Gearman vs RabbitMQ

Overview

RabbitMQ

Stacks21.8K

Followers18.9K

Votes558

GitHub Stars13.2K

Forks4.0K

Gearman

Stacks77

Followers144

Votes45

Gearman vs RabbitMQ: What are the differences?

Introduction

This Markdown code provides a comparison between Gearman and RabbitMQ in terms of their key differences.

1. Message Passing Mechanism: Gearman is a distributed job queuing system that allows applications to send tasks to be executed asynchronously, while RabbitMQ is a message broker that enables the exchange of messages between different systems. Gearman primarily focuses on the distribution and execution of tasks, while RabbitMQ focuses on the reliable delivery of messages.
2. Communication Protocol: Gearman uses a custom binary protocol for communication between clients and workers, requiring developers to implement their own protocol handling. On the other hand, RabbitMQ uses the Advanced Message Queuing Protocol (AMQP), a standardized wire-level messaging protocol that simplifies the exchange of messages between different systems.
3. Routing and Exchange: RabbitMQ provides more advanced routing and exchange options compared to Gearman. RabbitMQ offers various types of exchanges, including direct, topic, fanout, and headers, which allow for flexible message routing based on routing keys. Gearman, being primarily focused on task distribution, lacks such routing and exchange capabilities.
4. Message Persistence: RabbitMQ provides built-in message persistence, allowing messages to be stored on disk and survive system restarts and failures. Gearman does not offer built-in message persistence, which means that tasks may be lost if the worker fails before completing them.
5. Scalability: Gearman supports horizontal scalability by allowing the addition of more workers to distribute the workload. RabbitMQ, on the other hand, supports both horizontal and vertical scalability. It can handle a large number of concurrent connections and can be scaled by adding more message brokers, creating a clustered setup.
6. Language Support: Gearman has client libraries available in various programming languages, such as PHP, Python, Java, and C++, making it versatile for different development environments. RabbitMQ also offers client libraries for multiple programming languages, including Java, .NET, Python, Ruby, and others, ensuring compatibility across different stacks.

In summary, Gearman and RabbitMQ differ in terms of their message passing mechanism, communication protocol, routing and exchange capabilities, message persistence, scalability options, and language support.

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 RabbitMQ, Gearman

viradiya

Apr 12, 2020

Needs adviceon

AngularJS

ASP.NET Core

MSSQL

We are going to develop a microservices-based application. It consists of AngularJS, ASP.NET Core, and MSSQL.

We have 3 types of microservices. Emailservice, Filemanagementservice, Filevalidationservice

I am a beginner in microservices. But I have read about RabbitMQ, but come to know that there are Redis and Kafka also in the market. So, I want to know which is best.

933k views933k

Comments

Pulkit

Software Engineer

Oct 30, 2020

Needs adviceon

Django

Amazon SQS

RabbitMQ

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.

474k views474k

Comments

Kirill

GO/C developer at Duckling Sales

Feb 16, 2021

Decided

Maybe not an obvious comparison with Kafka, since Kafka is pretty different from rabbitmq. But for small service, Rabbit as a pubsub platform is super easy to use and pretty powerful. Kafka as an alternative was the original choice, but its really a kind of overkill for a small-medium service. Especially if you are not planning to use k8s, since pure docker deployment can be a pain because of networking setup. Google PubSub was another alternative, its actually pretty cheap, but I never tested it since Rabbit was matching really good for mailing/notification services.

