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,
