Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | throwwgisgreat's commentslogin

> better behaviour than RabbitMQ since you can always re-read messages once they have been processed

I can imagine, a 1 Billion dollar transaction accidentally gets processed by ten thousand client nodes due to a client app synchronization bug, company rethinks its dumb data dumper server strategy...news at 11.


It would probably work fine, it would also put the jobs at risk of people who managed to convince their enterprises that a dumb but fast server (Kafka) was actually a good idea.


> processing billions of Kafka events per day

Except that the burden is on all clients to coordinate to avoid processing an event more than once since Kakfa is a brainless invention just dumping data forever into a serial log.


I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Do you mean different consumers within the same consumer group? There's no technology out there that will guarantee exactly-once delivery, it's simply impossible in a world where networks aren't magically 100% reliable. SQS, RedPanda, RabbitMQ, NATS... you call it, your client will always need idempotency.


That is called a 'consumer group' which has been a part of Kafka for 15 years.

The author is suggesting to avoid this solution and roll your own instead.


> if we reverse: does Kafka also handle 80% of what Postgres does with 20% the effort?

First, it would be inverse, not reverse.

Second, no it doesn't work that way, that's the point of the Pareto principle in the first place, what is 80% is always 80% and what is 20% is always 20%.


>Second, no it doesn't work that way, that's the point of the Pareto principle in the first place, what is 80% is always 80% and what is 20% is always 20%.

I know, since that's the whole point I was making. That the OP picked an arbitrary side to give the 80%, and that one could just as well pick the other one, and that you need actual arguments (and some kind of actual measurable distribution) to support one or the other being the 80% (that is, merely invoking the Pareto principle is not an argument).


> Wireguard can't punch through NATs or firewalls without third party software like Tailscale.

That's a false or incorrect statement, I've been using Wireguard and a cheap VPS (actually free on OCI) for several years, and with a cheap VPS at AWS Lightsail before that. No third party software in use at all. The only thing running on the VPS is Wireguard. The only thing running on my peers is Wireguard.

> Also I'm pretty sure each peer to peer connection needs to be individually set up in a config file ahead of time

That's how I do it but there are tools available to make it easy.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: