A comparison of two popular platforms for real-time data streaming and processing is frequently undertaken when designing modern data architectures. These platforms enable organizations to ingest, store, and analyze vast quantities of data as it is generated, supporting applications such as fraud detection, IoT device monitoring, and real-time analytics dashboards. The selection of the appropriate technology requires careful consideration of factors such as scalability, cost, management overhead, and integration with existing infrastructure.
The ability to process streaming data with low latency has become increasingly vital for businesses seeking to gain a competitive advantage. These technologies allow for immediate insights and automated responses to changing conditions, improving operational efficiency and decision-making. Understanding the historical context of these platforms their origins, evolution, and the specific problems they were designed to solve is essential for appreciating their current capabilities and limitations.
The subsequent sections will delve into a detailed feature-by-feature analysis, examining architectural differences, performance characteristics, pricing models, and the surrounding ecosystems of each platform. This comparison will empower readers to make informed decisions about which solution best fits their particular use cases and technical requirements. Further considerations will include data durability, fault tolerance, and the available tooling for monitoring and management.
1. Scalability mechanisms
Scalability mechanisms represent a fundamental differentiator when evaluating the appropriateness of data streaming platforms. The architecture of Amazon Kinesis and Apache Kafka dictates how each platform handles increasing data ingestion and processing demands. Kinesis leverages a serverless model where Amazon manages the underlying infrastructure, scaling capacity through “shards.” Kafka, conversely, requires manual provisioning and management of broker nodes, allowing for finer-grained control over resource allocation but also increasing operational complexity. The inherent auto-scaling capabilities of Kinesis simplify scaling operations, whereas Kafka necessitates proactive capacity planning and configuration to avoid performance bottlenecks.
Consider a hypothetical e-commerce platform experiencing a surge in user activity during a flash sale. Kinesis, with its automatic scaling features, would dynamically adjust the number of shards to accommodate the increased data flow from user interactions, product views, and purchase transactions. Kafka, in the same scenario, would require administrators to anticipate the load increase and provision additional broker nodes in advance. Failure to do so could result in message queuing, delayed processing, and a degraded user experience. A real-world example showcasing Kafka scalability is its adoption by LinkedIn for handling massive streams of user activity data. Their in-depth management and expertise is required to correctly scale the platform to meet the needs.
The practical significance of understanding the scalability mechanisms of these platforms lies in matching the platform’s capabilities to the specific requirements and operational capabilities of the organization. While Kinesis offers simplicity and automated scaling, it might incur higher costs for sustained, high-volume data streams. Kafka, though more complex to manage, can be optimized for cost efficiency in certain scenarios, particularly when coupled with robust infrastructure management practices. Therefore, a thorough assessment of data volume growth projections, operational expertise, and budgetary constraints is crucial for making an informed decision.Ultimately, the choice depends on a clear understanding of both short-term and long-term scalability needs.
2. Data persistence
Data persistence, the ability to durably store streaming data, constitutes a critical element in the functionality of platforms such as Amazon Kinesis and Apache Kafka. A direct correlation exists between the selected platform and the manner in which data is preserved, affecting overall reliability and fault tolerance. Inadequate data persistence mechanisms can result in data loss during system failures or network disruptions, undermining the integrity of downstream analytical processes and potentially leading to incorrect business decisions. Therefore, the data persistence capabilities of these platforms significantly influence their suitability for different use cases.
Amazon Kinesis Data Streams offer configurable data retention periods, ranging from 24 hours to 7 days. This retention period determines how long data records are stored within the stream. Data durability is achieved through replication across multiple Availability Zones. Conversely, Kafka employs a distributed, fault-tolerant storage system based on a log-structured append-only design. Data is partitioned across multiple brokers, and each partition can be replicated to multiple followers. This replication factor provides redundancy and ensures data availability even if some brokers fail. For instance, a financial institution utilizing Kafka for real-time fraud detection requires strong data persistence to maintain an audit trail of all transactions. In this context, data loss could have severe regulatory and financial ramifications.
In summary, the selection between Kinesis and Kafka necessitates careful consideration of data persistence requirements. Organizations must evaluate their risk tolerance for data loss, the duration for which historical data needs to be retained, and the cost implications of different storage strategies. While Kinesis simplifies data persistence management through its managed service, Kafka offers greater flexibility and control over storage configuration. The choice ultimately depends on balancing data durability needs with operational complexity and cost considerations, ensuring alignment with overarching data governance policies. Data persistence serves as a foundational pillar in the architecture of these platforms, and its importance cannot be overstated.
