Apache Kafka Reviews

We have got this product, which is meant for integration. So our use cases are essentially integrating with other systems, using any messaging stack. We use these products in Dev and QA and we have connectors for various different messaging applications. Apache Kafka just happens to be one of the messaging applications that we connect with. We also have our own messaging, it's called Enterprise Messaging Server and Rendezvous, we connect to those also. Our product is essentially used for integration. So we connect to almost all messaging applications.

The most valuable feature is the speed at which the solution can be deployed.

The solution can improve its cloud support.

I have been using the solution in Dev and QA for a few years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

Since we are supporting various different messaging applications, we tend to use and support all the messaging applications that are popular. Like SQS, Google pops up, Active MQ, Rapid MQ, MQTT, and IBM MQ.

The open-source version is relatively straightforward to set up and only takes a few minutes.

We typically implement the solution in-house.

The solution is open source.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

We test all the supported versions of the solution based on our customers' use.

We support our integration product. So we need to do dev and QA with Apache Kafka or any other messaging applications. But we do not provide support. The solution can be supported by someone else.

We don't need to have any specific staff for deployment. All the developers in QA can install and configure the solution. We don't have a separate person for maintenance.

Our team and our product dev and QAs all use the solution.

I think Apache Kafka is a good solution and I recommend it to others.

Apache Kafka is used for connecting components between each other in the same application. The use is quite limited, but I was curious about its filtering capability of it.

We implemented the notification system between our components, and we found that Apache Kafka performs well in scalability. It has improved our organization because of the scalability and the comfort of a fail-safe or disaster recovery it provides.

Apache Kafka can improve by making the documentation more user-friendly. It would be beneficial if we could explain to customers in more detail how the solution operates but the documentation get highly technical quickly. For example, if they had a simple page where we can show the customers how it works without the need for the customer to have a computer science background.

I have been using Apache Kafka for approximately two years.

Apache Kafka is scalable. It is easy to add brokers.

We have approximately 30 people using this solution in my organization. They use the solution daily.

I have only used Apache Kafka.

The initial setup of Apache Kafka took some time but after it was easy.

I rate the initial setup of Apache Kafka a three out of five.

We set up the solution in-house.

This is an open-source solution and is free to use.

We have not used the solution in production. We do not have a lot of data at the moment.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Apache Kafka an eight out of ten.

The primary use case of the solution is for asset communication through our microservices.

The solution has allowed us to take the use cases provided by another communication tool and resolve those issues.

The most valuable feature is how persistent it is. For example, we are able to reprocess messages when we need to, we're able to recover methods to consume them.

The solution can be improved by reducing the cost to run it on the premises.

I have been using the solution for four years.

The stability of the solution is good.

The solution is scalable.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The implementation was through a vendor.

I have seen a return on investment with this solution.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

We have 80 people using the solution and five people are required to maintain it.

I suggest using cloud services because the solution is expensive if you are using it on-premises.

We used Kafka as a central message bus, transporting data from SNMP through to a database. Some of the processing in between was handled by other components.

We built a solution for a client and the client was happy with the solution.

The message bus capabilities, basically sending messages to it, and the way it handles events or messages is pretty good. The throughput was good. Generally, it was a good component.

We struggled a bit with the built-in data transformations because it was a challenge to get them up and running the way we wanted. There was a bit of a learning curve. It may be that we didn't fully grasp the information.

Also, the documentation covering certain aspects was a bit poor. We had to trawl around different locations to try to find what we needed. When we were able to find documentation on transformation, for example, there wasn't a good set of documentation examples we could use, and the examples we had weren't quite meeting the need. Better examples would've helped us.

I used this solution for about a year and a half. 

It seemed pretty stable and didn't have any issues at all.

I don't know how many people were using it on the client's side, but we had a four-person team doing the development work. 

Our team handled the deployment in-house.

