SQS as replacement for RabbitMQ/Redis?

[Matjaz Gregoric]

Hello,

EdX has moved to Redis as the queuing backend for celery.

Was SQS ever evaluated as a possible replacement for RabbitMQ? If it was, what were the reasons edX chose Redis instead?

I am not questioning the decision at all, I'm just curious what the drawbacks of SQS are.

Thanks,
--

Matjaz Gregoric

@OpenCraft

[David Ormsbee]

I wasn't on the team that did the work, but I was involved in some of the early discussions. Some advantages of Redis over SQS for our purposes:

* Better supported by Celery (e.g. monitoring)

* Less tied to AWS-specific infrastructure, but there's still an AWS-managed option in ElastiCache

* In the longer term, we could replace Memcached with Redis, giving us a more flexible cache and reducing the number of technologies needed to set up and run Open edX.

Take care.

Dave

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "General Open edX discussion" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/edx-code/CALNP4Ff0JxYL6bcWMENHpTXOSfbP%2B8bwPYxv07FzDU1-dvwJpA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Matjaz Gregoric]

That makes sense, thanks Dave!

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/edx-code/CAO_oFPwqE22_GYMhj2Nq96EM9cPsd%2B6_ji9TCO40v%3DXdODB3Kg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Matjaz Gregoric

@OpenCraft