
Amazon MQ – Managed Message Broker Service for ActiveMQ - manigandham
https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/amazon-mq-managed-message-broker-service-for-activemq/
======
dcosson
Are there any plans to integrate IAM roles with the ActiveMQ login portal?

It's weird to see a username & password step there, one big benefit of keeping
everything within AWS is how easy it is to give anyone on the team access to
whatever they need without creating new passwords for everyone (or worse,
sharing a shared password if you can only have one login). Now if I use
ActiveMQ it's another password that will need to be managed, rotated, revoked
when people leave the company, etc.

This looks like a cool product, but I hope it doesn't turn out to be another
AWS Elasticsearch Service (which is the worst of both worlds in having a
frustratingly leaky abstraction layer between the underlying open-source tools
and the AWS wrapper, but still having a sufficiently complex layer that it's
too hard for AWS to keep up with the latest versions).

Hopefully ActiveMQ service can at least run in a VPC?

------
jsmeaton
We would probably use this tomorrow (replacing self managed Rabbit MQ
instances) if celery/kombu supported ActiveMQ. Might be the service that
generates the volunteers needed to add ActiveMQ support to Kombu. (Not ruling
out attempting this myself either).

~~~
e1g
> With Amazon MQ support standard protocols for messaging, including JMS, NMS,
> AMQP, STOMP, MQTT, and WebSocket. This allows you to move from any message
> broker that uses these standards to Amazon MQ–along with the supported
> applications–without rewriting code.

Celery/kombu speaks AMQP, which is natively supported by AmazonMQ, so you
might be able to move to it with no changes to your app.

~~~
algorithmmonkey
You sure that's AMQP 1.0 or 0.9? I say that b/c ActiveMQ is AMQP 1.0
([http://activemq.apache.org/amqp.html](http://activemq.apache.org/amqp.html))
and RabbitMQ is probably running 0.9 unless you are using the experimental 1.0
plugin.

Nearly all the libraries working with AMQP 0.9 will not function when
targeting an AMQP 1.0 service.

------
manigandham
Interesting choice, wonder why they didnt go with Apache Apollo which is
supposed to be the successor to ActiveMQ, or newer systems like RocketMQ or
Apache Pulsar.

~~~
talawahdotnet
I believe Apollo was abandoned in favor of Artemis[1] which is based on
RedHat's donation of HornetQ. But yea, the community doesn't seem to have
rushed to adopt Artemis so it looks like AWS is starting where the numbers
are.

The Amazon MQ UI specifically mentions which "Engine" is being used so
hopefully there will be other options in the future. Similar to how RDS and
Elasticache support multiple DB/Cache Engines.

1\.
[https://activemq.apache.org/artemis/](https://activemq.apache.org/artemis/)

------
andrewstuart
This is interesting but I don't want serverful queueing

I'd like it if SQS had priority queues.

~~~
bpicolo
My biggest miss on SQS is > 15 minute delays

~~~
throwaway2016a
I have never had a delay more than 45 seconds... that is of course anecdotal.

~~~
bpicolo
I mean intentional delays. SQS caps at 15 minutes for that. I often want to
just do something trivial like "send this email in 2 hours" and need a non-SQS
queueing system, or a hack on SQS with requeueing, to support that

~~~
throwaway2016a
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. I rarely use the delayed execution feature, I was
unaware it was that low.

------
hiram112
ActiveMQ has been around for a long time (along with JMS), with pub/sub,
broadcast, queues, transactions, etc. So can anyone tell me why things like
Kafka have seen such interest in the last few years?

Is it just another example of an improvement to a long existing solution - the
advantage being that Kafka easily scales horizontally? Obviously, great for
the minority of projects that actually need it, but just another example of a
fad for the 90% who would be just fine using the tried and true, but unhip
solution.

~~~
ec109685
You can also easily rewind the Kafka stream back to the beginning of time,
with compaction (if you keep that much data around).

------
binarymax
Does this hook into services like SQS does? For example, we use SQS to listen
for S3 events and would love to switch to AMQ...but not if we need to wire it
up to S3 manually.

~~~
alexbilbie
You could wire this up with a Lambda middleware function: S3 -> Lambda -> AMQ

------
netcraft
[https://aws.amazon.com/amazon-mq/pricing/](https://aws.amazon.com/amazon-
mq/pricing/) is a 404 right now and it still isnt listed on the main products
page. Although from the screenshot it looks like its micro for $0.03 and large
for $0.30 plus storage. Not an amazing price imo given how easy it is to run
activemq, but not terrible either.

~~~
manigandham
It's available in the console - pricing & costs(US):

mq.t2.micro $0.03 per hour

mq.m4.large $0.3 per hour

Storage $0.3 per GB-month

Looks like its limited to a single node or HA pair.

------
tjridesbikes
Sounds interesting, but I'm pretty sure we need to keep out ActiveMQ instance
in local machines because of medical data. We're also pretty tied to GCS...

~~~
rficcaglia
Where in the CFR does it say you have to use physical servers or even
dedicated cloud instances? AWS will sign a BAA for dedicated instances only
(biz policy, not for any valid security reason), but dedicated servers are not
required by HIPAA.

~~~
Merrack
The requirement for dedicated instances was lifted earlier this year. See
[https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/apn/aws-hipaa-program-update-
re...](https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/apn/aws-hipaa-program-update-removal-of-
dedicated-instance-requirement/) for more info.

~~~
rficcaglia
Thank you! Slipped by my addictive refresh of What’s New!

------
llama9000
About time. Before this the only managed choice within AWS was IoT, which
definitely felt not quite right for just some MQTT/websocket work.

------
donatj
I will have to give this a look. We manage our own MQ currently but autoscaled
managed MQ would be the dream. SQS simply did not meet our needs.

