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.
Architecture: Protocol Rewrite vs. Storage-Compute Separation
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.
Compatibility: Partial vs. 100%
WarpStream has chosen to reimplement the Apache Kafka protocol and currently supports only the core data link API. Its support for Admin-related APIs and older versions is not comprehensive, and some interfaces cannot be implemented due to architectural differences [2].
AutoMQ has reused Apache Kafka's computational layer code, only replacing the underlying storage, thereby achieving full compatibility with the corresponding version of Apache Kafka. Applications using Apache Kafka can switch to AutoMQ without needing to modify configurations. For more details on compatibility, please refer to Compatibility with Apache Kafka▸.
Latency: Sub-second Vs Millisecond
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.
Openness: Closed Source Vs Open Source
WarpStream is a commercial closed-source project that offers services compatible with the Kafka protocol. In contrast, AutoMQ provides fully managed cloud services and options for on-premise deployment, with the choice of a community version. The community version’s source code is open under the Apache License. For more details, please see Difference with AutoMQ Business Edition▸.
Summary
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 + Open Source (Apache License) |
References
-
WarpStream Architecture: https://docs.warpstream.com/warpstream/overview/architecture
-
WarpStream Compatibility: https://docs.warpstream.com/warpstream/reference/protocol-and-feature-support