VMware RabbitMQ Reviews

The use case involves the transferring of messages between services. It includes asynchronous messaging and I also need messages flowing to multiple microservices. In this case, it's basically a fan-out mechanism.

RabbitMQ is configurable and quite flexible.

The performance is fast and reliable.

It is easy to use. The addition of more queues and more services can be managed very easily.

There are some security concerns that have been raised with this product.

The configuration works with a config file, where all of the controls, including that of the administrator and user access, are stored there. The security isn't very stringent or very elaborate.

RabbitMQ is a stable solution.

This is a scalable product. There are six or seven services that are connected and using it.

I have not been involved with anything that necessitated contacting the support team.

Previously, we were using MSMQ, which is the Microsoft Message Queuing service. However, with the new version of .NET 4, support for MSMQ was no longer available. We could no longer get the libraries. As a result, we had to switch to a different queue mechanism. 

I have also used Azure Queue.

The initial deployment was quite easy. It took less than half an hour to get it up and running.

I deployed it myself.

The pricing for RabbitMQ is reasonable. It is worth the cost.

We researched ZeroMQ, RabbitMQ, and Kafka. We found that Kafka was a bit of an overkill because our requirements were quite simple. RabbitMQ was pretty easy to set up, which is why we chose it.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this product is to establish your users and exchanges properly.

In general, I'm quite comfortable with RabbitMQ. It satisfies my requirements and the main complaint I have is about the security.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

I am still comparing RabbitMQ and Kafka, but based upon the information I have gathered RabbitMQ is an awesome tool.

RabbitMQ will help to remove a lot of the complexities and create a loosely coupled codebase.

I like the high throughput of 20K messages/sec, and that it supports multiple protocols. The flexible routing is great as well.

The next release should include some of the flexibility and features that Kafka offers.

I have used IBM MQ software, but it was not applicable to this application.

I have evaluated and researched Axon, RabbitMQ, Kafka, and IBM MQ.

Our primary use case is as a messaging broker between enterprise applications. It makes for reliable and secure communication.

The most valuable feature for me is that it is open source. The licensing costs are really low and they are transparent. You know how much you are going to pay if you want the commercial version. If you want the open-source version, you do not have to pay anything and that is just as reliable as the commercial one.

I would like to see the performance of the administration portal improved and additional messaging protocols.

I have been working with VMware RabbitMQ for the past eight years.

It is highly stable, reliable, and persistent.

VMware RabbitMQ is definitely scalable.

Technical support is excellent.

Positive

The initial setup was very easy and takes about five minutes to install.

If you want to pay for the licensing it costs eight hundred dollars per CPU core annually with the support.

I would give the following advice prepare a demo, with the vendor and check if it really applies to their needs. I would rate VMware RabbitMQ a nine out of ten.

• Transaction processing between microservices
• Message queue integration with Spring and RPC over Rabbit.

• Quick and simple to implement

• Easy to build proof-of-concept modules based on working examples from Pivotal.

• Out-of-the-box setup and configuration
• Great documentation and support from Pivotal
• Very useful management console

• Difficult to integrate with automated test and CICD 
• Moving beyond basic configurations can be challenging
• Not clear how to implement durable subscriber connections
• Not clear how a Rabbit service restart allows subscriber auto re-connect
• Service cluster failover depends on shared disk infrastructure.

• The publisher and consumer ACK
• High availability
• Queue mirroring
• Exchanges and topics
• Supported programming languages with well-tested libraries

It provides us with a much better scale. We have never lost a single message with RabbitMQ.

The shared RabbitMQ Cluster has improved stability and maintainability of each application. We only have one message bus now.

I want it to reorder messages in a queue, if possible. If you could reorder messages in a queue directly, then you would not need a sequencer to reorder messages outside of RabbitMQ.

I have used this solution for seven years.

There were no stability issues.

There were no scalability issues.

We haven’t needed to use any support yet.

Initially, we were using the BizTalk and Redis solutions. The reason why we switched over was because we were looking for better support in Celery task management and other programming languages. We were looking for a much more stable and secure solution.

It is very simple to set up for basic usage. Clustering is a bit more complex, but it is also easy to do.

The RabbitMQ open source version works fine for almost all the use cases that I came across.

We looked at the Redis solution, but it was not a good fit for our needs.

Read the documentation and follow best practices. Make sure Erlang is up to date!

The security is great. The interface is nothing special. The support hasn't been that great. You need to go online yourself, to the developer community for support. But apart from that, I think it's fairly secured, quite robust, and stable so far.

Their implementation is quite tricky. It's not that easy to implement RabbitMQ as a cluster. It would be great if they could improve that. 

I have been using RabbitMQ for three years. 

It's quite stable.

It is very scalable. I have a team of 10 developers who are using it and I have some of our clients using it in our Cloud cluster. We have about 10 banks running on the platform now.

I would rate their support as a five out of ten. It has room for major improvement. 

The initial setup is quite straightforward. It can be done within a few hours. 

I would recommend it, but I think there should be a proof of concept for the developer team to get their hands around it and have full control of it before they go into production.

I would rate RabbitMQ a seven out of ten. 

In the next release, I would like for them to improve the UI.

The most valuable features for us are speed and persistent messaging.

We are now able to leverage real time applications and event driven architecture.

The documentation needs to be improved. There's a learning curve on setting it up and there are issues arising from slower networks that they lack documentation on.

We have been using the product for three years.

Stability issues experienced were only due to a slow network at the client.

We did not encounter any scalability issues.

I never used the technical support.

I am not aware of any previous solutions.

We are a container shop and the only issues during setup were around proper clustering and configuring the application to use it.

We evaluated Apache Kafka also.

I would advise potential customers to use something to wrap their interaction, like Spring for Java.

Some valuable features of this product are:

• Message queuing
• Good support
• Provided scalability and a distributed environment
• Easy usability with NodeJS
• Could easily withstand and pass stress/load testing with more than 10K API calls
• Helped achieve a distributed environment and implement a 3-tier structure
• Helped to develop a highly scalable system by decoupling front end and back end

We had a project where we had huge responses to APIs from the front-end and had to handle such large responses/requests without losing any of them. RabbitMQ efficiently handled this problem by providing message queuing and decoupling our front end and back end.

I would love to see better documentation/demo for few technologies. There is need for better stability in the Windows environment.

I have used this product for around six months.

We encountered a few problems with Windows while clustering and hence we used Linux.

We did not encounter any scalability issues.

I would give the technical support a 7/10 rating.

It involved more of research as how to use RabbitMQ. For clustering, it was little bit complex but I was able to follow the documentation provided.

We did not evaluate any other solution prior to this one.

It gives product support with your technology.