Apache Kafka Reviews

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.

I use Kafka to send network packets from different sources to my cluster. We have around 10 users at my company.

Kafka is scalable. It can manage a high volume of data from many sources.

The interface has room for improvement, and there is a steep learning curve for Hadoop integration. It was a struggle learning to send from Hadoop to Kafka. In future releases, I'd like to see improvements in ETL functionality and Hadoop integration. 

I have used Kafka for around six months.

I rate Apache Kafka seven out of 10 for stability. 

I rate Kafka eight out of 10 for scalability. 

I rate Apache support six out of 10. It was hard to find the information I needed. 

Neutral

Before Kafka, I sent feeds directly to Hadoop.

I initially found Kafka difficult to set up, so I would rate it about five out of 10 for ease of setup. After I learned more about the platform, I would rate it eight out of 10. It is deployed on-premises over a cluster of three or four PCs. You can deploy Kafka in a few hours with one person. 

Kafka is open source. 

I rate Apache Kafka eight out of 10. I would recommend it to others. 

One of our clients needed to take events out of SAP to stream them through Apache Kafka while applying data enrichment before reaching the consumers.

The solution can handle more speed and has horizontal scalability for both messaging, but more specifically stream processing and data enrichment. By using this solution it can reduce the number of components required in the tech stack. For example, we were taking data events out of SAP and sending them to consumers without having to go through multiple processors that were outside of the KAFKA space. Additionally, we are using Kafka from GoldenGate to propagate database updates in real-time.

The most valuable features are the stream API, consumer groups, and the way that the scaling takes place. 

I would like to see real-time event-based consumption of messages rather than the traditional way through a loop. The traditional messaging system works by listing and looping with a small wait to check to see what the messages are. A push system is where you have something that is ready to receive a message and when the message comes in and hits the partition, it goes straight to the consumer versus the consumer having to pull. I believe this consumer approach is something they are working on and may come in an upcoming release. However, that is message consumption versus message listening.

Confluent created the KSQL language, but they gave it to the open-source community. I would like to see KSQL be able to be used on raw data versus structured and semi-structured data.

I have been using this solution for approximately one year.

The solution is stable.

I have found the Apache Kafka to be highly scalable

The project we were working on was open-source, we were using Confluent as support and they were great.

Apache Kafka on AWS is a bit complex. There is a third-party company called Confluent and they have the support that makes their installation much easier, especially for the on-premise deployment. You install Apache Kafka alone it can be a little complex compared to other queuing messaging solutions.

The on-premise deployment takes approximately a few days. The cloud or hybrid deployments including all the permissions, typologies, firewalls, and networking configuration can take weeks for all the accessibility issues to be resolved. However, the delay could have been client-related and not necessarily the solution.

We provide the implementation service.

Apache Kafka is free. My clients were using Confluent which provides high-quality support and services, and it was relatively expensive for our client. There was a lot of back and forth on negotiating the price.

Confluent has an offering that has Cloud-Based pricing. There are different packages, prices, and capabilities. The highest level being the most expensive. AWS provides services to their market, for example, to have Kafka running. I do not know what the pricing is and I am fairly confident, Azure and GCP provide similar services.

My advice to others wanting to implement this solution is to start with data streaming projects, not simple messaging projects because while it is very good at general-purpose messaging, it is more suited and geared for when you are using it as a streaming solution.

I rate Apache Kafka an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for big data. We often get a million messages per second, and with such a high output we use Kafka to help us handle it. 

When we're working with big data, we need a throughput computing panel, which is something that Kafka provides, and something we find extremely valuable. It helps us support computing and ensures there's no loss of data. It can even do replication with some data.

The delivery of data is it's most valuable aspect.

It's an easy to use product overall.

The solution is quite mature.

It's an open-source product, which means it doesn't cost us anything to use it.

We're still going through the solution. Right now, I can't suggest any features that might be missing. I don't see where there can be an improvement in that regard.

The speed isn't as fast as RabbitMQ, even though the solution touts itself as very quick. It could be faster. They should work to make it at least as fast as RabbitMQ.

The UI is based on command line. It would be helpful if they could come up with a simpler user interface.

They should make it easier to configure items on the solution.

The solution would benefit from the addition of better monitoring tools.

I've been using the solution for six months.

The solution is a bit slow in comparison to RabbitMQ. It's supposed to be a very fast solution, and it has okay performance, but speed-wise, it's quite slow.

The scaling of the solution is quite good.

In terms of technical support, we don't get that directly from Apache Kafka. We have certain cloud data distribution so we get assistance from our cloud data support.

We're continuously deploying the product. We're still in the process of deployment.

It's an open-source product, so the pricing isn't an issue. It's free to use. We don't have costs associated with it.

I'm not the product owner, so I didn't have a say in what should be chosen. We were seeing a high throughput with Kafka which is why we ultimately chose it.

 I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. It's good at scaling, and, performance-wise, it's excellent. If they could add upon the UI and allow for easier configuration, I'd rate them higher.

We had an application stack consisting of Salesforce frontend and a Commander VPN position management system and used Apache Kafka to decouple the microservices. Additionally, we planned to use Kafka for stream processing and to use event sourcing to pull data from legacy systems and reference data to form a compacted topic that the microservices could consume.

The usage of Kafka is a combination of deploying on a personal Kubernetes cluster or using a managed service such as MSK. However, most people who use Kafka are using a managed service provided by Confluent. It can be deployed on the cloud or on-premise.

The most valuable feature of Apache Kafka is its versatility. It can solve many use cases or can be a part of many use cases. Its fundamental value of it is in the real-time processing capability.

