我曾被要求评估RabbitMQ而不是Kafka,但发现很难找到一个消息队列比Kafka更适合的情况。有人知道在哪些用例中消息队列在吞吐量、持久性、延迟或易用性方面更适合吗?
当前回答
Apache Kafka is a popular choice for powering data pipelines. Apache kafka added kafka stream to support popular etl use cases. KSQL makes it simple to transform data within the pipeline, readying messages to cleanly land in another system. KSQL is the streaming SQL engine for Apache Kafka. It provides an easy-to-use yet powerful interactive SQL interface for stream processing on Kafka, without the need to write code in a programming language such as Java or Python. KSQL is scalable, elastic, fault-tolerant, and real-time. It supports a wide range of streaming operations, including data filtering, transformations, aggregations, joins, windowing, and sessionization.
https://docs.confluent.io/current/ksql/docs/index.html
对于etl系统来说,Rabbitmq并不是一个受欢迎的选择,它更适合那些需要简单的消息传递系统和更低吞吐量的系统。
其他回答
你们忘记的一个关键区别是RabbitMQ是基于推的消息系统,而Kafka是基于拉的消息系统。这在消息传递系统必须满足具有不同处理能力的不同类型的消费者的场景中非常重要。使用基于Pull的系统,消费者可以根据自己的能力消费,而推送系统将推送消息,而不管消费者的状态如何,从而将消费者置于高风险之中。
我每周都听到这个问题。RabbitMQ(类似于IBM MQ或JMS或其他消息传递解决方案)用于传统消息传递,Apache Kafka用作流媒体平台(消息传递+分布式存储+数据处理)。两者都是为不同的用例构建的。
你可以在“传统消息传递”中使用Kafka,但不能在Kafka特定的场景中使用MQ。
文章“Apache Kafka vs.企业服务总线——朋友、敌人还是亦敌亦友?”(https://www.confluent.io/blog/apache-kafka-vs-enterprise-service-bus-esb-friends-enemies-or-frenemies/)讨论了为什么Kafka对集成和消息解决方案(包括RabbitMQ)不是竞争的,而是互补的,以及如何将两者集成。
Scaling both is hard in a distributed fault tolerant way but I'd make a case that it's much harder at massive scale with RabbitMQ. It's not trivial to understand Shovel, Federation, Mirrored Msg Queues, ACK, Mem issues, Fault tollerance etc. Not to say you won't also have specific issues with Zookeeper etc on Kafka but there are less moving parts to manage. That said, you get a Polyglot exchange with RMQ which you don't with Kafka. If you want streaming, use Kafka. If you want simple IoT or similar high volume packet delivery, use Kafka. It's about smart consumers. If you want msg flexibility and higher reliability with higher costs and possibly some complexity, use RMQ.
从技术上讲,与Rabbit MQ提供的特性集相比,Kafka提供了一个巨大的超特性集。
如果问题是
Rabbit MQ技术上比Kafka更好吗?
那么答案是
No.
但是,如果问题是
从业务角度看Rabbit MQ比Kafka好吗?
那么,答案是
在某些商业场景中,可能是“Yes”
从业务角度来看,Rabbit MQ可以比Kafka更好,原因如下:
Maintenance of legacy applications that depend on Rabbit MQ Staff training cost and steep learning curve required for implementing Kafka Infrastructure cost for Kafka is higher than that for Rabbit MQ. Troubleshooting problems in Kafka implementation is difficult when compared to that in Rabbit MQ implementation. A Rabbit MQ Developer can easily maintain and support applications that use Rabbit MQ. The same is not true with Kafka. Experience with just Kafka development is not sufficient to maintain and support applications that use Kafka. The support personnel require other skills like zoo-keeper, networking, disk storage too.
在以下情况使用RabbitMQ:
你不需要处理大数据,你更喜欢一个方便的内置UI来监控 不需要自动复制队列 消息没有多个订阅者——因为不像Kafka是一个日志,RabbitMQ是一个队列,消息一旦被消费和确认到达就会被删除 如果您有要求使用通配符和正则表达式的消息 如果定义消息优先级很重要
简而言之: RabbitMQ适用于简单的用例,数据流量低,具有优先级队列和灵活的路由选项。 对于海量数据和高吞吐量使用Kafka。