Apache Flume vs. RabbitMQ

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Apache Flume
Score 7.1 out of 10
N/A
Apache Flume is a product enabling the flow of logs and other data into a Hadoop environment.N/A
RabbitMQ
Score 8.9 out of 10
N/A
RabbitMQ, an open source message broker, is part of Pivotal Software, a VMware company acquired in 2019, and supports message queue, multiple messaging protocols, and more. RabbitMQ is available open source, however VMware also offers a range of commercial services for RabbitMQ; these are available as part of the Pivotal App Suite.N/A
Pricing
Apache FlumeRabbitMQ
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Apache FlumeRabbitMQ
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Apache FlumeRabbitMQ
Best Alternatives
Apache FlumeRabbitMQ
Small Businesses

No answers on this topic

No answers on this topic

Medium-sized Companies
Cloudera Manager
Cloudera Manager
Score 9.9 out of 10
Apache Kafka
Apache Kafka
Score 8.5 out of 10
Enterprises
IBM Analytics Engine
IBM Analytics Engine
Score 8.5 out of 10
Apache Kafka
Apache Kafka
Score 8.5 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Apache FlumeRabbitMQ
Likelihood to Recommend
8.0
(2 ratings)
9.9
(11 ratings)
Usability
-
(0 ratings)
8.0
(1 ratings)
Support Rating
5.0
(1 ratings)
6.5
(4 ratings)
User Testimonials
Apache FlumeRabbitMQ
Likelihood to Recommend
Apache
Apache Flume is well suited when the use case is log data ingestion and aggregate only, for example for compliance of configuration management. It is not well suited where you need a general-purpose real-time data ingestion pipeline that can receive log data and other forms of data streams (eg IoT, messages).
Read full review
Open Source
It is highly recommended that if you have microservices architecture and if you want to solve 2 phase commit issue, you should use RabbitMQ for communication between microservices. It is a quick and reliable mode of communication between microservices. It is also helpful if you want to implement a job and worker mechanism. You can push the jobs into RabbitMQ and that will be sent to the consumer. It is highly reliable so you won't miss any jobs and you can also implement a retry of jobs with the dead letter queue feature. It will be also helpful in time-consuming API. You can put time-consuming items into a queue so they will be processed later and your API will be quick.
Read full review
Pros
Apache
  • Multiple sources of data (sources) and destinations (sinks) that allows you to move data form and to any relevant data storage
  • It is very easy to setup and run
  • Very open to personalization, you can create filters, enrichment, new sources and destinations
Read full review
Open Source
  • What RabbitMQ does well is what it's advertised to do. It is good at providing lots of high volume, high availability queue. We've seen it handle upwards of 10 million messages in its queues, spread out over 200 queues before its publish/consume rates dipped. So yeah, it can definitely handle a lot of messages and a lot of queues. Depending on the size of the machine RabbitMQ is running on, I'm sure it can handle more.
  • Decent number of plugins! Want a plugin that gives you an interface to view all the queues and see their publish/consume rates? Yes, there's one for that. Want a plugin to "shovel" messages from one queue to another in an emergency? Check. Want a plugin that does extra logging for all the messages received? Got you covered!
  • Lots of configuration possibilities. We've tuned over 100 settings over the past year to get the performance and reliability just right. This could be a downside though--it's pretty confusing and some settings were hard to understand.
Read full review
Cons
Apache
  • It is very specific for log data ingestion so it is pretty hard to use for anything else besides log data
  • Data replication is not built in and needs to be added on top of Apache Flume (not a hard job to do though)
Read full review
Open Source
  • It breaks communication if we don't acknowledge early. In some cases our work items are time consuming that will take a time and in that scenario we are getting errors that RabbitMQ broke the channel. It will be good if RabbitMQ provides two acknowledgements, one is for that it has been received at client side and second ack is client is completed the processing part.
Read full review
Usability
Apache
No answers on this topic
Open Source
RabbitMQ is very easy to configure for all supported languages (Python, Java, etc.). I have personally used it on Raspberry Pi devices via a Flask Python API as well as in Java applications. I was able to learn it quickly and now have full mastery of it. I highly recommend it for any IoT project.
Read full review
Support Rating
Apache
Apache Flume is open-source so support is limited. Never the less, it has great documentation and best practices documents from their end-users so it is not hard to use, setup and configure.
Read full review
Open Source
I gave it a 10 but we do not have a support contract with any company for RabbitMQ so there is no official support in that regard. However, there is a community and questions asked on StackOverflow or any other major question and answer site will usually get a response.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
Apache
Apache Flume is a very good solution when your project is not very complex at transformation and enrichment, and good if you have an external management suite like Cloudera, Hortonworks, etc. But it is not a real EAI or ETL like AB Initio or Attunity so
you need to know exactly what you want. On the other hand being an opensource project give Apache a lot of room to personalize thanks to its plug-able architecture and has a very nice performance having a very low CPU and Memory footprint, a single server can do the job on many occasions, as opposed to the multi-server architecture of paid products.
Read full review
Open Source
RabbitMQ has a few advantages over Azure Service Bus 1) RMQ handles substantially larger files - ASB tops out at 100MB, we use RabbitMQfor files over 200MB 2) RabbitMQ can be easily setup on prem - Azure Service Bus is cloud only 3) RabbitMQ exchanges are easier to configure over ASB subscriptions ASB has a few advantages too 1) Cloud based - just a few mouse clicks and you're up and running
Read full review
Return on Investment
Apache
  • Flume has simplified a lot many of our ingest procedures, easier to deploy and integrate than a classical EAI, reducing the time to market
  • But opposed to EAIs if the project starts to grow in complexity Apache Flume project may not be as suitable
Read full review
Open Source
  • Positive: we don't need to keep way too many backend machines around to deal with bursts because RabbitMQ can absorb and buffer bursts long enough to let an understaffed set of backend services to catch up on processing. Hard to put a number to it but we probably save $5k a month having fewer machines around.
  • Negative: we've got many angry customers due to queues suddenly disappearing and dropping our messages when we try to publish to them afterward. Ideally, RabbitMQ should warn the user when queues expire due to inactivity but it doesn't, and due to our own bugs we've lost a lot of customer data as a result.
  • Positive: makes decoupling the web and API services from the deeper backend services easier by providing queues as an interface. This allowed us to split up our teams and have them develop independently of each other, speeding up software development.
Read full review
ScreenShots