HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
centrifugal
centrifugo
Go2015–2025
centrifugal / centrifugo

centrifugo

Scalable real-time messaging server in a language-agnostic way. Self-hosted alternative to Pubnub, Pusher, Ably, socket.io, Phoenix.PubSub, SignalR. Set up once and forever.

8Distinct people
21Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
11KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Scalable real-time messaging server in a language-agnostic way. Self-hosted alternative to Pubnub, Pusher, Ably, socket.io, Phoenix.PubSub, SignalR. Set up once and forever.

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

Mentioned in the same Hacker News threads. That is not proof they are substitutes.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 5:04:57 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year21 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2015-05-25 09:34:00 UTC to 2025-07-11 13:09:48 UTC.

012342015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 3 submissions, 0 comments20152016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 3 submissions, 1 comments2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 2 submissions, 0 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 2 submissions, 0 comments20202021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 1 submissions, 2 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2025

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20152015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC330
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC431
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC220
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC220
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC312
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202

What Hacker News says

21 sources
Many here recommend using Kafka or RabbitMQ for real-time notifications. While these tools work well with a relatively stable, limited set of topics, they become costly and inefficient when dealing with a large number of dynamic subscribers, such as in a messaging app where users frequently come and go. In RabbitMQ, queue bindings are resource-intensive, and in Kafka, creating new subscriptions often triggers expensive rebalancing operations. I've seen a use case for a messenger app with 100k concurrent subscribers where developers used RabbitMQ and individual queues for each user. It worked at 60 CPU on Rabbit side during normal situation and during mass reconnections of users (due to some proxy reload in infra) – it took up to several minutes for users to reconnect. I suggested switching to https://github.com/centrifugal/centrifugo with
Read the rest
Redis engine (combines PUB/SUB + Redis streams for individual queues) – and it went to 0.3 CPU on Redis side. Now the system serves about 2 million concurrent connections.
In Postgres LISTEN/NOTIFY does not scale
Hi everyone! I'd like to share that we've just released Centrifugo v6 - a major update of scalable WebSocket server. The release addresses some usability pain points and adds nice features and more observability. Centrifugo is an open-source standalone server written in Go – https://github.com/centrifugal/centrifugo. Centrifugo can instantly deliver messages to application online users connected over supported transports (WebSocket, HTTP-streaming, Server-Sent Events (EventSource), GRPC, WebTransport). Centrifugo has the concept of a channel – so it's a user-facing PUB/SUB server. Everything implemented in a language-agnostic way – so Centrifugo can be used in combination with any frontend or backend stack. These days we also provide Centrifugo PRO version – and trying to find a balance to be sustainable. The server is based on the open-s
Read the rest
ource Centrifuge library - https://github.com/centrifugal/centrifuge, so many improvements mentioned in Centrifugo v6 release blog post (even those for Centrifugo PRO) may be used just as a library in Go application. We provide real-time SDKs for popular client environments – for browser and mobile development – they connect to both Centrifuge library based servers and Centrifugo server. Generally Centrifugal ecosystem provides a good alternative to Socket.IO and cloud services like Pusher.com and Ably.com Will be happy to answer on any questions
In Centrifugo v6 released – major update of scalable WebSocket server written in Go
Hello, I am author of https://github.com/centrifugal/centrifugo. Our users can choose from WebSocket, EventSource, WebTransport (experimental for now, but will definitely stabilize in the future). WebRTC is out of scope as the main purpose is central server based real-time json/binary messaging, and WebRTC makes things much more complex since it shines for peer-to-peer and rich media communications. What I'd like to add is that Centrifugo also supports HTTP-streaming – not mentioned by the OP – but this is a transport which has advantages over Eventsource - like possibility to send POST body on initial request from web browser (with SSE you can not), it supports binary, and with Readable Streams browser API it's widely supported by modern browsers. Another thing I'd like to mention about Centrifugo - it supports bidirectional WebSocket fa
Read the rest
llbacks with EventSource and HTTP-streaming, and does this without sticky sessions requirement in distributed scenario. I guess nobody else have this at this point. See https://centrifugal.dev/blog/2022/07/19/centrifugo-v4-releas.... Which solves one more practical concern. Sticky sessions is an optimization in Centrifugo case, not a requirement. If you are interested in topic, we also have a post about WebSocket scalability - https://centrifugal.dev/blog/2020/11/12/scaling-websocket - it covers some design decisions made in Centrifugo.
In WebSockets vs. Server-Sent-Events vs. Long-Polling vs. WebRTC vs. WebTransport
Every time I read criticism of WebSockets it reminds me about WebSuckets (https://speakerdeck.com/3rdeden/websuckets) presentation :) I am the author of Centrifugo server (https://github.com/centrifugal/centrifugo) - where the main protocol is WebSocket. Agree with many points in post – and if there is a chance to build sth without replacing stateless HTTP to persistent WebSocket (or EventSource, HTTP-streaming, raw TCP etc) – then definitely better to go without persistent connections. But there are many tasks where WebSockets simply shine – by providing a better UX, providing a more interactive content, instant information/feedback. This is important to keep - even if underlying stack is complicated enough. Not every system need to scale to many machines (ex. multiplayer games with limited number of players), corporate apps not really s
Read the rest
truggle from massive reconnect scenarios (since number of concurrent users is pretty small), and so on. So WebSockets are definitely fine for certain scenarios IMO. I described some problems with WebSockets Centrifugo solves in this blog post - https://centrifugal.dev/blog/2020/11/12/scaling-websocket. I don't want to say there are no problems, I want to say that WebSockets are fine in general and we can do some things to deal with things mentioned in the OP's post.
In Woe be unto you for using a WebSocket

Showing the 15 most recent of 21 sources. Enable JavaScript to search and browse every indexed mention.

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.