Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Comparison of MQTT Brokers for Distributed IoT Edge Computing

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Software Architecture (ECSA 2020)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 12292))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Many enterprise IoT application scenarios, such as connected cars, smart cities, and cloud-connected industrial plants require distributed MQTT brokers to achieve high scalability and availability. With a market of over 20 MQTT brokers, it is hard for software architects to make a good selection. Existing MQTT comparisons often include only non-distributed brokers, focus exclusively on performance, or are difficult to generalize. We compared three distributed MQTT brokers for performance, scalability, resilience, security, extensibility, and usability in an enterprise IoT scenario deployed to an edge gateway cluster. We found that EMQX provided the best performance (28K msg/s), while only HiveMQ showed no message loss in our test scenario. VerneMQ offers similar features as the other brokers but is fully available as open source. The paper includes decision guidance for software architects, listing six major decision points regarding MQTT brokers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_MQTT_implementations.

  2. 2.

    https://www.emqx.io/.

  3. 3.

    https://kubeedge.io/.

  4. 4.

    https://www.hivemq.com/.

  5. 5.

    https://vernemq.com/.

  6. 6.

    https://www.starlingx.io/.

  7. 7.

    https://satori-com.github.io/mzbench/.

  8. 8.

    https://github.com/vernemq/vmq_mzbench.

  9. 9.

    http://mqtt-explorer.com/.

  10. 10.

    https://github.com/IFS-HSR/ADMentor.

  11. 11.

    https://pi3g.com/2019/05/29/mqtt-topic-tree-design-best-practices-tips-examples/.

  12. 12.

    https://satori-com.github.io/mzbench/scenarios/tutorial/.

References

  1. Al-Fuqaha, A., Guizani, M., Mohammadi, M., Aledhari, M., Ayyash, M.: Internet of Things: a survey on enabling technologies, protocols, and applications. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 17(4), 2347–2376 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bertrand-Martínez, E., Feio, P., Nascimento, V., Pinheiro, B., Abelém, A.: A methodology for classification and evaluation of IoT brokers. In: 9th Latin American Network Operations and Management Symposium, LANOMS. IFIP (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Basili, V.R., Caldiera, G., Rombach, H.D.: The goal question metric approach. In: Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, pp. 528–532 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chaudhari, M., Gupta, P.: Building pubsub for 50m concurrent socket connections, June 2019. https://blog.hotstar.com/building-pubsub-for-50m-concurrent-socket-connections-5506e3c3dabf

  5. De Caro, N., Colitti, W., Steenhaut, K., Mangino, G., Reali, G.: Comparison of two lightweight protocols for smartphone-based sensing. In: Symposium on Communications and Vehicular Technology in the Benelux (SCVT), pp. 1–6. IEEE (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fortune Business Insights: Internet-of-Things market research report, July 2019. https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/industry-reports/internet-of-things-iot-market-100307

  7. Haselböck, S., Weinreich, R.: Decision guidance models for microservice monitoring. In: International Conference on Software Architecture Workshops (ICSAW), pp. 54–61. IEEE (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hillar, G.C.: MQTT Essentials-A Lightweight IoT Protocol. Packt Publishing Ltd., Birmingham (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  9. HiveMQ-Team: 10,000,000 MQTT clients: HiveMQ cluster benchmark paper, October 2017. https://www.hivemq.com/benchmark-10-million/

  10. HiveMQ-Team: Comparison of MQTT support by IoT cloud platforms, May 2020. https://www.hivemq.com/blog/hivemq-cloud-vs-aws-iot/

