Open Stack

On 28/08/13 14:28 -0400, Joe Gordon wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Kurt Griffiths <kurt.griffiths at rackspace.com>
>wrote:
>
>    > What was wrong with qpid, rabbitmq, activemq, zeromq, ${your favorite
>    > queue here} that required marconi?
>
>    That's a good question. The features supported by AMQP brokers, ZMQ, and
>    Marconi certainly do overlap in some areas. At the same time, however, each
>    of these options offer distinct features that may or may not align with
>    what a web developer is trying to accomplish.
>
>    Here are a few of Marconi's unique features, relative to the other options
>    you mentioned:
>
>      *  Multi-tenant
>      *  Keystone integration
>      *  100% Python
>      *  First-class, stateless, firewall-friendly HTTP(S) transport driver
>      *  Simple protocol, easy for clients to implement
>      *  Scales to an unlimited number of queues and clients
>      *  Per-queue stats, useful for monitoring and autoscale
>      *  Tag-based message filtering (planned)
>
>    Relative to SQS, Marconi:
>
>      *  Is open-source and community-driven
>      *  Supports private and hybrid deployments
>      *  Offers hybrid pub-sub and producer-consumer semantics
>      *  Provides a clean, modern HTTP API
>      *  Can route messages to multiple queues (planned)
>      *  Can perform custom message transformations (planned)
>
>    Anyway, that's my $0.02 - others may chime in with their own thoughts.
>
>
>I assume the rabbitmq vs sqs debate (http://notes.variogr.am/post/67710296/
>replacing-amazon-sqs-with-something-faster-and-cheaper) is the same for
>rabbitmq vs marconi?
> 

As for speed, it may but we're not able to tell what the trade-off
is just yet. The reasoning comes based on the fact that we're adding
an extra layer on top of existing technologies, which will slow down
operations a bit.

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco