Apache Kafka Reviews

We use an open-source version of this solution, and we have two deployments of it. One is on-prem, and the other is in the cloud. We use the on-prem version to aggregate our logs. We use the cloud version to manage queues for financial services. 

It just works and it's super fast. We were struggling with a Rabbit MQ cluster, so the Apache cluster is way easier.

I would like them to reduce the learning curve around the creation of brokers and topics. They also need to improve on the concept of the partitions. 

As for features, RabbitMQ has an instant response feature where you can send a queue and get an instant response, but Kafka only has one way to send queues. If that's something they could improve on, it would be great.

This is my second year working with this solution. 

I think it's very stable. I would rate the stability as a four or five out of five. 

The solution is very scalable. We started with a cluster of three and then scaled it to seven. I would give the solution a five out of five for scalability. Currently, we have 20+ employees on the technical team that are using the solution. 

We provide outsource services for other institutions. There is a whole set queue management form, and we have about five institutions, with three technical teams that use the same cluster.

There was a little learning curve, but we managed it. I think it took us around six weeks to complete the deployment. 

We have a team of three people who handled the deployment in-house. They also handle the maintenance for the solution. 

We do not use customer support, but there is a lot of documentation available.

I would definitely recommend this solution to other people. I would rate it as an eight 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 Apache Kafka to ingest a lot of data in real time that Apache Spark processes, and the result is used for a tech decision in real time – in the IT environment, infrastructure environment, and IOT environment, like for a  manufacturing plant.

This is an open-source framework. We also sell professional services on this solution and specifically create a business application for customers. 

The application is called Sherlogic. We have two kinds of customers. We have end-user customers that use the Sherlogic solution, and maybe customers don't know that there is Spark and Kafka in Sherlogic. But we have another kind of customer that uses professional services by Xautomata to create tailor-made applications in analytics and the automation process.

We use Apache Kafka for our digital cloud.

To store a large set of analytical data we are using SQL repository. This type of repository works very well but we need specific and high maintenance. The user experience is friendly.

We are looking for alternative solutions, we tried with noSQL solutions and Confluent specific features but the results were not satisfactory both in terms of performance and usability.

We are working on automated SQL repository management and maintenance tools in order to increase the democratization of our platform.

We've been using this solution for a year and a half.

The stability is very nice. We currently manage 50 million events daily.

It's scalable.

Support is good. It's typical for an open source application. You can have all the information in a public portal. If you want specific consulting, there is a company that promotes this consulting worldwide called Conduent. Their consulting is quick and they have a lot of know-how.

It's very complex, like Spark. 

Deployment took 50 minutes for all the Kubernetes ports, Spark, Kafka, and other components based on Sherlogic. In 30 minutes, we created an environment using this program to make installation easier.

Deployment was done in-house, but we're starting a collaboration with another company and we introduced this company to running this solution. Specifically, we started a collaboration with AWS to promote our platform in a Western marketplace. In this way, it's very easy to use our solution because it is a part of an AWS service, certificated by an engineer.

The return on investment has been having people dedicated to this solution because it's open source so it hasn't been necessary to invest in licensing or pay a fee. So, internal know-how has been the ROI.

It's a bit cheaper compared to other Q applications.

I would rate this solution 7 out of 10.

I would recommend this solution because the queue manager is very fast and stable.

We primarily use the solution for upstreaming messages with different payload for our applications ranging from iOT, Food delivery and patient monitoring. 

For example for one solution we have a real-time location finding, whereby a customer for the food delivery solution wants to know, where his or her order is on a map. The delivery person's mobile phone would start publishing its location to Kafka, and then Kafka processes it, and then publishes it to subscribers, or, in this case, the customer. It allows them to see information in real-time almost instantly.

Apache Kafka has became our main component on almost all our distributed solutions. It has helped us to delivery fast distributing messages to our customer's applications.

The solution is good for publishing transactions for commercial solutions whereby a duplicate will not affect any part of the system.

The solution is very easy to set up.

The stability is very good.

There's an online community available that can help answer questions or troubleshoot problems. 

The scalability of Kafka is very good.

It provides high throughput.

Kafka can allow for duplicates, which isn't as helpful in some of our scenarios. They need to work on their duplicate management capabilities but for now developers should ensure idempotent operations for such scenarios.

While the solution scales well and easily, you need to understand your future needs and prep for the peaks. 

I've been using the solution for four years so far.

The stability is excellent. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

Scaling is not really a problem with Kafka. We have used Kubernetes clusters and it is working very well. It scales up and down, almost automatically almost unnoticeable to the consumers, based upon our configuration. Kafka is just one pod inside of our cluster that scales horizontally.

We have a couple of customers that also have vertical scaling, meaning that, there's more CPU, more memory available to the Kafka pod.

For Kafka, we don't actually require support from the company. We usually have people experienced in-house and sometimes we just ask in the community. 

The initial setup is easy. The majority of the tools today are really very easy to configure and setup. Docker Containers and Kubernetes, actually, have made life easier for architects as well as developers.

Nowadays, you just install the container, and then you don't have to really manage the internals at libraries, OS levels, et cetera. You just run the container. Everything is containerized.

Apache Kafka is OpenSource, you can set it up in your own Kubernetes cluster or subscribe to Kafka providers online as a service.

New users should understand the product capabilities. Often, people will start putting their hands in new products without knowing the capabilities and the disadvantages in specific scenarios. In our case for example, We haven't used Kafka for financial transaction processing, for which we still use IBM MQ, but It really depends upon your knowledge and experience with the product. My advice is to understand the product very well, its pros and cons and work from there.

Finally I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

Apache Kafka is used for more than only a messaging bus but also served as a database to store information. It functioned as a streamer, similar to ETL, to manipulate and transform events before migrating them to other systems for use. The database could also act as a cache. Apache Kafka is used as a database broker, streamer, and source of truth for multiple systems due to its ability to maintain events for at least 10 days. It provided both synchronous and asynchronous communication, making it a complex system that would be easier to understand through diagrams or sketches.

We use reactive frameworks.

From my experience with Apache Kafka, one of the most notable advantages is its ability to maintain a comprehensive record of historical data that includes every update, alteration, and version of information, unlike a conventional relational database. This feature allows for seamless tracking and analysis of the progression and transformation of the data over time, enabling users to easily review and analyze the history of the information.

The solution has the capability for various systems to effortlessly interact with one another without prior knowledge of their existence, current operational status, or specific configurations. By utilizing service buses and dynamic integration, data can be distributed across networks and retrieved in a way that is most suitable for each system's requirements. In addition, Apache Kafka allows for the modification of data to provide diverse clients, consumers, or observers with unique and varying data. The replication of data can produce multiple versions, and this data can be adjusted to fit various needs. With the use of probes, one can alter the behavior of the transformation process, thereby changing the way in which data is transformed and the output produced. Overall, working with Apache Kafka has brought about an array of benefits, enabling seamless system interactions and allowing for the customization and modification of data to meet individual requirements.

There are numerous possibilities that can be explored. While it may be challenging to fully comprehend the potential advantages, one key aspect is the ability to establish a proper sequence of events rather than simply dealing with a jumbled group of occurrences. These events possess their own timestamps, even if they were not initially provided with one, and are arranged in a chronological order that allows for a clear understanding of the progression of the events.

There have been some challenges with monitoring Apache Kafka, as there are currently only a few production-grade solutions available, which are all under enterprise license and therefore not easily accessible. The speaker has not had access to any of these solutions and has instead relied on tools, such as Dynatrace, which do not provide sufficient insight into the Apache Kafka system. While there are other tools available, they do not offer the same level of real-time data as enterprise solutions.