Kafka is an open-source solution, so there are no licensing costs. There are third-party companies who support and provide add-ons to Kafka, but we didn't need to use any of those. Confluence, for example, provides plug-ins for Kafka. 

There were other solutions, like Apache MQ, but there were a number of components we looked at that were based around being a message bus, and Kafka was the winner from that review work.

The documentation can be a challenge. There are quite advanced capabilities of Kafka, like the transformations that you can build to modify the data as needed. We found that the biggest challenge was documentation and being able to gain the knowledge of exactly how to do stuff. We also struggled on the transformation, but other components were fine, so some parts are good, and some parts are bad.

I would rate this solution as an eight out of ten. 

We use it extensively in our data pushing, for analytics and all of this type of data that is pushed, rather than on a real-time and payment basis. However, we are using it for offline messages, pushing it for processing, and for heavy, heavy usage, rather than extensively using it for financial data.

The main advantage is increased reliability, particularly with regard to data and the speed with which messages are published to the other side. 

The connectivity from the application is straightforward, as is the API integration.

These are some of the most valuable features of this solution. 

In terms of partition tolerance, message reliability is also present, which is a very good feature from the customer's perspective.

The area for improvement in Kafka is difficult to say because it's a solid product that works well in its intended applications. And, we are looking for something that can be used as part of financial implementations, because we don't want too many messages to be delivered to the other side, which is one of the areas I am looking at as well.

One of the things I am mostly looking for is that once the message is picked up from Kafka, it should not be visible or able to be consumed by other applications, or something along those lines. That feature is not present, but it is not a limitation or anything of the sort; rather, it is a desirable feature.

The next release should include a feature that prevents messages from being consumed by other applications once they are picked up by Kafka.

Then there is message dependability because a message is of no use if cannot be consumed. Alternatively, if the message is consumed but not committed, it should not be recorded in the Kafka queues. It should be because that is one of the features that is existing in MQs consistently provide: if the message is not committed, it will be committed back to the queues.

I have not seen that in Kafka.

We have been using Apache Kafka for approximately three years in the organization.

I believe we are working with version 10. Confluent Kafka is what we are using.

It's a stable solution. Once completed, it is a very stable solution.

The scalability is very good. It is scalable horizontally rather than vertically. 

It can scale up to any level horizontally. However, if the message, once used horizontally scalable, cannot be shrunk once the requirement is reduced, some process is actually taking place. That is one thing that is lacking.

I believe there are approximately 10 to 15 people who use it.

This is being used by the data migration, data team, data analytical team, and data engineer. It's being used by all application architects who are just looking into it, as well as middleware integrators and middleware application integrators.

We have big plans to increase the use of various other innovations and stuff like that. We are using it in relation to data activities. 

Also, we are only planning to use the financial part for publishing it, subscribing, and publishing a pop-up model for various use cases.

Apache usually has a community deployment. If you use Apache or any other software, you will usually receive community support. Otherwise, some companies are taking it and beginning to process it. For example, in Kafka, there is a version of Confluent that they use and support. Or, as we call it, the Oracle Big Data platform.

It will be included with Hadoop, Spark, and other similar technologies. That is coming as, one of the back software packages that are part of that offering, and it is supported by Oracle. Depending on the type of open source, there are various types of support available. Other than the community, we will not receive assistance. Otherwise, it's free enterprise, and we can take it from Confluent or other vendors who offer similar products.

Prior to implementing this solution, we were not using another solution. We have been using, Kafka from the beginning with regard to these use cases. However, we are using other queuing solutions, such as MQ, ActiveMQ, IBM IQ, and Q, but the use cases are different. This is primarily due to the large volume, faster processing, and other benefits of using Kafka.

It is not deployed on-premises. 

We use Kafka as part of the OCI Oracle Cloud platform and the Oracle Big Data platform because Kafka is included.

