2021
DOI: 10.1109/access.2020.3046503
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Fair Comparison of Message Queuing Systems

Abstract: The production and real-time usage of streaming data bring new challenges for data systems due to huge volume of streaming data and quick response request of applications. Message queuing systems that offer high throughput and low latency play an important role in today's big streaming data processing. There are several popular message queuing systems in production usage and also many in-lab message queuing systems in academia. These systems with different design philosopies have different characteristics. It … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0
2

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 45 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
17
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The messaging integration style is asynchronous messaging and can decouple all the applications so the sender does not need to wait for the receiver, and we can develop the application efficiently in the real-time monitoring system, as shown in Figure 11. In an earlier study [24], the authors compared five typical message queuing systems, including Kafka [25], RabbitMQ [26], RocketMQ [27], ActiveMQ [28], and Pulsar [29]. They also tested the latency and the throughput in the three scenarios, including the message size, number of producers/consumers, and number of partitions.…”
Section: Message Queuing Systemmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The messaging integration style is asynchronous messaging and can decouple all the applications so the sender does not need to wait for the receiver, and we can develop the application efficiently in the real-time monitoring system, as shown in Figure 11. In an earlier study [24], the authors compared five typical message queuing systems, including Kafka [25], RabbitMQ [26], RocketMQ [27], ActiveMQ [28], and Pulsar [29]. They also tested the latency and the throughput in the three scenarios, including the message size, number of producers/consumers, and number of partitions.…”
Section: Message Queuing Systemmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In such cases, AC methods were utilized to tune controller parameters, [ 57,58 ] or identify the process dynamics [ 59 ] and help generate control actions. [ 60–63 ]…”
Section: Process Control Applicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As to the use of application software, approximately 60% of the studies, utilized MATLAB software for controller development, integration, or real‐time implementation. [ 60,63,69 ] Other researchers mostly used Tensorflow [ 64 ] and Python. [ 83 ] Some studies have integrated different functionalities of more than one software applications, for example, (i) MATLAB's process simulation module with Python's ANN generator APIs–PyTorch and Keras [ 70 ] and (ii) hybrid training module of Tensorflow and Python's Lambda deep learning workstation.…”
Section: Process Control Applicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Apache Camel [65] is an open source integration framework designed as message-oriented middleware that provides interfaces for the Enterprise Integration Patterns. A good comparison of some of the most recent message queuing systems (Kafka, RabbitMQ, RocketMQ, ActiveMQ, and Pulsar) can be found in [66]. A curating list of existing streaming frameworks and applications can also be found in [67].…”
Section: Other Available Toolsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, in data ingestion and transformation, Apache Storm [54] can be used for high volume real-time data, Apache Nifi can be used for medium volume real-time data, and Sqoop can be used for batch data with low latency requirements. In addition, extensive comparisons of some of the latest message queueing systems (e.g., Kafka, RabbitMQ, RocketMQ, ActiveMQ, and Pulsar) have shown that Kafka can be used for higher throughput, RabbitMQ is more suitable for lower latency, while RocketMQ can provide both low latency and high quality of service for applications and services [66]. Some tools, such as Apache Druid, only allow querying a single data set, so joining with multiple other data sources is not possible.…”
Section: B Challengesmentioning
confidence: 99%