One additional area that I think could benefit from improvement is the deployment process on OpenShift. This particular deployment is quite challenging and requires the activation of certain security measures as well as integration with other systems. It's not a straightforward process and typically requires engineers who are highly skilled and have extensive experience with Apache Kafka to carry out these tasks. Therefore, I believe that there is a need for progress in this area, and some tools that can provide information, assistance, and help make the whole process easier would be greatly appreciated.

I have been using Apache Kafka for approximately four years.

The solution is stable if you have set it up correctly.

Apache Kafka is a scalable solution.

I have not escalated any questions to technical support because Apache Kafka is an open-source system. However, Confluent and other companies sell support and enterprise solutions to make it more convenient and streamline the work. They offer tools, such as a monitoring tool with a visual interface, which provides a lot of information and buttons to press for correction or change without touching the code. Each of those buttons hypothetically could have helped the situation, but it is unclear what they do exactly, it is best to call the data center and ask. If you buy their service, you have access to all the enterprise comforts.

Setting up Apache Kafka is, is not an easy task, especially when trying to containerize it and make it controllable. This is because Apache Kafka has its own distributed mechanism for staying alive, checking readiness, replicating, and scaling. Ensuring that it complies with Kubernetes or OpenShift Orchestrator requires careful attention, as there is a risk of two masters attempting to perform the same task and ultimately undoing each other's work.

In comparison to Kubernetes, OpenShift is a highly skilled and advanced implementation infrastructure that automatically manages and orchestrates all the steps required for an application setup. It operates at a higher level of abstraction and eliminates the need for manual operations that are required with Kubernetes. While Kubernetes can run an application with some pipeline and configuration, OpenShift takes care of everything from finding the required images to creating ports and connecting databases. Although manual changes can be made, it's not necessary as OpenShift offers a much more course-grained management approach.

One skillful DevOps engineer can implement the solution.

Apache Kafka is an open-source solution.

The maintenance of Apache Kafka is crucial due to the complexity of the system with numerous microservices and systems communicating through Apache Kafka, requiring proper integration and configuration to prevent overloading and ensure a healthy cluster. The task is not easy and requires knowledge of the various adjustable parameters, as misadjusting even one of them can greatly slow down the cluster. For example, if the consumer group changes frequently, the messages must be regrouped and reassigned, causing significant delays. Therefore, configuring Apache Kafka correctly is essential to avoid high latency issues.

I would strongly suggest others give Apache Kafka a chance and explore the various advantages that it can offer, especially since it should not be perceived as a message bus or broker but rather an enterprise bus designed for data manipulation. It has the ability to transform data, store and reject it, and even maintain different versions of the same data simultaneously. Moreover, it operates on a pull mechanism rather than a push mechanism, which takes away the risk of losing data and places the responsibility for data loss on the consumer. On the other hand, it also ensures that the data is always available within the specified window and allows for easy replication of the past, which is extremely helpful in situations such as those involving a hacked bank database. With Apache Kafka, you can efficiently go back in time, obtain the required status and events, and make changes accordingly, without the need to go through each transaction separately. Thus, using this solution can make data management much more efficient and convenient.

I rate Apache Kafka an eight out of ten.

In order to improve its user-friendliness, engineer-friendliness, and DevOps-friendliness, the system must undertake various tasks, such as enhancing the overall operation and configuration, ensuring seamless integration with other systems, and adapting to security layers in a more comprehensive and generic manner. This will require significant efforts to make the system more functional, secure, and efficient.

We are building solutions on Apache Kafka for four customers. The customers we have are in various sectors, such as healthcare and architecture.

Apache Kafka has good integration capabilities and has plenty of adapters in its ecosystem if you want to build something. There are adapters for many platforms, such as Java, Azure, and Microsoft's ecosystem. Other solutions, such as Pulsar have fewer adapters available.

I have been using Apache Kafka for three years.

Apache Kafka is stable.

I would recommend Apache Kafka for any enterprise.

The amount of people using the solution depends on the application. However, the starting point is from 6,000 to 7,000 concurrent users.

