You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@kafka.apache.org by "M. Manna" <ma...@gmail.com> on 2019/03/21 18:43:02 UTC
Question on performance data for Kafka vs NATS
HI All,
https://nats.io/about/
this shows a general comparison of sender/receiver throughputs for NATS and
other messaging system including our favourite Kafka.
It appears that Kafka, despite taking the 2nd place, has a very low
throughput. My question is, where does Kafka win over NATS? is it the
unique partitioning and delivery semantics? Or, is it something else.
From what I can see, NATS has traditional pub/sub and queuing. But it
doesn't look like there is any proper retention system built for this.
Has anyone come across this already?
Thanks,
Re: Question on performance data for Kafka vs NATS
Posted by Adam Bellemare <ad...@gmail.com>.
One more thing to note:
You are looking at regular, base NATS. On its own, it is not a direct 1-1
comparison to Kafka because it lacks things like data retention, clustering
and replication. Instead, you would want to compare it to NATS-Streaming, (
https://github.com/nats-io/nats-streaming-server ). You can find a number
of more recent articles and comparisons by a simple web search.
With that being said, this is likely not the best venue for an in-depth
discussion on tradeoffs between the two (especially since I see you're
spanning two very large mailing lists).
Adam
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 1:34 AM Hans Jespersen <ha...@confluent.io> wrote:
> Thats a 4.5 year old benchmark and it was run with a single broker node
> and only 1 producer and 1 consumer all running on a single MacBookPro.
> Definitely not the target production environment for Kafka.
>
> -hans
>
> > On Mar 21, 2019, at 11:43 AM, M. Manna <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > HI All,
> >
> > https://nats.io/about/
> >
> > this shows a general comparison of sender/receiver throughputs for NATS
> and
> > other messaging system including our favourite Kafka.
> >
> > It appears that Kafka, despite taking the 2nd place, has a very low
> > throughput. My question is, where does Kafka win over NATS? is it the
> > unique partitioning and delivery semantics? Or, is it something else.
> >
> > From what I can see, NATS has traditional pub/sub and queuing. But it
> > doesn't look like there is any proper retention system built for this.
> >
> > Has anyone come across this already?
> >
> > Thanks,
>
Re: Question on performance data for Kafka vs NATS
Posted by Adam Bellemare <ad...@gmail.com>.
One more thing to note:
You are looking at regular, base NATS. On its own, it is not a direct 1-1
comparison to Kafka because it lacks things like data retention, clustering
and replication. Instead, you would want to compare it to NATS-Streaming, (
https://github.com/nats-io/nats-streaming-server ). You can find a number
of more recent articles and comparisons by a simple web search.
With that being said, this is likely not the best venue for an in-depth
discussion on tradeoffs between the two (especially since I see you're
spanning two very large mailing lists).
Adam
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 1:34 AM Hans Jespersen <ha...@confluent.io> wrote:
> Thats a 4.5 year old benchmark and it was run with a single broker node
> and only 1 producer and 1 consumer all running on a single MacBookPro.
> Definitely not the target production environment for Kafka.
>
> -hans
>
> > On Mar 21, 2019, at 11:43 AM, M. Manna <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > HI All,
> >
> > https://nats.io/about/
> >
> > this shows a general comparison of sender/receiver throughputs for NATS
> and
> > other messaging system including our favourite Kafka.
> >
> > It appears that Kafka, despite taking the 2nd place, has a very low
> > throughput. My question is, where does Kafka win over NATS? is it the
> > unique partitioning and delivery semantics? Or, is it something else.
> >
> > From what I can see, NATS has traditional pub/sub and queuing. But it
> > doesn't look like there is any proper retention system built for this.
> >
> > Has anyone come across this already?
> >
> > Thanks,
>
Re: Question on performance data for Kafka vs NATS
Posted by Hans Jespersen <ha...@confluent.io>.
Thats a 4.5 year old benchmark and it was run with a single broker node and only 1 producer and 1 consumer all running on a single MacBookPro. Definitely not the target production environment for Kafka.
-hans
> On Mar 21, 2019, at 11:43 AM, M. Manna <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> HI All,
>
> https://nats.io/about/
>
> this shows a general comparison of sender/receiver throughputs for NATS and
> other messaging system including our favourite Kafka.
>
> It appears that Kafka, despite taking the 2nd place, has a very low
> throughput. My question is, where does Kafka win over NATS? is it the
> unique partitioning and delivery semantics? Or, is it something else.
>
> From what I can see, NATS has traditional pub/sub and queuing. But it
> doesn't look like there is any proper retention system built for this.
>
> Has anyone come across this already?
>
> Thanks,
Re: Question on performance data for Kafka vs NATS
Posted by Hans Jespersen <ha...@confluent.io>.
Thats a 4.5 year old benchmark and it was run with a single broker node and only 1 producer and 1 consumer all running on a single MacBookPro. Definitely not the target production environment for Kafka.
-hans
> On Mar 21, 2019, at 11:43 AM, M. Manna <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> HI All,
>
> https://nats.io/about/
>
> this shows a general comparison of sender/receiver throughputs for NATS and
> other messaging system including our favourite Kafka.
>
> It appears that Kafka, despite taking the 2nd place, has a very low
> throughput. My question is, where does Kafka win over NATS? is it the
> unique partitioning and delivery semantics? Or, is it something else.
>
> From what I can see, NATS has traditional pub/sub and queuing. But it
> doesn't look like there is any proper retention system built for this.
>
> Has anyone come across this already?
>
> Thanks,