Difference with WarpStream
AutoMQ and WarpStream both leverage object storage to store message data, and they share some architectural similarities. This article will focus on the differences and comparisons between AutoMQ and WarpStream.
WarpStream reimplements the Apache Kafka® protocol, utilizing S3 object storage to build Kafka functionalities. This architecture does not reuse any Kafka code but instead uses the WarpStream Agent component to reimplement Kafka features and APIs. Messages produced by applications are directly forwarded to S3 object storage by the Agent, which itself does not need to implement storage logic, resulting in a completely stateless architectural design.
AutoMQ, on the other hand, adopts a stateless design philosophy with storage-compute separation in its technical architecture. It chooses to reuse the Apache Kafka® computation layer code, separating the storage layer originally based on local storage to remote storage based on S3 object storage. Only minimal aspects of the storage layer are replaced, maintaining the consistency of the upper-layer protocol and functional interfaces.
WarpStream Architecture
AutoMQ Architecture
WarpStream has chosen to reimplement the Apache Kafka® protocol, currently supporting only the core data link API. The support for Admin-related APIs and older versions of APIs is incomplete, with certain interfaces being unimplementable due to architectural differences. For detailed information, please refer to reference link.
AutoMQ repurposes Apache Kafka's computation layer code, only replacing the underlying storage. This approach ensures that it is fully compatible with the corresponding version of Apache Kafka®. Applications using Apache Kafka® can switch to AutoMQ without modifying their configurations. For more compatibility details, please refer to Compatibility with Apache Kafka▸.
WarpStream uses agent components to forward messages to object storage. Accessing S3 incurs API billing and introduces hundreds of milliseconds of call latency, so batch processing is performed in the synchronous message writing path. This results in WarpStream's P99 write latency exceeding 620ms, with an end-to-end P99 latency reaching 1.27s.
AutoMQ uses block storage EBS or file storage EFS as the WAL cache for message writing chains. It responds immediately after writing messages to EBS, asynchronously uploading to object storage in the background, while utilizing memory to quickly cache hot data, achieving millisecond-level message read and write latency.
WarpStream is a commercial closed-source project that provides services compatible with the Kafka protocol. In contrast, AutoMQ offers fully managed cloud services and private deployment options, with private deployment supporting the Community Edition, which includes source code. For detailed information, please refer to Difference with AutoMQ Business Edition▸.
While both AutoMQ and WarpStream use object storage, there are differences in their architectural focus and trade-offs. The summary comparison is as follows:
|
Comparison Item |
WarpStream |
AutoMQ |
|---|---|---|
|
Architecture |
Rewrite Kafka protocol |
Aspect replacement for Kafka storage |
|
Compatibility |
Partially compatible with Apache Kafka® features |
Reuses Kafka compute layer code, fully compatible |
|
Latency |
400+ms write latency, 1s end-to-end latency |
< 10ms read/write latency |
|
Openness |
Commercial closed-source |
Commercial + source visible |