There is not any support, Apache Kafka is open-source.

We have been experimenting with other solutions such as VMware RabbitMQ and Pulsar.

We are going to replace the Apache Kafka solution using Pulsar.

Pulsar gives more scalability to an even grouping, but Apache Kafka is used more if you want to send something in a time series-based. If this does not matter to you then Pulsar could be more customizable. Apache Kafka is nothing but a streaming system with local storage. Apache Kafka fits into many use cases, it's very direct, but if you want more specific use cases and you use Apache Kafka, Pulsar could be considered.

Apache Kafka was simple to install. If you have a complicated clustered production, it takes time. However, for the development, it doesn't take more than one or two hours.

We have approximately two to four technical managers that are deploying and supporting Apache Kafka. A technical manager is necessary.

Apache Kafka is an open-sourced solution. There are fees if you want the support, and I would recommend it for enterprises. There are annual subscriptions available.

Apache Kafka is one of the best open-source solutions that are available today.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Apache Kafka an eight out of ten.

I am a solution architect and I used Apache Kafka in this role.

The processing power of Apache Kafka is good when you have requirements for high throughput and a large number of consumers. 

They need to have a proper portal to do everything because, at this moment, Kafka is lagging in this regard. It could be used to do the preprocessing or the configurations, instead of directly doing it on the queues or the topics. If you look at Solace, for example, they have come up with a portal where you don't need to touch these activities. You don't need to access the platform beyond the portal.

I have used Apache Kafka for between one and one and a half years.

Apache Kafka is stable.

This is certainly a scalable product. There are currently 30 or more people using it but we expect to scale beyond this. It is going to be an enterprise tool within the company.

I am not directly interacting with the service people at this moment. It is limited for now because we are still exploring and effecting our architecture and design, and deciding how to align it with our existing strategy. There is not much progress in this regard and it will take more time.

Prior to working with Apache Kafka, there was no messaging queue system. For many projects, they were using the Azure Event Hub, but it was not serving the purpose. So, we started moving towards Kafka, and that's why we have procured Confluent Kafka.

Several months ago, I stopped working on Apache Kafka. I am now working on Confluent Kafka. It was not my decision to switch solutions.

My current organization has chosen Confluent Kafka for various reasons. One is that we have a large number of streaming requirements, and Confluent Kafka has one more layer on top of Apache Kafka to do this transformation and connecting with other multiple lane systems.

There are out-of-the-box features along with the KSQL features. For example, things like fetching the events are kind of query-based. So, that seems to be a good feature for our requirements. That is why we ultimately procured Confluent Kafka.

For some time, I have also worked with Solace and it has an advantage. Given that my core strength is integration, I work with integration platforms such as MuleSoft, Azure functions, then TIBCO. Based on our requirements, I found that the event-driven APA implementation with Solace was easier.

Solace also has a top-notch solution for portal management and you register your producers, consumers, and preprocessing logic. All of these things are pretty easy to do. This is an area where Kafka could use some enhancement.

I don't think that the initial setup was a complex process.

MQ messaging systems are not my core strength but for any integration platform where we have a large number of APIs and events, to integrate with an IoT platform, for example, I found Kafka is better than ActiveMQ.

I'm not getting into in MQTT or other things but comparatively, when you compare ActiveMQ and Kafka, Kafka has done better.

I think that many people are using Apache Kafka just as a publishing and subscription model, but I feel that Kafka is better than that. Furthermore, Confluent Kafka is even more than that.

Confluent Kafka is offering features that are equal to those of a data lake. You can do lots with data, and huge data can be persisted. However, many people are not using that feature. Rather than make use of persistence logic, they are pushing the messages and consuming them. Maybe if people were using it for persistence, they would see the impact or real power of Kafka.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

The most valuable feature is the documentation, which is good and clear.

An area for improvement would be growth.

I've been using this solution for just over a year.

Kafka works very well.

The initial setup was simple.

I would rate this solution six out of ten.