3. Integration capabilities
Integration capabilities represent a pivotal consideration in the comparative evaluation of Amazon Kinesis and Apache Kafka. The degree to which each platform seamlessly interfaces with other components within a data ecosystem directly impacts development effort, operational efficiency, and the overall value derived from real-time data streams. Effective integration facilitates the flow of data from diverse sources into the streaming platform and the subsequent distribution of processed data to various downstream consumers.
-
Native AWS Integration
Kinesis boasts seamless integration with other Amazon Web Services (AWS). This tight coupling simplifies data ingestion from services like S3, DynamoDB, and CloudWatch, and allows for streamlined processing and analytics using services like Lambda, Sagemaker, and Redshift. For instance, an IoT application could directly stream sensor data to Kinesis, triggering Lambda functions for real-time anomaly detection, and then storing the processed data in S3 for long-term analysis. This native integration reduces the need for custom connectors and simplifies deployment within the AWS ecosystem. Conversely, Kafka, while capable of integrating with AWS services, requires more manual configuration and potentially the use of third-party connectors.
-
Connector Ecosystem
Kafka possesses a robust connector ecosystem, offering a wide array of pre-built connectors for various data sources and sinks, including databases, message queues, and cloud storage solutions. Kafka Connect, a component of the Kafka platform, provides a framework for building and managing these connectors. For example, a company migrating data from an on-premise database to the cloud could leverage Kafka Connect to stream changes in real-time to a cloud-based data warehouse. The availability of these connectors reduces the development effort required to integrate Kafka with diverse data systems. While Kinesis provides some connectors, the breadth and depth of the Kafka ecosystem offer greater flexibility in integrating with non-AWS services.
-
Stream Processing Frameworks
Both platforms integrate well with popular stream processing frameworks, such as Apache Flink, Apache Spark Streaming, and Apache Beam. These frameworks enable complex data transformations, aggregations, and enrichments to be performed on the streaming data. The choice of stream processing framework often depends on the specific processing requirements and the skillsets of the development team. However, both Kinesis and Kafka can serve as reliable data sources and sinks for these frameworks. A real-world application might involve using Spark Streaming to perform real-time sentiment analysis on social media data ingested through either Kinesis or Kafka.
-
API Availability and Custom Integrations
Both platforms provide comprehensive APIs that enable developers to build custom integrations tailored to specific needs. These APIs allow for fine-grained control over data ingestion, processing, and delivery. Organizations with unique integration requirements or legacy systems that lack pre-built connectors can leverage these APIs to create custom solutions. For instance, a financial institution could use the Kinesis API to build a custom data ingestion pipeline for processing high-frequency trading data, or the Kafka API to integrate with a proprietary risk management system. The flexibility of these APIs empowers organizations to address complex integration challenges and unlock the full potential of real-time data streaming.
In conclusion, the “Integration capabilities” inherent in each system are a critical aspect to consider. Native AWS integration provides streamlined functionality for systems already operating within the AWS ecosystem. Kafka’s connector ecosystem offers flexibility and a broader set of integrations. Both integrate well with stream processing frameworks, and custom integrations are possible through their APIs. A determination of the current architecture is essential to selecting the proper platform to use.
4. Management overhead
Management overhead constitutes a significant differentiating factor between Amazon Kinesis and Apache Kafka. The operational burden associated with each platform directly impacts resource allocation, staffing requirements, and overall system reliability. Kinesis, as a fully managed service, abstracts away much of the underlying infrastructure management, including server provisioning, patching, scaling, and fault tolerance. Kafka, in contrast, necessitates substantial operational expertise to deploy, configure, monitor, and maintain a distributed cluster. This difference in management overhead has profound implications for organizations with varying levels of technical expertise and operational resources. For example, a small startup with limited IT staff might find Kinesis more appealing due to its simplicity and ease of use. Conversely, a large enterprise with a dedicated infrastructure team might prefer Kafka for its greater flexibility and control.
