Apache Kafka Reviews

We use the solution for analytics for streaming. We also use it for fraud detection.

The Kafka Streams library gives quite a bit of functionality. The connectors provided by the solution are valuable.

The ability to connect the producers and consumers must be improved. It's still a pain point because a lot of development goes into it.

I have been using the solution for seven to eight years.

For what it does, the tool is very stable. It is a message broker. It receives the messages and holds them for producers and consumers. It's usually everything around Kafka that has stability problems because Kafka does exactly what it's supposed to do.

Scalability is one of the main selling points of the tool. The additional nodes we add give us the additional storage capacity we need. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten. The solution is used across multiple domains in our organization. I use the product daily. It’s a continuously growing platform.

Apache doesn't provide support. There are sites we can go to for information, but there's no support team for Apache. There are companies like Confluent and HPE that provide support for the solution.

We also use Flink and other streaming tools. We use Apache Kafka in addition to other technologies because of the requirement and the business use cases.

It is super easy to set up. I rate the ease of setup a ten out of ten. However, building and administration get quite difficult. It takes three months to make things production-ready.

The deployment was done in-house. We used the tools that we have in our CI/CD pipeline. We needed three people for the deployment. The infrastructure team maintains the tool. The infrastructure team has three to ten members.

We see an ROI on the product. If we don't have a tool to buffer the amount of traffic coming in from high-traffic sites, we cannot use the data. Apache Kafka gives us a resting area where we can push as much information as we want to. It’s picked up by consumers when they need it.

It’s a huge return on investment. Otherwise, we must have a system tied to the producer waiting for the consumer to consume before we can do anything with the rest of the messages. A solution like Kafka provides us with a buffer to consume the data as we choose to.

The price depends on who we are getting the product from. If we buy it from Confluent, we always have to try to negotiate the price. The price is always negotiable.

Overall, I rate the product a six out of ten.

I like Kafka's flexibility, stability, reliability, and robustness.

Kafka has a lot of monitors, but sometimes it's most important to just have a simple monitor. Improvements to Kafka's management would be nice, but it's not so necessary for me. There are a lot of consoles that offer a better view than Kafka. Some are free, and some are paid, but I'm thinking about streaming. For example, if you connect more streams to a component in the same queue, how will it integrate to recognize the flow and the message?

I've been using Kafka for more than two years.

Kafka is stable. Defining our user base is hard because Kafka influences the whole company, so you could say around 100 users. Kafka is a core system, so it affects all users we choose to link to the primary key.

I previously used IBM MQ. 

The first time we tried to deploy Kafka, it seemed a little complicated, but the second try went better. Sometimes it isn't easy to set up the necessary communication or estimate how many partitions we need. Some applications have a vast amount of data, so we have to consider how to improve the performance and not increase the transfer times.

I rate Apache Kafka nine out of 10. I think it's one of the best tools on the internet.