One more thing to note: You are looking at regular, base NATS. On its own, it is not a direct 1-1 comparison to Kafka because it lacks things like data retention, clustering and replication. Instead, you would want to compare it to NATS-Streaming, ( https://github.com/nats-io/nats-streaming-server ). You can find a number of more recent articles and comparisons by a simple web search.
With that being said, this is likely not the best venue for an in-depth discussion on tradeoffs between the two (especially since I see you're spanning two very large mailing lists). Adam On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 1:34 AM Hans Jespersen <h...@confluent.io> wrote: > Thats a 4.5 year old benchmark and it was run with a single broker node > and only 1 producer and 1 consumer all running on a single MacBookPro. > Definitely not the target production environment for Kafka. > > -hans > > > On Mar 21, 2019, at 11:43 AM, M. Manna <manme...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > HI All, > > > > https://nats.io/about/ > > > > this shows a general comparison of sender/receiver throughputs for NATS > and > > other messaging system including our favourite Kafka. > > > > It appears that Kafka, despite taking the 2nd place, has a very low > > throughput. My question is, where does Kafka win over NATS? is it the > > unique partitioning and delivery semantics? Or, is it something else. > > > > From what I can see, NATS has traditional pub/sub and queuing. But it > > doesn't look like there is any proper retention system built for this. > > > > Has anyone come across this already? > > > > Thanks, >