The operational complexities of Kafka stem from its distributed architecture and the need to manage various components, such as brokers, ZooKeeper, and Kafka Connect. Performance tuning, capacity planning, and security hardening also require specialized knowledge. Moreover, Kafka’s monitoring and alerting capabilities are not as comprehensive as those offered by Kinesis, necessitating the integration of third-party tools or the development of custom monitoring solutions. Consider a scenario where a company is using Kafka to process real-time data from thousands of IoT devices. The operational team would need to continuously monitor the Kafka cluster for performance bottlenecks, broker failures, and data replication issues. Addressing these issues promptly requires skilled personnel and robust operational procedures. A failure to properly manage the Kafka cluster could result in data loss, service disruptions, and inaccurate analytics.
In conclusion, the management overhead associated with each platform represents a crucial consideration when evaluating Amazon Kinesis and Apache Kafka. Kinesis minimizes operational burden through its managed service model, while Kafka demands significant operational expertise. The selection between the two platforms should be based on a thorough assessment of the organization’s technical capabilities, operational resources, and risk tolerance. Organizations lacking the necessary expertise or resources to manage a Kafka cluster might be better served by Kinesis, while those seeking greater control and customization options might opt for Kafka, provided they are prepared to invest in the required operational infrastructure. Ultimately, the optimal choice depends on balancing management overhead with other factors, such as scalability, cost, and integration requirements.
5. Cost implications
The cost implications represent a pivotal factor in the decision-making process when evaluating Amazon Kinesis and Apache Kafka for real-time data streaming. A comprehensive cost analysis necessitates consideration of various elements beyond the initial infrastructure investment. These elements encompass operational expenses, scaling costs, and potential hidden costs associated with each platform.
-
Infrastructure Costs
Kinesis operates on a pay-as-you-go model, charging based on data ingestion rates (GB ingested), data retention duration, and the number of shards used. While this model offers flexibility and eliminates upfront infrastructure investments, costs can escalate significantly with high data volumes and long retention periods. Kafka, conversely, involves infrastructure costs associated with provisioning and maintaining broker nodes, storage, and networking. The initial investment can be substantial, but long-term costs may be lower for sustained, high-volume data streams, provided infrastructure is efficiently managed. For instance, a media company streaming live video content might incur higher costs with Kinesis due to the continuous data ingestion. In contrast, the same company might find Kafka more cost-effective if it can optimize its infrastructure and storage resources. The cost of labor to maintain such a system, however, must also be included.
-
Operational Costs
Operational costs encompass expenses related to monitoring, maintenance, security, and personnel. Kinesis, as a managed service, minimizes operational costs by abstracting away much of the underlying infrastructure management. Kafka, however, demands significant operational expertise to manage and maintain a distributed cluster, leading to higher operational costs. These costs include the salaries of skilled engineers, the costs of monitoring tools, and the potential costs associated with system downtime or data loss. A financial institution utilizing Kafka for real-time fraud detection would need to invest heavily in operational resources to ensure the platform’s reliability and security. The operational costs should be assessed for both planned and unplanned maintenance.
-
Scaling Costs
Scaling costs relate to the expenses incurred when increasing the capacity of the streaming platform to handle growing data volumes. Kinesis offers automatic scaling capabilities, dynamically adjusting the number of shards to accommodate increased data flow. While this simplifies scaling operations, it can lead to unpredictable cost increases. Kafka requires manual provisioning and management of broker nodes, allowing for finer-grained control over resource allocation but also increasing the complexity of scaling operations. Scaling Kafka can involve significant upfront costs associated with purchasing additional hardware and configuring the cluster. An e-commerce company experiencing seasonal spikes in traffic would need to carefully plan its scaling strategy to avoid over-provisioning resources or incurring excessive costs with Kinesis. A thorough analysis of traffic patterns and growth projections is crucial for optimizing scaling costs.
-
Hidden Costs
Hidden costs encompass expenses that are not immediately apparent but can significantly impact the overall cost of ownership. These costs include the cost of data egress, the cost of third-party connectors, and the cost of data transformation and enrichment. Kinesis charges for data egress, the transfer of data out of the Kinesis service. Kafka, being a self-managed platform, does not directly charge for data egress but may incur network costs depending on the infrastructure configuration. Both platforms may require the use of third-party connectors to integrate with other data systems, adding to the overall cost. Furthermore, the cost of transforming and enriching the data stream should be factored into the total cost of ownership. A company building a real-time analytics dashboard would need to consider the cost of data egress, connectors, and the stream processing framework used to transform the data. The architecture and anticipated throughput directly impact these costs.
In summary, a holistic view of cost implications considers initial investments, operational maintenance, scaling requirements, and potential indirect expenses. Amazon Kinesis may present lower initial barriers to entry, but could incur higher cumulative costs based on volume throughput and retention requirements. Apache Kafka may entail higher initial setup investments, however, could provide more predictable and potentially lower overall costs with skillful cluster maintenance. These facets highlight the importance of a thorough analysis of data volumes, operational capabilities, and growth forecasts when determining the most economical solution. The ultimate choice often aligns with a balance between initial outlay, long-term scalability, and the expertise available for ongoing system management.
6. Ecosystem maturity
The ecosystem surrounding a technology platform significantly influences its adoption, usability, and long-term viability. When comparing Amazon Kinesis and Apache Kafka, ecosystem maturity represents a critical differentiator. A mature ecosystem offers a wealth of tools, libraries, connectors, and community support, streamlining development, simplifying integration, and facilitating troubleshooting. The extent to which these resources are readily available directly impacts the total cost of ownership and the speed at which organizations can derive value from their real-time data streams. Conversely, a nascent ecosystem may present challenges related to limited tooling, lack of expertise, and slower problem resolution.
Kafka’s ecosystem is notably mature and extensive, bolstered by its open-source nature and widespread adoption across diverse industries. A vast collection of connectors enables seamless integration with various data sources and sinks, including databases, cloud storage services, and message queues. Numerous stream processing frameworks, such as Apache Flink, Apache Spark Streaming, and Kafka Streams, offer powerful capabilities for data transformation, aggregation, and analysis. A vibrant community of developers and users contributes to ongoing innovation, providing ample documentation, tutorials, and support channels. For example, a large telecommunications company deploying Kafka for network monitoring could leverage pre-built connectors to ingest data from various network devices and utilize Kafka Streams to perform real-time anomaly detection. The robust ecosystem allows such complex applications to be implemented with minimal custom development, demonstrating the practical benefits of ecosystem maturity.
While Kinesis benefits from its integration within the broader AWS ecosystem, its standalone ecosystem is comparatively less mature than Kafka’s. The tight coupling with AWS services simplifies integration with other AWS offerings, such as Lambda, Sagemaker, and Redshift. However, the availability of third-party connectors and stream processing frameworks may be more limited compared to Kafka. This can create challenges for organizations seeking to integrate Kinesis with non-AWS systems or implement complex stream processing workflows. In summary, the choice between Kinesis and Kafka necessitates careful consideration of the ecosystem’s maturity, balancing the benefits of a managed service with the flexibility and extensibility offered by a more established and open ecosystem. The platform that adequately satisfies the integration needs and the operational capabilities of an organization will be the selection that provides the greatest value.
7. Real-time analytics
The capacity to derive immediate insights from data streams represents a primary driver for adopting platforms like Amazon Kinesis and Apache Kafka. Real-time analytics, the processing of data as it arrives to provide up-to-the-minute information, relies heavily on the ingestion and delivery mechanisms these platforms offer. The selection between these platforms profoundly influences the latency, scalability, and cost- implementing real-time analytics pipelines. The cause-and-effect relationship is direct: the efficiency of the platform in handling streaming data directly impacts the speed and accuracy of the analytical results. Real-time analytics serves as a core component, enabling timely decision-making, proactive monitoring, and responsive automation across various business domains.
Consider a fraud detection system within a financial institution. Transaction data, ingested through either Kinesis or Kafka, undergoes real-time analysis to identify suspicious patterns. If Kinesis is chosen, its seamless integration with AWS Lambda enables immediate invocation of fraud detection algorithms upon arrival of transaction records. Alternatively, Kafka’s integration with stream processing frameworks like Apache Flink provides the flexibility to implement complex, stateful fraud detection logic. A delay in the data pipeline, whether due to ingestion bottlenecks or processing inefficiencies, directly impairs the system’s ability to detect and prevent fraudulent activities. Further, in the context of manufacturing, real-time analytics enable predictive maintenance by analyzing sensor data from equipment ingested by either platform, providing actionable insights to prevent equipment failure.
In conclusion, the connection between real-time analytics and the use of platforms like Amazon Kinesis or Apache Kafka is inseparable. The practical significance lies in understanding that the selection of the platform dictates the feasibility and effectiveness of extracting value from streaming data. The challenges associated with building real-time analytics pipelines include ensuring data quality, managing processing latency, and scaling the infrastructure to handle increasing data volumes. The choice often hinges on balancing the need for speed, scalability, and cost-effectiveness within the broader context of the organization’s analytical goals, data volume projections, and infrastructure management capabilities.
8. Use case suitability
The alignment of specific application requirements with the inherent capabilities of Amazon Kinesis and Apache Kafka defines the parameter of use case suitability. The effective selection between these data streaming platforms necessitates a detailed understanding of the intended application’s characteristics. These characteristics include data volume, data velocity, data retention requirements, latency sensitivity, data transformation needs, and the desired level of operational control. Failure to accurately assess these requirements and match them to the strengths of the respective platforms can result in suboptimal performance, increased costs, and architectural inefficiencies. The platform chosen should not only accommodate current needs but also anticipate future growth and evolving business demands.
Consider two distinct scenarios: First, a real-time clickstream analysis application for a high-volume e-commerce website. In this instance, the high throughput and low-latency capabilities of Kafka, combined with its robust stream processing ecosystem, may prove more suitable. The ability to handle massive data volumes with minimal delay is critical for capturing and analyzing user behavior patterns. The second scenario involves ingesting sensor data from a fleet of vehicles to monitor performance and identify maintenance needs. In this instance, Kinesis, with its serverless architecture and seamless integration with other AWS services, may offer a more streamlined and cost-effective solution. The operational simplicity and automatic scaling of Kinesis can significantly reduce the management overhead associated with managing a large-scale data streaming pipeline. Selecting Kinesis in the first scenario, or Kafka in the second, could lead to unnecessary complexity, increased operational burden, and inflated costs. The importance of aligning technology choice with application needs is of paramount importance.
In conclusion, the use case suitability represents a crucial determinant when choosing between Amazon Kinesis and Apache Kafka. The determination of which platform is best suited requires careful assessment of the specific requirements of the application, including data characteristics, performance expectations, and operational constraints. While both platforms offer robust data streaming capabilities, their architectural differences and ecosystem strengths make them better suited for different use cases. A thorough evaluation of these factors can ensure that the selected platform effectively supports the application’s needs, optimizes performance, and minimizes costs. The ultimate success lies in properly matching the specific needs of the application with the right tool.
Frequently Asked Questions
This section addresses common questions regarding the selection and application of Amazon Kinesis and Apache Kafka for real-time data streaming. The following aims to provide clear, concise answers based on practical considerations and technical distinctions between the two platforms.
Question 1: What are the primary architectural differences between Amazon Kinesis and Apache Kafka?
Kinesis is a fully managed, serverless service within the AWS ecosystem. It abstracts away much of the underlying infrastructure management, relying on shards for scalability. Kafka is a distributed, open-source platform that requires manual provisioning and management of broker nodes, Zookeeper, and related components. It offers greater control over infrastructure but demands more operational expertise.
Question 2: When is Amazon Kinesis a more suitable choice than Apache Kafka?
Kinesis is often preferred when organizations seek a simplified, fully managed solution with seamless integration into the AWS ecosystem. It is well-suited for use cases where operational simplicity and automatic scaling are paramount, and where deep integration with other AWS services is required. Scenarios with fluctuating workloads and a preference for a pay-as-you-go pricing model also favor Kinesis.
Question 3: When is Apache Kafka a more suitable choice than Amazon Kinesis?
Kafka is often favored when organizations require greater control over the data streaming infrastructure, need to integrate with a diverse range of non-AWS systems, or have specific requirements for data partitioning and replication. It is well-suited for use cases involving high-throughput, low-latency data streams and scenarios where a robust open-source ecosystem and extensive community support are valuable.
Question 4: How do the pricing models of Amazon Kinesis and Apache Kafka differ?
Kinesis employs a pay-as-you-go pricing model based on data ingestion, data retention, and the number of shards used. Kafka incurs infrastructure costs related to provisioning and maintaining broker nodes, storage, and networking. The overall cost-effectiveness depends on data volume, data retention requirements, and operational efficiency. A thorough cost analysis is crucial for determining the most economical solution.
Question 5: What level of technical expertise is required to manage Amazon Kinesis versus Apache Kafka?
Kinesis minimizes the need for specialized operational expertise due to its managed service model. Kafka, however, requires significant operational knowledge to deploy, configure, monitor, and maintain a distributed cluster. Organizations lacking in-house Kafka expertise may need to invest in training or external support to manage the platform effectively.
Question 6: How do the data persistence capabilities of Amazon Kinesis and Apache Kafka compare?
Kinesis Data Streams offer configurable data retention periods, ranging from 24 hours to 7 days, with data durability achieved through replication across multiple Availability Zones. Kafka employs a distributed, fault-tolerant storage system based on a log-structured append-only design. Data is partitioned and replicated across multiple brokers, providing redundancy and ensuring data availability.
In summary, selecting between Amazon Kinesis and Apache Kafka requires a comprehensive understanding of application requirements, cost considerations, operational capabilities, and technical expertise. The optimal choice depends on aligning the platform’s strengths with the specific needs of the organization.
The following section provides a checklist to aid in platform selection based on the needs of the organization.
Tips for Evaluating Data Streaming Platforms
The selection of an appropriate data streaming platform requires careful consideration of various factors. A structured approach to evaluation helps ensure the chosen platform aligns with organizational needs and technical capabilities.
Tip 1: Define Specific Use Cases: Clearly articulate the intended applications for the data streaming platform. Document specific requirements, including data volume, velocity, latency, and retention needs. A well-defined use case serves as a benchmark for evaluating platform capabilities.
Tip 2: Assess Integration Requirements: Identify all data sources and sinks that need to integrate with the streaming platform. Evaluate the availability of pre-built connectors or the feasibility of developing custom integrations. Seamless integration minimizes development effort and ensures data flows efficiently.
Tip 3: Evaluate Scalability Needs: Project the anticipated growth in data volume and velocity over time. Assess the platform’s ability to scale horizontally to accommodate increasing demands. Consider both short-term and long-term scalability requirements to avoid future performance bottlenecks.
Tip 4: Analyze Cost Implications: Conduct a thorough cost analysis, considering infrastructure costs, operational expenses, and potential hidden costs. Compare the pricing models of different platforms and assess their suitability for the expected workload. A detailed cost analysis helps ensure cost-effectiveness and avoid budget overruns.
Tip 5: Evaluate Operational Expertise: Assess the in-house expertise available for managing and maintaining the data streaming platform. Consider the operational complexities of different platforms and the need for specialized skills. A platform that aligns with the organization’s technical capabilities minimizes operational overhead.
Tip 6: Conduct Proof-of-Concept (POC): Implement a pilot project to test the performance and functionality of the chosen platform. A POC provides valuable insights into the platform’s suitability for the intended use cases and helps identify potential issues before full-scale deployment.
Tip 7: Consider Ecosystem Maturity: Evaluate the availability of tools, libraries, connectors, and community support for the data streaming platform. A mature ecosystem simplifies development, streamlines integration, and facilitates troubleshooting.
Effective platform selection hinges on a holistic understanding of application needs, technical capabilities, and cost considerations. A structured approach to evaluation helps organizations make informed decisions and choose the platform that best aligns with their objectives.
The following section provides a concluding summary of key differentiating features between the two data streaming platform contenders.
Amazon Kinesis vs Kafka
This exploration of Amazon Kinesis vs Kafka has highlighted fundamental distinctions in architecture, scalability, operational overhead, and cost structures. Kinesis, a fully managed AWS service, prioritizes simplicity and integration within the AWS ecosystem. Kafka, an open-source platform, emphasizes control, flexibility, and a mature ecosystem. Selection hinges on aligning specific application requirements, organizational capabilities, and long-term strategic goals with the inherent strengths of each platform. The comparative analysis presented provides a framework for informed decision-making, enabling organizations to choose the data streaming solution best suited to their unique needs.
The ongoing evolution of data streaming technologies necessitates continuous evaluation and adaptation. Organizations must proactively assess their data landscape and refine their data strategies to leverage the full potential of real-time data. The choice between Amazon Kinesis vs Kafka represents a critical juncture in designing robust, scalable, and cost-effective data architectures. A clear understanding of these platforms empowers organizations to unlock the value of their data and drive innovation.
