Efficiency comparison of message brokers
Article Sidebar
Open full text
Issue Vol. 31 (2024)
-
Comparative analysis of the implementation performance using selected scripting languages in the Godot game engine
Sebastian Alchimowicz, Małgorzata Plechawska-Wójcik68-72
-
Comparative analysis of smart home management systems
Patryk Bąk, Grzegorz Kozieł73-81
-
Comparative analysis of database types in mobile applications running on the Android operating system
Adrian Bartoszek82-88
-
Comparative analysis of the performance of selected database management system
Piotr Marcin Tracz, Małgorzata Plechawska-Wójcik89-96
-
Comparative Analysis of ORM Systems for the .NET Platform
Tomasz Wiatrowski97-102
-
Analysis of Compliance with WCAG Guidelines Regarding Contrast Im-plementation in an E-Learning Quiz
Krzysztof Dziedzic, Marcin Barszcz, Tomasz Wiśniewski103-108
-
Comparative analysis of Microsoft’s ,,low-code” programming technology
Grzegorz Łopata, Konrad Gromaszek109-115
-
Efficiency comparison of message brokers
Sebastian Dyjach, Małgorzata Plechawska-Wójcik116-123
-
Investigating the impact of microservice-oriented platform configurations on application performance
Bartosz Biegajło, Dariusz Czerwiński124-131
-
Comparison of Laravel and Symfony - the most popular PHP frame-works, based on a simple CRUD application
Patryk Gajewski, Mariusz Dzieńkowski132-137
-
Analysis of the usability of selected auction websites
Adrian Duwer, Mariusz Dzieńkowski138-144
-
Comparison of selected tools for automation testing of Web applications
Piotr Pasławski, Maciej Pańczyk145-150
Main Article Content
DOI
Authors
sebastian.dyjach@pollub.edu.pl
Abstract
The aim of the article is to compare three main brokers used in the development of web applications: RabbitMQ, Apache Kafka and Apache Pulsar. To conduct the research, a custom application was created to compare two key metrics in the context of message queue performance. These metrics are: latency and number of processed messages per second. The conducted experiments showed that in scenarios requiring processing of backlogged messages by the broker and in cases of minimizing the impact of the SSL protocol on broker performance, Apache Pulsar proved to be the best solution. In the scenario examining message delivery delays, RabbitMQ turned out to be the best tool, while in the case of examining the stability of message processing in real-time, the best results were achieved with Apache Kafka.
Keywords:
References
Oficjalna dokumentacja narzędzia Spring Boot, https://docs.spring.io/spring-boot/docs/current/reference/html, [21.03.2024].
Dokumentacja platformy spring-cloud-binder, https://cloud.spring.io/spring-cloud-stream/multi/multi_spring-cloud-stream-overview-binders.html, [21.03.2024].
G. Fu, Y. Zhang, G. Yu, A Fair Comparison of Message Queuing Systems, IEEE Access 9 (2020) 421-431, https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3046503. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3046503
Magnoni, Luca. Modern messaging for distributed systems. Journal of Physics: Conference Series., IOP Publishing (2015) 2-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/608/1/012038
B. Singh., B. H. Chaitra. Comprehensive Review of Stream Processing Tools. International Research Journal of Engineering and Tech¬nology 7(5) (2020) 3537-3540.
K. Sowmya, T. Sharvari, A study on Modern Mes¬saging Systems - Kafka, RabbitMQ and NATS Stream¬ing, CoRR abs/1912.03715 (2019) 2-5.
M. Rokin, S. Hossain, M. Ashfakur, Benchmarking Message Queues, Department of Computer Science, Bay-lor University (2023) 298-312, https://doi.org/10.3390/telecom4020018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/telecom4020018
Oficjalna dokumentacja OpenMessaging Benchmark Framework, https://openmessaging.cloud/docs, [20.03.2024].
P. Jeba, P. Marca, J. Arockia. Comparison of JMS Products, International Journal of Scientific Research in Computer Science (2018) 190-193, https://doi.org/10.32628/CSEIT183858. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32628/CSEIT183858
T. E. Pereira, R. de Araújo Souza, Performance analysis between Apache Kafka and Rab¬bitMQ, UFCG (2020) 5-11.
Oficjalna dokumentacja narzędzia Apache Kafka, https://kafka.apache.org/documentation, [22.03.2024].
Platforma Linkedin, https://www.linkedin.com, [01.04.2024].
V. E. Balas, L.C Jain, Replication in Raft vs Apache Zookeeper, Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop Soft Computing Applications (2020) 426-436, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23636-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23636-5
Oficjalna strona narzędzia RabbitMQ, https://www.rabbitmq.com, [23.03.2024].
Oficjalna dokumentacja narzędzia Apache Pulsar https://pulsar.apache.org/docs, [23.03.2024].
A. Anjum, I. Odun-Ayo, Cloud multi-tenancy: Issues and developments, Proceedings of the 10th International Con-ference on Utility and Cloud Computing (2017) 209-214, https://doi.org/10.1145/3147234.3148095. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3147234.3148095
Dokumentacja firmy Oracle dotycząca tworzenia keystore oraz truststore formatem JKS, https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19509-01/820-3503/ggfen/index.html, [26.03.2024].
Article Details
Abstract views: 615

