On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Flavio Percoco <fla...@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 09/23/2014 05:13 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > Excerpts from Joe Gordon's message of 2014-09-22 19:04:03 -0700:
> [snip]
> >>
> >> To me this is less about valid or invalid choices. The Zaqar team is
> >> comparing Zaqar to SQS, but after digging into the two of them, zaqar
> >> barely looks like SQS. Zaqar doesn't guarantee what IMHO is the most
> >> important parts of SQS: the message will be delivered and will never be
> >> lost by SQS. Zaqar doesn't have the same scaling properties as SQS.
> Zaqar
> >> is aiming for low latency per message, SQS doesn't appear to be. So if
> >> Zaqar isn't SQS what is Zaqar and why should I use it?
> >>
> >
> > I have to agree. I'd like to see a simple, non-ordered, high latency,
> > high scale messaging service that can be used cheaply by cloud operators
> > and users. What I see instead is a very powerful, ordered, low latency,
> > medium scale messaging service that will likely cost a lot to scale out
> > to the thousands of users level.
> I don't fully agree :D
> Let me break the above down into several points:
> * Zaqar team is comparing Zaqar to SQS: True, we're comparing to the
> *type* of service SQS is but not *all* the guarantees it gives. We're
> not working on an exact copy of the service but on a service capable of
> addressing the same use cases.
> * Zaqar is not guaranteeing reliability: This is not true. Yes, the
> current default write concern for the mongodb driver is `acknowledge`
> but that's a bug, not a feature [0] ;)
> * Zaqar doesn't have the same scaling properties as SQS: What are SQS
> scaling properties? We know they have a big user base, we know they have
> lots of connections, queues and what not but we don't have numbers to
> compare ourselves with.

Here is *a* number
30k messages per second on a single queue:

> * Zaqar is aiming for low latency per message: This is not true and I'd
> be curious to know where did this come from. A couple of things to
> consider:
>         - First and foremost, low latency is a very relative measure  and
> it
> depends on each use-case.
>         - The benchmarks Kurt did were purely informative. I believe it's
> good
> to do them every once in a while but this doesn't mean the team is
> mainly focused on that.
>         - Not being focused on 'low-latency' does not mean the team will
> overlook performance.
> * Zaqar has FIFO and SQS doesn't: FIFO won't hurt *your use-case* if
> ordering is not a requirement but the lack of it does when ordering is a
> must.
> * Scaling out Zaqar will cost a lot: In terms of what? I'm pretty sure
> it's not for free but I'd like to understand better this point and
> figure out a way to improve it, if possible.
> * If Zaqar isn't SQS then what is it? Why should I use it?: I don't
> believe Zaqar is SQS as I don't believe nova is EC2. Do they share
> similar features and provide similar services? Yes, does that mean you
> can address similar use cases, hence a similar users? Yes.
> In addition to the above, I believe Zaqar is a simple service, easy to
> install and to interact with. From a user perspective the semantics are
> few and the concepts are neither new nor difficult to grasp. From an
> operators perspective, I don't believe it adds tons of complexity. It
> does require the operator to deploy a replicated storage environment but
> I believe all services require that.
> Cheers,
> Flavio
> P.S: Sorry for my late answer or lack of it. I lost *all* my emails
> yesterday and I'm working on recovering them.
> [0] https://bugs.launchpad.net/zaqar/+bug/1372335
> --
> @flaper87
> Flavio Percoco
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to