IBM white paper on InforSphere Streams vs. Storm

IBM has a white paper from 2013 comparing Streams with Storm. As expected, the paper is full of marketing mambo jumbo applicable for suits. I usually try to avoid such information but I couldn't resist. I have to give IBM credit for even having such a paper, to acknowledge Storm as a market leader, even if the motive is somewhat shady. The paper is a bit outdated, stating Storm is GPL licensed software and has no market leading companies behind it. If you haven't heard, Hortonworks has picked up Storm and has some committers dedicated to it. It's also part of Hortonworks Data Platform stack as of v. 2.1. In addition to that, Storm is now a top level Apache project and no longer GPL. 0MQ messaging is now a second class citizen in favor of Netty, a fully native Java stack. The argument of the paper is that Storm lacks enterprise support. Hortonworks will gladly provide it. Either way, this paper is kind of expected from a large vendor like IBM. I'm in no role suitable to distinguish the winning system but some of the oft-repeating reasons against Storm are no longer valid. One huge plus for Storm that Streams doesn't have is Windows support. I think, "suits" will really like that once Storm becomes a household name. Community will also address security and stability issues with Storm with projects like Apache Knox as well as Apache Slider, where one provides a REST gateway client with encryption and authentication leveraging Active Directory and/or LDAP and the other offering Storm on YARN, I'll leave the stability claims until then. Although, as I'd mentioned before, Streams on YARN is in the works, making this argument moot. Lastly, here's the paper and please make your own judgements.


Popular posts from this blog

Vista Vulnerability Report mentions Ubuntu 6.06 LTS

Running CockroachDB with Docker Compose and Minio, Part 2

Doing "print screen" on a Mac is a pain in the ass