NSQ vs RabbitMQ

Overview

RabbitMQ

Stacks21.8K

Followers18.9K

Votes558

GitHub Stars13.2K

Forks4.0K

NSQ

Stacks142

Followers356

Votes148

NSQ vs RabbitMQ: What are the differences?

Introduction

This Markdown code provides a comparison between NSQ and RabbitMQ, highlighting the key differences between the two messaging systems.

Scalability: NSQ is designed to be highly scalable, able to handle large amounts of data and traffic without any single point of failure. It is built with a decentralized architecture that allows for easy horizontal scaling. On the other hand, RabbitMQ is also scalable, but it relies on clustering and requires a more centralized setup, making it less flexible in terms of scaling.
Message Delivery Guarantees: NSQ offers at least once semantics for message delivery, which means that it ensures that a message will be delivered to the consumer at least once. However, it does not provide transactional guarantees by default. On the other hand, RabbitMQ supports different delivery modes, including at most once, at least once, and exactly once semantics. It has built-in support for transactions, providing more flexibility in message delivery guarantees.
Ease of Use: NSQ is relatively easier to set up and use compared to RabbitMQ. It has a simple configuration and does not require complex setups for basic functionality. On the other hand, RabbitMQ has more features and configuration options, making it more suitable for advanced use cases but potentially more complex for beginners.
Language Support: NSQ provides client libraries for various programming languages, including Go, Python, Java, and Ruby. This allows developers to use NSQ with their preferred programming language. In contrast, RabbitMQ supports a wide range of languages with its AMQP protocol, making it more compatible with different platforms and frameworks.
Monitoring and Management: NSQ provides a built-in web-based dashboard for monitoring and management of message queues. It offers real-time stats and metrics, allowing administrators to easily monitor the health and performance of the system. RabbitMQ also has a web-based management console, but it requires additional plugins for more advanced monitoring and management features.
Community and Ecosystem: RabbitMQ has a larger and more mature community compared to NSQ. It has been around for a longer time and has a wider adoption in the industry. This translates into a more extensive ecosystem with better community support, more documentation, and a larger selection of third-party tools and integrations.

In summary, NSQ and RabbitMQ differ in terms of scalability, message delivery guarantees, ease of use, language support, monitoring and management capabilities, and community and ecosystem.

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, NSQ

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

Meili

Software engineer at Digital Science

Sep 24, 2020

Needs adviceon

ZeroMQ

RabbitMQ

Amazon SQS

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}|tool:1064| 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

500k views500k

Comments

Detailed Comparison

RabbitMQ	NSQ
RabbitMQ gives your applications a common platform to send and receive messages, and your messages a safe place to live until received.	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.
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	support distributed topologies with no SPOF;horizontally scalable (no brokers, seamlessly add more nodes to the cluster);low-latency push based message delivery (performance);combination load-balanced and multicast style message routing;excel at both streaming (high-throughput) and job oriented (low-throughput) workloads;primarily in-memory (beyond a high-water mark messages are transparently kept on disk);runtime discovery service for consumers to find producers (nsqlookupd);transport layer security (TLS);data format agnostic;few dependencies (easy to deploy) and a sane, bounded, default configuration;simple TCP protocol supporting client libraries in any language;HTTP interface for stats, admin actions, and producers (no client library needed to publish);integrates with statsd for realtime instrumentation;robust cluster administration interface (nsqadmin)
Statistics
GitHub Stars 13.2K	GitHub Stars -
GitHub Forks 4.0K	GitHub Forks -
Stacks 21.8K	Stacks 142
Followers 18.9K	Followers 356
Votes 558	Votes 148
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 29 It's in golang 20 Distributed 20 Lightweight 18 Easy setup 17 High throughput Cons 1 Get NSQ behavior out of Kafka but not inverse 1 Long term persistence 1 HA

What are some alternatives to RabbitMQ, NSQ?

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.

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.

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

Bootstrap vs Materialize

Django vs Laravel vs Node.js

Bootstrap vs Foundation vs Material UI

Node.js vs Spring-Boot

Flyway vs Liquibase

NSQ vs RabbitMQ: What are the differences?

Introduction

This Markdown code provides a comparison between NSQ and RabbitMQ, highlighting the key differences between the two messaging systems.

Scalability: NSQ is designed to be highly scalable, able to handle large amounts of data and traffic without any single point of failure. It is built with a decentralized architecture that allows for easy horizontal scaling. On the other hand, RabbitMQ is also scalable, but it relies on clustering and requires a more centralized setup, making it less flexible in terms of scaling.
Message Delivery Guarantees: NSQ offers at least once semantics for message delivery, which means that it ensures that a message will be delivered to the consumer at least once. However, it does not provide transactional guarantees by default. On the other hand, RabbitMQ supports different delivery modes, including at most once, at least once, and exactly once semantics. It has built-in support for transactions, providing more flexibility in message delivery guarantees.
Ease of Use: NSQ is relatively easier to set up and use compared to RabbitMQ. It has a simple configuration and does not require complex setups for basic functionality. On the other hand, RabbitMQ has more features and configuration options, making it more suitable for advanced use cases but potentially more complex for beginners.
Language Support: NSQ provides client libraries for various programming languages, including Go, Python, Java, and Ruby. This allows developers to use NSQ with their preferred programming language. In contrast, RabbitMQ supports a wide range of languages with its AMQP protocol, making it more compatible with different platforms and frameworks.
Monitoring and Management: NSQ provides a built-in web-based dashboard for monitoring and management of message queues. It offers real-time stats and metrics, allowing administrators to easily monitor the health and performance of the system. RabbitMQ also has a web-based management console, but it requires additional plugins for more advanced monitoring and management features.
Community and Ecosystem: RabbitMQ has a larger and more mature community compared to NSQ. It has been around for a longer time and has a wider adoption in the industry. This translates into a more extensive ecosystem with better community support, more documentation, and a larger selection of third-party tools and integrations.

In summary, NSQ and RabbitMQ differ in terms of scalability, message delivery guarantees, ease of use, language support, monitoring and management capabilities, and community and ecosystem.