> it felt paradoxical that users might want a scaled down Kafka rather than using SQLite directly if the scale didn't matter.
I don't need to push very many messages (not enough to justify running Kafka), but each of the messages that I do push are both 1. very important and must be cross-AZ durable, and 2. very urgent and must not be blocked by e.g. contended writes in a regular RDBMS.
Currently, the winner of this use-case for IaaS customers is "whatever cloud-native message-queue service your IaaS offers." (And those customers would also be the extent of WarpStream's Total Addressable Market here, given that WarpStream's architecture fundamentally relies on having a highly-replicated managed object store available.)
I'm therefore curious: in what ways does WarpStream win vs. Amazon SQS / Google Cloud Pub/Sub / Azure Queue Storage?
I don't need to push very many messages (not enough to justify running Kafka), but each of the messages that I do push are both 1. very important and must be cross-AZ durable, and 2. very urgent and must not be blocked by e.g. contended writes in a regular RDBMS.
Currently, the winner of this use-case for IaaS customers is "whatever cloud-native message-queue service your IaaS offers." (And those customers would also be the extent of WarpStream's Total Addressable Market here, given that WarpStream's architecture fundamentally relies on having a highly-replicated managed object store available.)
I'm therefore curious: in what ways does WarpStream win vs. Amazon SQS / Google Cloud Pub/Sub / Azure Queue Storage?