Segment is probably the biggest NSQ user right now, and they're moving to Kafka - any employees want to weigh in? :)
NSQ has served us pretty well but long term persistence has been a massive concern to us. If any of our NSQ nodes go down it's a big problem.
Kafka has been far more complicated to operate in production and developing against it requires more thought than NSQ (where you can just consume from a topic/channel, ack the message and be done). More to that, if you want more capacity you can just scale up your services and be done. With Kafka we had to plan how many partitions we needed and autoscaling has become a bit trickier.
We now have critical services running against Kafka and started moving our whole pipeline to it as well. It's a slow process but we're getting there.
We've had to build some tooling to operate Kafka and ramp up everyone else on how to use it. To be fair, we've also had to build tooling for NSQ, specifically nsq-lookup to allow us to scale up.
We have an nsq-go library that we use in production along with some tooling: https://github.com/segmentio/nsq-go
Now we run Kafka through ECS and wrote some tooling to manage rolling the cluster and replacing brokers. krollout(1) (currently private) basically prevents partitions from becoming unavailable while rolling.
Now that multiple teams are using Kakfa we started exploring how to scale up. Each team may have different requirements and isolation can become an issue. Likely more tooling will need to be built around this.
Could you comment on particular problems and challenges that you ran into?
For the context, we're currently sending around 60k messages/sec and around 1k of them contains data larger than 10kb.
If you can get away with using PubSub or the like it would be far easier than to manage your own Kafka deployment (correctly).
If data loss is unacceptable then Kafka is basically the only open-source solution that is known for not losing data (if done correctly of course). NSQ was great but lacked durability and replication. We can guarantee that two or more Kafka brokers persisted the message before moving on. With NSQ, if one of our instances died it was a big problem.
Managing Kafka in a cloud environment hasn't been easy and required a lot of investment and we have yet to move everything over to it.
If your company's recent article, Scaling NSQ to 750 Billion Messages, is an accurate count of messages you'd put through Kinesis, that would cost around $11,000 over the entire lifetime of the system in per-message fees by my calculations.
That seems like a rather trivial cost.
If you expand this analysis to include the per-shard costs, assuming perfect and constant utilization over a four year period, delivering 750 billion messages would require (assuming 1kb messages) an average of 6 active shards at $11.25 per shard-month. You can scale these up and down dynamically, so real-world efficiency doesn't have to be wildly different.
If I were to complain about Kinesis, cost would not be my complaint. The limit of 5 reads per second per shard creates a hard floor on latency. Kafka can definitely beat that!
From an outsider's perspective, I would not dismiss Kinesis so quickly on cost alone. Lock-in and the product's actual limits seem like bigger problems.
EDIT: As an aside, don't forget to add the inter-AZ bandwidth cost into your Kafka equation if you want a true apples-to-apples comparison because Kinesis writes the messages to three availability zones.
What about RabbitMQ?
You would need to run RMQ in HA mode with multiple brokers to have any chance of not losing data.
https://www.rabbitmq.com/confirms.html#publisher-confirms-la...
To fully guarantee that a message won't be lost, it looks like you need to declare the queue as durable + to mark your message as persistent + use publisher confirm. And it looks like this costs you several hundreds milliseconds of latency.
We reconsidered using it again for a synchronous RPC communication as we were replacing gRPC, but ended up going with nats.io instead. It does have less fearures but we are able to squeze much more juice on a smaller stack.
The biggest issue for us was however was that there is no middle server that could handle an route connections to available workers. We were using haproxy which worked ok but far from great. It was very hard to figure out how many servers need to run at any given point and thus a ton of our requests were ending up with UNAVAILABLE response.
Essentially what we needed is a synchronous RPC over PubSub which gRPC doesn't offer.
NiFi has come up a few times on HN, but I really don't think it gets the attention it deserves --- I don't know how it would perform against Kafka, NATS, NSQ, *MQ, or other messaging platforms, and unfortunately, I don't have any metrics to share. But when I see that many users are taking these messaging platforms, and building additional tooling/processes to meet needs that are already built into NiFi, I think it shines as a very competitive open-source option.
@TheHydroImpulse: Thank you for sharing your insights in this post, and explaining why your organization made these selections. Have you considered or evaluated NiFi?
(Disclaimer: All posts are my own, and not sponsored by the Department of Defense.)
Must say that the stability is great, even with larger payloads (over 10MB in size). We're running it in production for couple of weeks now and haven't had any issues. The main limitation is that there is no federation and massive clustering. You can have a pretty robust cluster, but each node can only forward once, which is limiting.
https://nats.io/documentation/streaming/nats-streaming-intro...
In most use cases you can get NSQ like behavior out of Kafka and the inverse isn't true. Kafka's performance and added gaurantees come at the expense of being harder to operate.
We've yet to lose any messages in production, but it could happen and we're okay with the tradeoffs between that and the operational complexity of kafka.
Another nice thing I've heard with Kafka is that it can store all messages since the beginning of time (if you want) and you can replay them to retrieve all your MQ-related state. Does NSQ do that, do you know?
To do replay with nsq (one way is) you'd attach their file consumer to its own channel as the first operation on a topic. Then in application code you'd need to read from that file whenever you need to do a replay (and you'd need to know when/where to read from/to).
If you're worried about data loss, Kakfa can be what you're looking for (but takes a lot to learn how to operate it correctly).
Its better to think of Kafka as a distributed log service than a messaging broker. When described this way, don't think log as in "the things humans look at to debug applications coming out of stdout" but "the things machines look at as a storage data structure". Think the write ahead log in a database and not printf statements.
What this means is that under the covers Kafka is a bunch of ordered files being written to by producers. Consumers can specify where in the log they want to start consuming from and then "tail" the log once they are caught up. The architecture is also such that consumers are very light weight (a tcp/ip connection and an offset in the log). This also makes trivial things like the "late joiner" problem in messaging systems and durability. Kafka then layers on high availability and consistency configurations that mean that you can be sure that your published log entries are 1) stored on multiple machines and 2) ordered the same for everyone. The combination of those 2 things is very powerful and makes reasoning about distributed systems application data much simpler. There are also certain classes of problems that need to be solved with those promises, namely things that are not idempotent.
NSQ is a much more traditional buffered messaging system. It has file durability but only as a) an optimization to prevent message loss once memory runs out and b) as a consumer archive. But a hard loss of a node means that those messages that have not been delivered can be lost as there is no promise they are published somewhere else. Further, there is no promise that the order of messages published to a topic and channel is the order of messages received by the consumer. Dealing with late joiners is an application level concern as is archive and replication.
That said, Kafka is complicated. I think its complicated because its solving a complicated problem not because its poorly factored (though I'd love it if they built the consensus stuff in directly and removed the zookeeper dependency).
NSQ isn't complicated and is easy to operate. If your problem set falls into a more traditional messaging domain that fits the NSQ model, you are almost certainly better off with it, but you can likely use Kafka also. If your problem set falls into the write ahead log model, you can't use NSQ (without massive application level logic) but you can use Kafka.
Building client libraries is also a joy. I blogged about it a bit here: https://product.reverb.com/how-to-write-an-nsq-consumer-in-g...