266k views266k

Comments

Detailed Comparison

RabbitMQ	Gearman
RabbitMQ gives your applications a common platform to send and receive messages, and your messages a safe place to live until received.	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.
Robust messaging for applications;Easy to use;Runs on all major operating systems;Supports a huge number of developer platforms;Open source and commercially supported	Open Source It’s free! (in both meanings of the word) Gearman has an active open source community that is easy to get involved with if you need help or want to contribute. Worried about licensing? Gearman is BSD;Multi-language - There are interfaces for a number of languages, and this list is growing. You also have the option to write heterogeneous applications with clients submitting work in one language and workers performing that work in another;Flexible - You are not tied to any specific design pattern. You can quickly put together distributed applications using any model you choose, one of those options being Map/Reduce;Fast - Gearman has a simple protocol and interface with an optimized, and threaded, server written in C/C++ to minimize your application overhead;Embeddable - Since Gearman is fast and lightweight, it is great for applications of all sizes. It is also easy to introduce into existing applications with minimal overhead;No single point of failure - Gearman can not only help scale systems, but can do it in a fault tolerant way;No limits on message size - Gearman supports single messages up to 4gig in size. Need to do something bigger? No problem Gearman can chunk messages;Worried about scaling? - Don’t worry about it with Gearman. Craig’s List, Tumblr, Yelp, Etsy,… discover what others have known for years.
Statistics
GitHub Stars 13.2K	GitHub Stars -
GitHub Forks 4.0K	GitHub Forks -
Stacks 21.8K	Stacks 77
Followers 18.9K	Followers 144
Votes 558	Votes 45
Pros & Cons
Pros 235 It's fast and it works with good metrics/monitoring 80 Ease of configuration 60 I like the admin interface 52 Easy to set-up and start with 22 Durable Cons 9 Too complicated cluster/HA config and management 6 Needs Erlang runtime. Need ops good with Erlang runtime 5 Configuration must be done first, not by your code 4 Slow	Pros 11 Ease of use and very simple APIs 11 Free 6 Polyglot 5 No single point of failure 3 High-throughput

What are some alternatives to RabbitMQ, Gearman?

Kafka

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

Celery

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.

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.

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.

IronMQ

An easy-to-use highly available message queuing service. Built for distributed cloud applications with critical messaging needs. Provides on-demand message queuing with advanced features and cloud-optimized performance.

Apache Pulsar

Apache Pulsar is a distributed messaging solution developed and released to open source at Yahoo. Pulsar supports both pub-sub messaging and queuing in a platform designed for performance, scalability, and ease of development and operation.

Related Comparisons

Gearman vs RabbitMQ: What are the differences?

Introduction

This Markdown code provides a comparison between Gearman and RabbitMQ in terms of their key differences.

1. Message Passing Mechanism: Gearman is a distributed job queuing system that allows applications to send tasks to be executed asynchronously, while RabbitMQ is a message broker that enables the exchange of messages between different systems. Gearman primarily focuses on the distribution and execution of tasks, while RabbitMQ focuses on the reliable delivery of messages.
2. Communication Protocol: Gearman uses a custom binary protocol for communication between clients and workers, requiring developers to implement their own protocol handling. On the other hand, RabbitMQ uses the Advanced Message Queuing Protocol (AMQP), a standardized wire-level messaging protocol that simplifies the exchange of messages between different systems.
3. Routing and Exchange: RabbitMQ provides more advanced routing and exchange options compared to Gearman. RabbitMQ offers various types of exchanges, including direct, topic, fanout, and headers, which allow for flexible message routing based on routing keys. Gearman, being primarily focused on task distribution, lacks such routing and exchange capabilities.
4. Message Persistence: RabbitMQ provides built-in message persistence, allowing messages to be stored on disk and survive system restarts and failures. Gearman does not offer built-in message persistence, which means that tasks may be lost if the worker fails before completing them.
5. Scalability: Gearman supports horizontal scalability by allowing the addition of more workers to distribute the workload. RabbitMQ, on the other hand, supports both horizontal and vertical scalability. It can handle a large number of concurrent connections and can be scaled by adding more message brokers, creating a clustered setup.
6. Language Support: Gearman has client libraries available in various programming languages, such as PHP, Python, Java, and C++, making it versatile for different development environments. RabbitMQ also offers client libraries for multiple programming languages, including Java, .NET, Python, Ruby, and others, ensuring compatibility across different stacks.

Gearman vs RabbitMQ

Overview

Gearman vs RabbitMQ: What are the differences?