ZeroMQ VS nsq

Slightly OT:

Are ZeroMQ and NanoMQ still widely used (and recommended)?

https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq

https://github.com/nanomq/nanomq

Remarkable, up until recently, requests for a new release were sumewhat brusquely rejected and marked as spam.

https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/issues/4455

I wonder what made the maintainer change his mind.

FP Libraries: gRPC, ZeroMQ, and AREG are examples of libraries with a special focus on providing possibilities for Interprocess Communication. Developed using C++, they facilitate communication through predefined APIs, emphasizing functional programming concepts.

Unlikely, but they seem to be different things altogether. BlazingMQ appears to be a traditional message queue (think ActiveMQ), with message peristence. ZeroMQ is more of a network middleware (think Tibco Rendezvous), and does not include persistence.

BlazingMQ also appears to be more of a "platform" or "service" that an app can use (sort of like Oracle, say) -- ZeroMQ includes libraries that one can use to build an app, service or platform, but none is provided "out of the box".

Which makes it harder to get started with ZeroMQ, since by definition every ZeroMQ app is essentially built "from scratch".

If you're interested in ZeroMQ, you may want to check out OZ (https://github.com/nyfix/OZ), which is a Rendezvous-like platform that uses the OpenMAMA API (https://github.com/finos/OpenMAMA) and ZeroMQ (https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq) transport to provide a full-featured network middleware implementation. OZ has been used in our shop since 2020 handling approx 50MM high-value messages per day on our global FIX network.

-- Using src='https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/releases/download/v4.3.4/zeromq-4.3.4.tar.gz'

Just check copying file in source repo https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq

I think the situation is more subtle than the poster admits.

No, ZeroMQ and successors do not tell you about socket state. You can't detect disconnection or reconnection. But then if a TCP connection fails in some way that does not lead to disconnection (packets getting dropped, remote machine powers down), it can't possibly tell you about that either, but you still need to deal with it. So in any case, you need some sort of application-level error detection and recovery; you need heartbeats, and serial numbers in messages, and a protocol for explicitly restarting a connection and performing the initial handshake. And once you have that, explicit connection events from ZeroMQ are much less important.

Admittedly, given that this is a TCP transport, reporting reconnections would still be useful, because TCP won't ever drop messages from the interior of a sequence itself (if it delivers 15, it has delivered 1 - 14 already), so you shouldn't need the serial numbers.

And if it's really not possible to detect authentication failures, than that seems rubbish. And it seems that is indeed the case: https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/issues/3505

From https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq

Interesting. What are you thoughts on NSQ?

https://github.com/nsqio/nsq

Was looking at it earlier today, but haven't ever tried it out.

(G)NATS can do millions of messages per second and is the right tool for the job (either that or NSQ). Redis isn't even the fastest Redis protocol implementation, KeyDB significantly outperforms it.

Bit.ly's NSQ is also an excellent message queue option.

Queue consumers are interesting because there are many solutions for them, from using Redis and persisting the data in a data store - but for fast and scalable the approach I would take is something like SQS (as I advocate AWS even free tier) or NSQ for managing your own distributed producers and consumers.

distrubition server engine ( for example websocket server multi ws gateway and worker pool,nsq.io realtime message queue and so on)