributed system to reliably deliver messages between distributed components. On the other hand, Resque is a Redis-backed Ruby library for creating background jobs and processing them with multiple workers.

  2. Message persistence: Another key difference is the way messages are persisted. In SQS, messages are stored redundantly across multiple availability zones to ensure durability. This means that even if one availability zone goes down, the messages are still available for consumption. Resque, on the other hand, stores messages in Redis, which may not have the same level of redundancy by default. However, Redis does offer various replication options that can be used to achieve a similar level of durability.

  3. Message ordering: SQS guarantees that messages will be delivered in the order they were sent, making it suitable for scenarios that require strict message ordering. In contrast, Resque does not inherently provide message ordering guarantees. Messages processed by Resque can be executed in parallel by multiple workers, which may cause the order of execution to be different from the order in which they were received.

  4. Job processing: SQS focuses on asynchronous, distributed message processing, allowing for high scalability and fault tolerance. It provides features like message visibility timeouts and delayed message delivery. Resque, on the other hand, is specifically designed for processing background jobs in Ruby. It allows developers to enqueue and process jobs asynchronously, but it may not have the same level of scalability and fault tolerance as SQS.

  5. Service management: Amazon SQS is a fully managed service provided by Amazon Web Services (AWS). This means that AWS takes care of the underlying infrastructure, including scaling, availability, and maintenance. Resque, on the other hand, requires manual management and administration of the infrastructure it runs on. This includes setting up and configuring Redis, managing worker processes, and ensuring high availability.

  6. Integration with AWS ecosystem: As an AWS service, SQS seamlessly integrates with other AWS services like AWS Lambda, Amazon S3, and Amazon EC2. It provides easy-to-use SDKs for various programming languages and offers features that support event-driven architectures. Resque, being a Ruby library, may require additional effort to integrate with other AWS services and may not have the same level of native support and compatibility.

In summary, Amazon SQS and Resque differ in their approach to message transport, message persistence, message ordering, job processing, service management, and integration with the AWS ecosystem. SQS is a fully managed message queuing service focused on highly scalable and fault-tolerant distributed processing, while Resque is a Ruby library for background job processing that requires manual management and may not have the same level of scalability and native support.

Advice on Amazon SQS and Resque
Pulkit Sapra
Needs advice
Amazon SQSAmazon SQSKubernetesKubernetes

Hi! I am creating a scraping system in Django, which involves long running tasks between 1 minute & 1 Day. As I am new to Message Brokers and Task Queues, I need advice on which architecture to use for my system. ( Amazon SQS, RabbitMQ, or Celery). The system should be autoscalable using Kubernetes(K8) based on the number of pending tasks in the queue.

See more
Replies (1)
Anis Zehani

Hello, i highly recommend Apache Kafka, to me it's the best. You can deploy it in cluster mode inside K8S, thus you can have a Highly available system (also auto scalable).

Good luck

See more
Meili Triantafyllidi
Software engineer at Digital Science · | 6 upvotes · 444.4K views
Needs advice
Amazon SQSAmazon SQSRabbitMQRabbitMQ

Hi, we are in a ZMQ set up in a push/pull pattern, and we currently start to have more traffic and cases that the service is unavailable or stuck. We want to: * Not loose messages in services outages * Safely restart service without losing messages (ZeroMQ seems to need to close the socket in the receiver before restart manually)

Do you have experience with this setup with ZeroMQ? Would you suggest RabbitMQ or Amazon SQS (we are in AWS setup) instead? Something else?

Thank you for your time

See more
Replies (2)
Shishir Pandey

ZeroMQ is fast but you need to build build reliability yourself. There are a number of patterns described in the zeromq guide. I have used RabbitMQ before which gives lot of functionality out of the box, you can probably use the worker queues example from the tutorial, it can also persists messages in the queue.

I haven't used Amazon SQS before. Another tool you could use is Kafka.

See more
Kevin Deyne
Principal Software Engineer at Accurate Background · | 5 upvotes · 202.3K views

Both would do the trick, but there are some nuances. We work with both.

From the sound of it, your main focus is "not losing messages". In that case, I would go with RabbitMQ with a high availability policy (ha-mode=all) and a main/retry/error queue pattern.

Push messages to an exchange, which sends them to the main queue. If an error occurs, push the errored out message to the retry exchange, which forwards it to the retry queue. Give the retry queue a x-message-ttl and set the main exchange as a dead-letter-exchange. If your message has been retried several times, push it to the error exchange, where the message can remain until someone has time to look at it.