You need time-sensitive technology now, particularly in the analytics space. We have looked at using change data capture and Apache Kafka to modernize our analytics capabilities. Additionally, microservices can be used to capture events from legacy systems.

Managing Apache Kafka can be a challenge, but there are solutions. I used the newest release, as it seems they have removed Zookeeper, which should make it easier. Confluent provides a fully managed Kafka platform, in which the cluster does not need to be managed.

If it is a native Apache Kafka, it would have schema registry capabilities. However, this type of functionality is often provided by third-party tools. Additionally, there may be a need for improved manageability and additional tools to manage the cluster, including standard operational metrics and inbuilt management capabilities.

I have been using Apache Kafka for approximately three years.

The solution is highly resilient.

I rate the stability of Apache Kafka a nine out of ten.

Apache Kafka is scalable.

I rate the scalability of Apache Kafka a nine out of ten.

The support from Apache Kafka is good.

The initial setup of Apache Kafka is easy to set up a cluster.  I did the initial setup on my laptop and it is straightforward. I used the Confluent version, but even if you want to run native capabilities it's straightforward to do the implementation.

The recent proof of concept was done on behalf of a client by a system integrator. Similarly, the previous one was mainly done in-house and it utilized Confluent, Apache Kafka, and MSK. The process involved setting up pre-built capabilities.

The price of the solution is low.

I rate the price of Apache Kafka a nine out of ten.

I rate Apache Kafka a nine out of ten.

We are in the early stages of testing this solution in our lab as a demo. It is in development and we are not in production at this point.

We are using this solution to relay events when they happen to multiple receivers at once to allow better functionality.

Apache Kafka has helped our client's online restaurant company by allowing them to take any orders and send the notifications with some other details, such as logic commands, to the different microservices.

The valuable features are the group community and support.

The solution can improve by having automation for developers. We have done many manual calculations and it has been difficult but if it was automated it would be much better.

I have been using this solution for approximately three months.

The solution's scalability is important for our ability to have more throughput from multiple receivers. If we need more throughput it can deliver.

We did use other solutions previously but this solution makes things a lot easier.

The installation is fairly easy. Additionally, there is a cloud-based version available if a use case requires it.

We did the implementation ourselves.

The solution is free, it is open-source.

There is a lot of configuration involved in this solution. We have found many configurations that have helped us but it would be beneficial if there was automation. 

I rate Apache Kafka a five out of ten.

Through its publisher-subscriber pattern, Kafka has allowed our applications to access and consume data at a real time pace.

I like the performance and reliability of Kafka. I needed a data streaming buffer that could handle thousands of messages per second with at least one processing point for an analytics pipeline. Kafka fits this requirement very well, as it is a fast, distributed message broker. It definitely does exactly what it is designed to do.

As an open-source project, Kafka is still fairly young and has not yet built out the stability and features that other open-source projects have acquired over the many years. If done correctly, Kafka can also take over the stream-processing space that technologies such as Apache Storm cover.

Currently, as it is in the big/fast data integration world, you need to piece together many different open-source technologies. For example, to create a reliable, fault-tolerant streaming processing system that ingests data, you need:

• a producer service
• an event/message buffer such as Kafka or a message queue
• a stream processing consumer such as Spark, Flink, Storm, etc.
• something to help facilitate the ingestion into target datasources such as Flume or some customized concoction.

This is simply to ingest the data and does not necessarily account for the analytical pieces, which may consist of Spark ML, SystemML, ElasticSearch, Mahout, etc.

What I'm getting at is basically the need for a Spring framework of big data.

The only stability issues we had were mostly a result of the evolving APIs and existing bugs.

Kafka is designed to be very easily scalable so I did not have any trouble here.

We used the open-source version and did not buy support from Confluent.

We did not have any other previous solutions. Our project was green field and a new type of project development.

Initial setup was straightforward. We simply hosted multiple Kafka brokers and ZooKeeper servers on AWS EC2 instances.

We implemented it in-house and then went with the Hortonworks Data Platform distribution.

We evaluated AWS Kinesis as well.

Kafka is open source and requires an administrator to maintain the servers.

We use Apache Kafka for our messaging. 

We publish a message and ask the subscriber to listen to it. We use it to save events generated by integration with external systems. There are external events, that are first published to our Kafka queue, and then to a topic, and then we save it to our own data storage system.

I believe that the speed, and especially the performance, are very good features.

Also included is a cluster with built-in failover. 

It is the performance that is really meaningful.

In terms of features, we are satisfied. I don't require any additional features. I don't believe we require any additional features at this time.

More Windows support, I believe, is one area where it can improve. We need to wrap it as a service, but there isn't one built into Windows. So that's something they could improve.

I believe Windows Server is primarily aimed at the Windows shop or those who use Windows.

I don't recall the specific version that we are using, it may be Kafka 2.11, but it is not the latest one.

It's stable. However, the Windows Service is not very stable because it is a wrapper.

We are a small team with a few people.

We might increase our usage in the future.

We don't get in touch with technical support. We rely on open-source software. We haven't used the help of technical support. We did not seek assistance. As a result, I have no opinion on the subject.

This is the first product we have used. We didn't have anything prior to that.

The initial setup is straightforward. It's easy to set up.

It took a few days to get it up and running.

We only need one or two engineers to keep this solution running. We basically let it run and monitor what's going on. We usually don't touch it unless something goes wrong.

We deployed it ourselves.

It's free. We use the free version.

VMware RabbitMQ and ActiveMQ are products that are not being used by us. I wanted to look into it. But we use different things.

We compared our findings to those of other researchers. We are primarily concerned with performance. Kafka is unquestionably the performance leader.

I would recommend trying this solution, but you should probably run it on Linux.

I like this product, I would rate Apache Kafka a nine out of ten.