Choosing the Right Messaging Tool: Redis Streams, Redis Pub/Sub, Kafka, and More

Communication between services is a core aspect of any distributed system.

With the introduction of Redis Streams, we now have even more choices for handling synchronous and asynchronous communication.

But how do you decide which tool fits your needs best? Let’s break it down.

Understanding Synchronous vs. Asynchronous Communication

Synchronous Communication

In a synchronous setup, all participants must be active simultaneously.

The simplest example is a direct API call—Service A makes an HTTP request to Service B and waits for a response.

If Service B is down, Service A either has to retry or degrade gracefully (e.g., Netflix showing random recommendations if its suggestion engine is unavailable).

For one-to-one communication, simple RPC (Remote Procedure Call) works.

But for one-to-many or many-to-many communication, we have two main approaches:

Brokerless Communication

Brokerless systems, like ZeroMQ and nanoMsg, allow direct connections between services, offering patterns like Pub/Sub and Push/Pull without needing a central broker.

These are ultra-fast but require each participant to know about others, making failure scenarios more complex.

Brokered Communication

Brokered systems use a central message broker to handle communication.

Redis Pub/Sub is a prime example—it enables lightweight, fire-and-forget messaging.

Unlike traditional message queues, Redis Pub/Sub doesn’t store messages, making it a great choice for real-time, ephemeral communication (e.g., live notifications or chat apps without history).

With Redis Streams, Redis now provides better delivery guarantees.

If you’ve used Pub/Sub but need message persistence and replayability, Streams might be a better fit.

Asynchronous Communication

Asynchronous systems allow services to communicate even if they aren’t online at the same time.

This requires message persistence to ensure delivery despite failures.

Queue-Based Asynchronous Communication

Message queues are the traditional approach, commonly used in service-oriented architectures.

Here’s how it works:

1. A service sends a message to a queue.
2. A worker service picks up the message and processes it.
3. The queue ensures reliable delivery and can retry failed messages.

RabbitMQ, which uses the AMQP protocol, is a popular choice for this pattern.

Frameworks like Celery (Python) and Sidekiq (Ruby) provide easy integrations with retries and failure handling.

Redis Lists can also be used as a simple task queue, and some tools like Kue provide Redis-backed job queues for JavaScript applications.

Stream-Based Asynchronous Communication

Instead of storing tasks in a queue, a stream-based approach treats data as an immutable, append-only log.

New services can subscribe to the stream and consume past events—making it ideal for event-driven architectures.

Kafka is the leading tool in this category, widely used for real-time analytics, event sourcing, and log processing.

Other alternatives include Apache Pulsar and Redis Streams.

With event sourcing, services don’t push tasks to queues but instead publish state changes to a stream. Other services listen to the stream and react accordingly.

This makes it easy to track historical data and answer questions like "What was the state of this object at time X?"

Redis Streams vs. Kafka

Both Redis Streams and Kafka serve similar purposes, but with key differences:

• Kafka is battle-tested: It’s designed for high-throughput event streaming and often serves as a system’s single source of truth.
• Redis Streams is simpler: It’s easy to set up, runs within Redis, and offers sub-millisecond latency, making it a good fit for real-time applications.
• Kafka is built for durability: It’s great when long-term storage and message replayability are critical.
• Redis Streams is lightweight: It’s ideal when you need fast, in-memory processing with persistence.

Kafka vs. Redis: A Side-by-Side Comparison

Feature	Kafka	Redis
Message Delivery	Pull-based, consumer-controlled	Push-based, immediate message delivery
Persistence	Disk-based, highly durable	In-memory, persistence via snapshotting or logging
Speed	High throughput, some latency due to disk storage	Extremely low latency, operates in RAM
Parallelism	Multi-threaded, scalable across nodes	Single-threaded, scales with more RAM per node
Core Architecture	Distributed clusters with brokers managing storage	Single-threaded in-memory data store
Origins	Developed at LinkedIn for event streaming	Created by Salvatore Sanfilippo as a fast data store
Data Volume Support	Virtually unlimited via distributed storage	Limited by server memory allocation

Choosing the Right Tool

Here are some real-world scenarios and the best fit for each:

Use Case	Best Fit
Real-time chat without history	Redis Pub/Sub
Chat with message history	Redis Streams or Kafka
Web crawling and job processing	RabbitMQ or Redis Lists
Event-driven microservices	Kafka or Redis Streams
IoT and log streaming	Kafka, Redis Streams, or Pulsar
Real-time analytics	Kafka or Redis Streams

Final Thoughts

Distributed systems require both communication and shared state management.

While tools like RabbitMQ, Redis Streams, and Kafka can all enable asynchronous messaging, choosing the right one depends on your needs.

Redis excels in flexibility, allowing you to mix and match data structures to implement messaging, queues, and streams—all in a single system.

Whether you need high-speed Pub/Sub, durable streams, or simple task queues, Redis provides powerful primitives to build efficient distributed architectures.

I’ve been working on a super-convenient tool called LiveAPI.

LiveAPI helps you get all your backend APIs documented in a few minutes

With LiveAPI, you can quickly generate interactive API documentation that allows users to execute APIs directly from the browser.

If you’re tired of manually creating docs for your APIs, this tool might just make your life easier.