HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
confluentinc
confluent-kafka-python
Python2020–2024
confluentinc / confluent-kafka-python

confluent-kafka-python

Confluent's Kafka Python Client

5Distinct people
5Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
528GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Confluent's Kafka Python Client

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

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 6:01:08 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 year5 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2020-10-07 16:56:22 UTC to 2024-07-15 03:16:05 UTC.

01232020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments20202021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments20222023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 1 submissions, 2 comments2024

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
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC312

What Hacker News says

1 sources
> changing the batch size to 1 won't help if it continues ack'ing messages without syncing to disk Sorry, I may not have been clear. For many Kafka clients, setting the batchsize to 1/interval to 0 causes every publish operation to block on the batch being flushed internally. Flushes are acknowledged by Kafka (and, like any RPC, can succeed or fail), and their success indicates that the persistence system was engaged, indicating disk persistence to a configured number of disks. Other Kafka clients provide a manual "flush" operation which acts similarly. More information about, and discussion of this phenomenon in the Python Kafka client can be found here: https://github.com/confluentinc/confluent-kafka-python/issue... The deceptive behavior only happens when a publish operation does not entail a flush. At that point, unsuspecting client c
Read the rest
ode may have assume that data left over the network when it did not. RabbitMQ's behavior with publisher confirms disabled is similar but not identical. Even with pub confirms off, most RabbitMQ clients "publish" operations are synchronous (as in they return after data has been written out over a socket). Publisher confirms are an added layer of resilience that enables clients to listen to RabbitMQ saying "I have successfully routed (and, depending on settings, persisted to disk) these messages". That acknowledgement may never come (rabbit may be overloaded, crashing, or may reject a publish), but on most happy-path systems data loss is not severe even without publisher confirms--turning them on is there to fill the non-happy-path case, and also to provide a very primitive system of backpressure to publishers, forcing them to wait on an overloaded broker rather than sending it even more data when e.g. its persister is slowing down. Because of that behavior, I'd argue that even without publisher confirms, RabbitMQ's publish behavior is still less data-loss prone than Kafka's. Regardless, the only way to run either system in truly reliable "publish means my data is on the broker" mode is to set the bufsize/flush interval to the minimums (in Kafka's case) or to wait for a confirmation after every single publish (in Rabbit's). As with all strategies to maximize reliability, those both come with a performance cost, and shouldn't be blindly adopted unless you have a good understanding of how much data and performance loss is acceptable.
In Eliminating Task Processing Outages by Replacing RabbitMQ with Apache Kafka

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.