The Apache Kafka setup will take some time because it is not simple, and we have a lot of other components to install. It's fine because we needed all the plugins and other things for the simple implementations, but the containers' implementation is simple. The only difference is that when it comes to Zookeeper, there are a lot of supporting applications running on top of it, such as Zookeeper. As part of their area, Apache Kafka is running on top of Zookeeper. What do they think? As part of their... manageability, the Kafka area, and Apache Zookeeper. As a result, everything must be removed. And it will be preferable if the implementation is simple.  I believe Confluent is doing this, but we have not yet begun.

The deployment, and configuration, will take one hour to complete. However, it is also dependent on the fact that you require a large number of configurations, which we have.

The deployment was completed in-house.

Currently, there is a team of three to maintain this solution. There are application support personnel in charge of access control.

It will be included in the Oracle-specific platform. It is approximately $600,000 USD.

When it comes to Apache Kafka, they must understand how it works and what its internals are. There could be numerous challenges associated with the product and its entire life cycle. You will have to have a good understanding and knowledge of the configuration. You will need a technical person who is knowledgeable in Kafka which will be an advantage and on an ongoing life partner.

It's a very good solution, I would rate Apache Kafka a nine out of ten.

We have a scalable architecture where we need multiple workers to handle some processing. To make it possible, the backend catches the request and puts it in a common medium, which is the queue of Apache Kafka. The workers then can share and process it.

The most valuable feature of Apache Kafka is the clustering which is very easy to scale and we have multiple servers all over our platforms. It has been useful for stability and performance.

Apache Kafka can improve by providing a UI for monitoring. There are third-party tools that can do it, but it would be nice if it was already embedded within Apache Kafka.

I have been using Apache Kafka for approximately two years.

Apache Kafka is stable. We have not had any issues.

the scalability of Apache Kafka is good. We have parts of the information we use in different geographical sites and it doesn't pose any problem.

I have not used technical support.

I previously used RabbitMQ. We switched because Apache Kafka was more stable and had better performance.

The initial setup of Apache Kafka was easy because it is Dockerized. However, if you were to install it yourself it would be difficult. Having it Dockerized makes it worth it. 

The first deployment took approximately two hours. The updates of the solution can be done in a matter of minutes.

Our DevOps team in our IT department did the deployment of the solution. It was mostly virtual work. The maintenance of the solution does not take a lot of time.

We are using the free version of Apache Kafka.

We had a good experience with the solutions, the maintainability and scalability are good. I would recommend the solution to others.

I rate Apache Kafka a nine out of ten.

We use Apache Kafka for patching real-time data that we receive over a data transport layer and for putting the data into Apache Kafka. From Apache Kafka, we use several applications to subscribe to topics from different applications that we serve directly to browsers. Additionally, we use these applications inside our solution and have Apache Kafka Stream, which is connected to MongoDB.

Since we receive data in real-time consisting of IoT devices, running vehicles, their locations, their states, and their VNs, the solution is helpful.

The product could be improved with proper documentation. Proper documentation should be the SSE. We have a challenge with configuration, so it isn't easy to configure a standalone Apache Kafka on the premises. It needs to be set up on-premises and surveys being provided in the market want to be excluded. Hence, being a developer and configuring Apache Kafka is very hard. It is user-friendly, but initially, we found it challenging. Improving the documentation in this solution would be much better if documents were provided on GitHub for different things. As the market is growing, Spring solution is working hard to get products in the market so when Python, React JS, and Node.Js came, they were lacking. But today, Spring Boot has a solid framework. So the support on Apache Kafka could be improved, but finding some configurations with Spring Boot isn't easy.

We have been using this solution for over three years and are currently using the latest version.

The solution is stable, and the most fantastic thing about it is its throughput. For example, I have tried MQs, which also have Apache Kafka Streams. So the throughput of Apache Kafka Stream is impeccable and impressive.

The solution is very scalable, and its availability is brilliant. We have approximately 32,000 people on our customer base.

We do not have any experience with customer service and support.