  11. Hohpe, G., Woolf, B.: Enterprise Integration Patterns: Designing, Building, and Deploying Messaging Solutions. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Iglesias-Urkia, M., Orive, A., Barcelo, M., Moran, A., Bilbao, J., Urbieta, A.: Towards a lightweight protocol for industry 4.0: an implementation based benchmark. In: International Workshop of Electronics, Control, Measurement, Signals and their Application to Mechatronics (ECMSM), pp. 1–6. IEEE (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lampkin, V., et al.: Building Smarter Planet Solutions with MQTT and IBM WebSphere MQ Telemetry. IBM Redbooks (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Mesnil, J.: Mobile and Web Messaging: Messaging Protocols for Web and Mobile Devices. O’Reilly Media Inc., Sebastopol (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mishra, B.: Performance evaluation of MQTT broker servers. In: Gervasi, O., et al. (eds.) ICCSA 2018. LNCS, vol. 10963, pp. 599–609. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95171-3_47

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Naik, N.: Choice of effective messaging protocols for IoT systems: MQTT, CoAP, AMQP and HTTP. In: International Systems Engineering Symposium (ISSE), pp. 1–7. IEEE (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  17. O’Mahony, D., Doyle, D.: Reaching 5 million messaging connections: our journey with kubernetes, December 2018. https://www.slideshare.net/ConnectedMarketing/reaching-5-million-messaging-connections-our-journey-with-kubernetes-126143229

  18. Profanter, S., Tekat, A., Dorofeev, K., Rickert, M., Knoll, A.: OPC UA versus ROS, DDS, and MQTT: performance evaluation of industry 4.0 protocols. In: IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology (ICIT) (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sachs, K., Kounev, S., Bacon, J., Buchmann, A.: Performance evaluation of message-oriented middleware using the SPECjms2007 benchmark. Performance Evaluation 66(8), 410–434 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. ScaleAgent: benchmark of MQTT servers, January 2015. https://bit.ly/2WsTw0Z

  21. Sommer, P., Schellroth, F., Fischer, M., Schlechtendahl, J.: Message-oriented middleware for industrial production systems. In: International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), pp. 1217–1223. IEEE (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Thangavel, D., Ma, X., Valera, A., Tan, H.X., Tan, C.K.Y.: Performance evaluation of MQTT and CoAP via a common middleware. In: International Conference on Intelligent Sensors, Sensor Networks and Information Processing (ISSNIP), pp. 1–6. IEEE (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Thean, Z.Y., Yap, V.V., Teh, P.C.: Container-based MQTT broker cluster for edge computing. In: International Conference and Workshops on Recent Advances and Innovations in Engineering (ICRAIE), pp. 1–6. IEEE (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Tran, P., Greenfield, P., Gorton, I.: Behavior and performance of message-oriented middleware systems. In: International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops, pp. 645–650. IEEE (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Zimmermann, O., Grundler, J., Tai, S., Leymann, F.: Architectural decisions and patterns for transactional workflows in SOA. In: Krämer, B.J., Lin, K.-J., Narasimhan, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4749, pp. 81–93. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74974-5_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Zimmermann, O., Wegmann, L., Koziolek, H., Goldschmidt, T.: Architectural decision guidance across projects-problem space modeling, decision backlog management and cloud computing knowledge. In: Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, pp. 85–94. IEEE (2015)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ABB Corporate Research Center Germany, Ladenburg, Germany

    Heiko Koziolek, Sten Grüner & Julius Rückert

Authors
  1. Heiko Koziolek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sten Grüner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Julius Rückert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heiko Koziolek .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Koninklijke Philips N.V., Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Anton Jansen

  2. VU Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Ivano Malavolta

  3. University of L’Aquila, L’Aquila, Italy

    Henry Muccini

  4. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburg, PA, USA

    Ipek Ozkaya

  5. University of Applied Sciences of Eastern Switzerland, Rapperswil, Switzerland

    Olaf Zimmermann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Koziolek, H., Grüner, S., Rückert, J. (2020). A Comparison of MQTT Brokers for Distributed IoT Edge Computing. In: Jansen, A., Malavolta, I., Muccini, H., Ozkaya, I., Zimmermann, O. (eds) Software Architecture. ECSA 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12292. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58923-3_23

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58923-3_23

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-58922-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-58923-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation