bookkeeper-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Flavio Junqueira <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Kafka vs BookKeeper
Date Thu, 12 Nov 2015 09:53:24 GMT
I don't have a detailed comparison, but I can tell you that the way I see it, Kafka implements
both distributed logs and a pub-sub layer that uses these logs. BK is just the distributed
logs and you need something like Hedwig (shipped here), DistributedLog (Twitter implementation),
or ManagedLedgers (Yahoo! implementation) to work with it. You can also develop your own layer
that is specific to your application.

BK also provides different durability and performance. BK syncs to disk before returning an
add operation to a ledger (our logs) and uses separate devices to limit the interference between
read traffic and write traffic. Write traffic consists of writing to ledgers and read traffic
consists of reading from ledgers. 

I agree that a write-up comparing them would be useful to many people.

-Flavio 

> On 12 Nov 2015, at 09:38, Yumei Li <yumeili1951@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello bookkeepers:
> 
> I am a newbie to the bookkeeper community. We are looking for a replicated log service
that could be used for a pub/sub project. Looking around bookkeeper documents, it sounds like
bookkeeper is a pretty good fit for our user cases: we need durability and could be able to
scale up to ten thousands of topics. But comparing to Kafka, it seems the API is pretty low
level, we have to manage the numbered ledgers.
> 
> Do you guys have a detailed comparison between Kafka and BookKeeper? Like architecture,
features and performance. That would be a good guideline for people like me coming to bookkeeper
world. 
> 
> - YL 
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message