We have tried different MQs, but the subscription and charting available on this solution are better. We have used Queues previously, but this solution is more stable, so we chose it.

The initial setup is dependent on the individual. For example, it would be straightforward if a person practices these things a lot and understands the documentation correctly. However, since most people prefer examples instead of reviewing documentation, it would be easy to set up if they find steps on the internet but difficult if they do not have examples.

I rate the pricing for this solution an eight out of ten. It could be a bit cheaper.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. It is good, but the documentation could be improved.

We utilize Apache Kafka in several areas, including financials, logistics, and client management to name a few.

We used to lose some of our messages when we integrated them in bulk, this solution has stopped that happening.

It is a useful way to maintain messages and to manage offset from our consumers. 

I would like to see an improvement in authentication management.

We have been using the solution for around four years.

The stability is good; the solution operates on our clusters without a big impact.

It is easy to scale.

We used to use a different solution, but our increased throughput meant we needed a product that would allow for a larger queue.

The initial setup was complex for us because we built it internally. This meant that full deployment took around a month.

The implementation was carried out in-house.

I would recommend that other businesses do the deployment themselves, but manage the tool with the aid of a service provider, rather than in-house.

I would rate this product seven out of ten.

Our primary use case of this solution is for data integration and for real-time data consumption. I'm a senior staff engineer for data and infrastructure and we are customers of Apache. 

I love the simplicity of the library and the design as well as the architectural concept which is like horizontal scaling.

When compared to other commercial competitors, Kafka doesn't have the ability to scale down, the elasticity is lacking in the product. The other issue for us is the delayed queue, which was available to us in the commercial software but not in Kafka. It's something we use in most of our applications for deferred processing and I know it's available in other solutions. I'd like to see some tooling support and language support in the open source version. 

I've been using this solution for four years.

The stability is good. 

The solution scales horizontally and scales better than its competitors. We have around 400 to 500 microservices consuming this cluster and the company has around 600 employees. We have four different verticals, each with around 100 engineers with 100 to 150 microservices. 90% of the microservices have a touchpoint with Kafka.

I think the community is very good and will respond if you raise a ticket. We also use external third-party libraries that were built in GitHub. It would be good to have some direct support from Apache.

Four years ago we were using Rabbit MQ but we switched to Kafka because Rabbit was designed for a very narrow use case. It became difficult for us to run and maintain that server and our client libraries. We had a huge outage, so we shifted to Kafka because of the simplicity in the architecture.

The initial setup was simple although we had a couple of hiccups. It took around a week but that was several years ago and we haven't had any problems since. Our team carried out the deployment and we currently have a few engineers who deal with maintenance. 

We are currently using the open-source version. 

There is room for improvement with this solution so I rate it eight out of 10. 

We use Kafka daily for our messaging queue to reduce costs because we have a lot of consumers, producers, and repeat messages. Our company has only one system built on Apache Kafka because it's based on microservices, so all of the applications can communicate using it.

Kafka is an open-source tool that's easy to use in our country, and the command line interface is powerful. 

The user interface is one weakness. Sometimes, our data isn't as accessible as we'd like. It takes a lot of work to retrieve the data and the index.

I've used Kafka for about 10 months.

Kafka is stable.

We can't access support because we are in Iran, and many countries prohibit business with Iran. 

We used MSMQ on Windows, but we decided to migrate our system to Docker and we wanted to use base Linux, so we move them from Amazon Queue to Kafka.

Apache Kafka has one advantage that sets it apart from other providers. We need to iterate on the messages, but others don't have this feature. Kafka has partitioning, which is useful, so we decided to go with Kafka. 

I rate Kafka 10 out of 10 for ease of setup. It's easy for us because we use Docker, but if you want to use another system like Linux it may be a little challenging

Kafka is free. 

Redis has an open-source solution, but I'm not sure about IBM. I haven't researched it. 

I rate Apache Kafka seven out of 10. It's a good solution. They're constantly fixing bugs and adding new features.