Breaking Down Kafka vs. Pulsar
November 19, 2020
Messaging systems are essential for their ability to enable remote communication and to transfer data. Apache Pulsar and Apache Kafka are two widely used messaging systems. Recently, Pulsar has emerged as a serious competitor to Kafka and is being embraced in use cases where Kafka dominated.
This article will compare Kafka and Pulsar in terms of architecture, geo-replication, and use cases.
An overview of Apache Kafka
LinkedIn released Apache Kafka in 2011. The open-source event streaming platform was founded on the concept of a distributed commit log. It can manage trillions of events daily. Kafka’s functionality consists of publishing/subscribing (pub/sub), processing of event streams, and permanent storage. To get a more in depth look at Kafka, check out this Introduction to Kafka article here.
An overview of Apache Pulsar
The original idea behind the development of Apache Pulsar was to create a queuing system. But this has expanded in the latest releases to incorporate event streaming features. Yahoo originally developed Pulsar. But the Apache Software Foundation has now taken control over the project.
Pulsar’s developers wanted to create a program that could provide solutions to corporations that other open-source alternatives couldn’t offer. Pulsar was founded to handle millions of partitions and topics with complete support for multi-tenancy and geo-replication. For a multi-tenancy software architecture, each customer shares a single database and the software application. It isolates each tenant’s data and ensures its inaccessibility by other tenants.
Pulsar uses topics as the mechanism to filter and deliver messages to a specified group. As a consumer, you subscribe to one or more topics of interest. You then receive messages sent by producers related to your topics of subscription. A topic can include one or more partitions. This enables the scaling of consumer and producer loads.
Kafka is comprised of Kafka Broker and ZooKeeper. The function of the Kafka Broker is to receive and store messages from producers on the disk keyed by a unique offset. It also enables consumers to fetch messages by offset, partition, and topics. The older version of ZooKeeper used to store data relating to consumer groups such as topic consumption offsets. This has changed since then to include leadership election, service delivery, and metadata storage for the cluster.
They center the messaging capabilities of Kafka on the Kafka Broker. Kafka Broker ends consumer and producer connections, sends messages to consumers and accepts new messages from producers. Kafka Broker’s storage of messages on disk provides message guarantees.
Kafka Broker’s stateful nature means a broker can only contain the complete state for its topics. If a broker fails, we can’t just use any broker as a replacement.
The Pulsar architecture has three major components: BookKeeper Bookie, Pulsar Broker, and ZooKeeper.
Pulsar’s ZooKeeper provides metadata storage, leadership elections, and service delivery. This is also the case with Kafka ZooKeeper.
Pulsar differs from Kafka by separating the messaging storage and messaging serving functions. It does this separation using the BookKeeper Bookie and Pulsar Broker components. The BookKeeper Bookies stores messages.
The Pulsar Broker serves messages between consumers and producers. With such a layered architecture, the Pulsar Broker is stateless. This allows for any broker to take over from another failed broker.
Pulsar’s developers intended to create a message distribution application that could allow users to replicate messages between geographically different data centers. The geo-replication feature is fully integrated into Pulsar’s administration interfaces. You can disable or enable the geo-replication feature at the namespace (a namespace is basic administrative unit in Pulsar) level.
As an administrator, you can decide on which topics to replicate. For individual producers, they can execute specific datacenters from receiving copies of messages they publish.
Pulsar’s geo-replication feature supports many topologies, including full-mesh, active-active, edge aggregation, and active-standby. A network topology is a geometric representation of how computers are connected to each other. Typical geo-replication setups perform message replication asynchronously. But with Pulsar, you can do synchronous geo-replication.
Pulsar’s geo-replication functionality is rich and can support almost all configurations. The management and configuration of geo-replication is fully integrated into Pulsar. This way, you don’t need extensions or external packages.
In the Kafka documentation, geo-replication is referred to as mirroring. Kafka replicates messages from one cluster to another through the MirrorMaker tool.
Kafka also has another geo-replication option, uReplicator. uReplicator allows replication across Kafka clusters in other data centers. This allows the publishing of data to many regional clusters and aggregation of the same in one Kafka cluster. Uber developed the uReplicator tool to address the challenges of MirrorMaker. As a result, the performance, operations, and scalability of MirrorMaker improved.
The tool also offered better geo-replication. However, as an independent distributed system, users can operate controller and worker nodes in parallel with the Kafka cluster. Other commercial solutions to Kafka geo-replication exist, such as Confluent Replicator.
Although geo-replication is possible in Kafka, it’s not as simple as it is in Pulsar. To support Kafka’s geo-replication, a user must choose among many solutions, run parallel tools, or even a whole distributed system.
Originally developed as a unified pub/sub messaging platform, Pulsar has grown to become an event streaming and unified messaging platform. Pulsar is composed of a complete set of tools necessary to provide all the essentials for building event streaming applications.
Pulsar relies on pulsar function, pulsar protocol handler, and pulsar IO to provide routing capabilities. These routing capabilities include message transformation, message enrichment, and content-based routing.
Pulsar IO connectors allow easy creation, deployment, and management of connectors that interact with external systems, including Aerospike, Cassandra, and others. Pulsar’s routing capabilities are more advanced compared to Kafka’s.
Besides, Pulsar’s deployment model for functions and connectors is much more flexible. You can run these functions and connectors within a broker to allow easy deployment. Or otherwise, run them in a dedicated pool of nodes, as with Kafka streams.
This will allow for massive scale-out. You can also configure Pulsar to schedule connector workloads and functions as pods. This is possible considering Pulsar integrates seamlessly with Kubernetes.
Pulsar is still young when compared to the more mature Kafka. Kafka was developed and is suitable for high scale use cases. However, Pulsar’s ecosystem is expanding and developing, with new use cases being added and its technology developing rapidly. Besides, Pulsar is less complex to scale and operate.
Kafka’s level of maturity and resiliency has captured the attention of many users. Kafka Connect is a host for multiple data sources. Confluent and Amazon offer managed services making it easier to get large Kafka clusters up and running, unlike in previous years.
Apache Pulsar has captured the market for users intending to build a multi-tenant and geo-replicated messaging system from the start. Also, those with large storage needs choose Pulsar over Kafka.
In short, Pulsar is helpful to organizations working to embrace event streaming and a unified messaging platform. But for those in need of an enterprise solution that covers much more than what Pulsar offers, Kafka is an excellent choice.
About the authorEric Kahuha
Eric is a data scientist interested in using scientific methods, algorithms, and processes to extract insights from both structural and unstructured data. Enjoys converting raw data into meaningful information and contributing to data science topical issues.