This is a very useful and resilient pattern that allows you to never lose messages. With the high availability policy, you make sure that if one of your rabbitmq nodes dies, another can take over and messages are already mirrored to it.

This is not really possible with SQS, because SQS is a lot more focused on throughput and scaling. Combined with SNS it can do interesting things like deduplication of messages and such. That said, one thing core to its design is that messages have a maximum retention time. The idea is that a message that has stayed in an SQS queue for a while serves no more purpose after a while, so it gets removed - so as to not block up any listener resources for a long time. You can also set up a DLQ here, but these similarly do not hold onto messages forever. Since you seem to depend on messages surviving at all cost, I would suggest that the scaling/throughput benefit of SQS does not outweigh the difference in approach to messages there.

See more
Software Engineer at LightMetrics · | 4 upvotes · 275.7K views
Needs advice
Amazon MQAmazon MQ
Amazon SQSAmazon SQS

I want to schedule a message. Amazon SQS provides a delay of 15 minutes, but I want it in some hours.

Example: Let's say a Message1 is consumed by a consumer A but somehow it failed inside the consumer. I would want to put it in a queue and retry after 4hrs. Can I do this in Amazon MQ? I have seen in some Amazon MQ videos saying scheduling messages can be done. But, I'm not sure how.

See more
Replies (1)
Andres Paredes
Lead Senior Software Engineer at InTouch Technology · | 1 upvotes · 210.8K views
Amazon SQSAmazon SQS

Mithiridi, I believe you are talking about two different things. 1. If you need to process messages with delays of more 15m or at specific times, it's not a good idea to use queues, independently of tool SQM, Rabbit or Amazon MQ. you should considerer another approach using a scheduled job. 2. For dead queues and policy retries RabbitMQ, for example, doesn't support your use case. I'm not sure if that is possible SNS/SQS support, they have a maximum delay for delivery (maxDelayTarget) in seconds but it's not clear the number. You can check this out:

See more
Get Advice from developers at your company using StackShare Enterprise. Sign up for StackShare Enterprise.
Learn More
Pros of Amazon SQS
Pros of Resque
  • 62
    Easy to use, reliable
  • 40
    Low cost
  • 28
  • 14
    Doesn't need to maintain it
  • 8
    It is Serverless
  • 4
    Has a max message size (currently 256K)
  • 3
    Triggers Lambda
  • 3
    Easy to configure with Terraform
  • 3
    Delayed delivery upto 15 mins only
  • 3
    Delayed delivery upto 12 hours
  • 1
    JMS compliant
  • 1
    Support for retry and dead letter queue
  • 1
  • 5
  • 3
  • 1
    Easy to use on heroku

Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions

Cons of Amazon SQS
Cons of Resque
  • 2
    Has a max message size (currently 256K)
  • 2
  • 2
    Difficult to configure
  • 1
    Has a maximum 15 minutes of delayed messages only
    Be the first to leave a con

    Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions

    - No public GitHub repository available -

    What is 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.

    What is Resque?

    Background jobs can be any Ruby class or module that responds to perform. Your existing classes can easily be converted to background jobs or you can create new classes specifically to do work. Or, you can do both.

    Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!

    What companies use Amazon SQS?
    What companies use Resque?
    See which teams inside your own company are using Amazon SQS or Resque.
    Sign up for StackShare EnterpriseLearn More

    Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions

    What tools integrate with Amazon SQS?
    What tools integrate with Resque?

    Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions

    Blog Posts

    GitHubDockerAmazon EC2+23
    What are some alternatives to Amazon SQS and Resque?
    Amazon MQ
    Amazon MQ is a managed message broker service for Apache ActiveMQ that makes it easy to set up and operate message brokers in the cloud.
    Kafka is a distributed, partitioned, replicated commit log service. It provides the functionality of a messaging system, but with a unique design.
    Redis is an open source (BSD licensed), in-memory data structure store, used as a database, cache, and message broker. Redis provides data structures such as strings, hashes, lists, sets, sorted sets with range queries, bitmaps, hyperloglogs, geospatial indexes, and streams.
    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.
    Amazon SNS
    Amazon Simple Notification Service makes it simple and cost-effective to push to mobile devices such as iPhone, iPad, Android, Kindle Fire, and internet connected smart devices, as well as pushing to other distributed services. Besides pushing cloud notifications directly to mobile devices, SNS can also deliver notifications by SMS text message or email, to Simple Queue Service (SQS) queues, or to any HTTP endpoint.
    See all alternatives