Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with OpenID
Advertise on LowEndTalk.com

In this Discussion

Community Review: PixelsHost Basic OpenVZ Plan

Community Review: PixelsHost Basic OpenVZ Plan

HalfEatenPieHalfEatenPie Member
edited July 2012 in Reviews

So I really like @maxexcloo 's format on how he does this so I'm going to following it to the best of my abilities with my own twist(except I'm just going to get to the meat on this one).

Here we go, first "presentation" by me (I wouldn't call it a review).

image

http://www.pixelshost.net/

PixelsHost recently started up as a VPS company in Great Britain. I believe they were originally part of CreeperHost.net, but instead of MineCraft hosting they're now providing VPS hosting under a new brand.

Today I'll be reviewing their Basic plan which comes with these specs:

  • OpenVZ
  • 5GB HDD Space
  • 500GB Monthly Bandwidth
  • 1 300MHz CPU (I'll explain this later)
  • 256 MB Guaranteed Ram
  • 256 MB vSwap
  • £ 3.99 / month

Disclaimer: I am in no way affiliated with PixelsHost. I decided to give them a shot and purchase a plan to provide the specs to the community (which their representative was unsure of if he could provide them). I'll be as un-bias as I can from this point on.

Basic: So it seems the server is located in Chicago, Illinois. I didn't look too closely at the Terms of Service, but it seems they do allow IRC (as long as its not egg drops). They do NOT allow proxy servers though. Operating system wise they offer AltLinux, ArchLinux, CentOS, Cern, Debian, Fedora, Scientific, Ubuntu, and OpenSUSE (it seems they have all the standard version including Ubuntu 12.04 and Fedora 15 and 16).

Support: Looking only at the support tickets, I received a response 12 hours after my initial ticket (I did submit it pretty late). But after the initial paypal issue (I think the account blocks a few countries from paying and the US could be one of them, so they should check it out) everything went pretty smoothly. Luke caught me on IRC and helped me out too with a couple of problems I was having. I did have the unfortunate time of trying to get into SolusVM when they were doing some server migrations but Luke was more than happy to set the VPS to my specifications.

Defaults: I installed their Debian 6 32-bit OS template then ran the update (apt-get update && apt-get upgrade). Nothing else has been altered.
ps aux of a fresh install here:

root@LET-test:~# ps aux
USER       PID %CPU %MEM    VSZ   RSS TTY      STAT START   TIME COMMAND
root         1  0.0  0.2   2028   724 ?        Ss   16:50   0:00 init [2]
root         2  0.0  0.0      0     0 ?        S    16:50   0:00 [kthreadd/1032]
root         3  0.0  0.0      0     0 ?        S    16:50   0:00 [khelper/1032]
root       356  0.0  0.3   8668   800 ?        Ss   16:50   0:00 /usr/sbin/sasla
root       357  0.0  0.1   8668   376 ?        S    16:50   0:00 /usr/sbin/sasla
root       371  0.0  0.2   1736   644 ?        Ss   16:50   0:00 /sbin/syslogd
root       382  0.0  0.9   5140  2440 ?        Ss   16:50   0:00 /usr/sbin/apach
www-data   385  0.0  0.7   5140  1848 ?        S    16:50   0:00 /usr/sbin/apach
root       404  0.0  0.3   2288   868 ?        Ss   16:50   0:00 /usr/sbin/cron
root       539  0.0  0.6   9984  1580 ?        Ss   16:51   0:00 sendmail: MTA:
root       554  0.0  0.3   5488   952 ?        Ss   16:51   0:00 /usr/sbin/sshd
root       563  0.0  0.3   2392   864 ?        Ss   16:51   0:00 /usr/sbin/xinet
root       572  0.0  1.1   8544  3000 ?        Ss   16:53   0:00 sshd: root@pts/
root       574  0.0  0.6   2960  1604 pts/0    Ss   16:53   0:00 -bash
root       610  0.0  0.3   2348   932 pts/0    R+   17:06   0:00 ps aux

Basic Information: /proc/cpuinfo showed 8 cores with the following:

root@LET-test:~# cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor       : 0
vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
cpu family      : 6
model           : 26
model name      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU           L5520  @ 2.27GHz
stepping        : 5
cpu MHz         : 423.936
cache size      : 8192 KB
physical id     : 0
siblings        : 8
core id         : 0
cpu cores       : 4
apicid          : 0
initial apicid  : 0
fpu             : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level     : 11
wp              : yes
flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx rdtscp lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good xtopology nonstop_tsc aperfmperf pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm dca sse4_1 sse4_2 popcnt lahf_lm ida tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority ept vpid
bogomips        : 4533.64
clflush size    : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes   : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management:

For the 300MHz CPU statement that they had in their post (and on their website), after talking with Luke, that isn't the maximum use, its what you'll get at minimum (I think they should have clarified that though).

/proc/meminfo showed some standard results:

root@LET-test:~# cat /proc/meminfo
MemTotal:         262144 kB
MemFree:          221936 kB
Cached:            13952 kB
Active:            17828 kB
Inactive:            836 kB
Active(anon):       4644 kB
Inactive(anon):       68 kB
Active(file):      13184 kB
Inactive(file):      768 kB
Unevictable:           0 kB
Mlocked:               0 kB
SwapTotal:        262144 kB
SwapFree:         262144 kB
Dirty:                 0 kB
AnonPages:          4712 kB
Shmem:              2624 kB
Slab:               3288 kB
SReclaimable:       1600 kB
SUnreclaim:         1688 kB

Inode allocation:

root@LET-test:~# df -i
Filesystem            Inodes           IUsed           IFree         IUse%       Mounted on
/dev/simfs           2621440      26136        2595304      1%         /
tmpfs                  32768               4            32764          1%        /lib/init/rw
tmpfs                  32768               1            32767          1%        /dev/shm

vmstat:

root@LET-test:~# vmstat
procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- ----cpu----
 r  b   swpd   free   buff  cache   si   so    bi    bo   in   cs us sy id wa
 1  0      0 221896      0  13660    0    0     0     1    0 21807  0  0 99  0

Edit: I updated a few things plus tried to change some of my grammar. I seriously need to read my own work before publishing... sorry guys.

Catalyst Host - Pie Approved!
Tagged:

Comments

  • Tests: Each test was run three times and the middle ranked test was picked.

    The Cachefly test:

    root@LET-test:~# wget -O /dev/null http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
    --2012-07-12 17:19:17--  http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
    Resolving cachefly.cachefly.net... 205.234.175.175
    Connecting to cachefly.cachefly.net|205.234.175.175|:80... connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `/dev/null'
    
    100%[======================================>] 104,857,600  627K/s   in 2m 44s
    
    2012-07-12 17:22:01 (624 KB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
    
    

    Ping Tests is amazing with Google (they don't have IPv6):

    root@LET-test:~# ping -c 3 google.com
    PING google.com (74.125.225.96) 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from ord08s08-in-f0.1e100.net (74.125.225.96): icmp_req=1 ttl=58 time=1.49 ms
    64 bytes from ord08s08-in-f0.1e100.net (74.125.225.96): icmp_req=2 ttl=58 time=1.44 ms
    64 bytes from ord08s08-in-f0.1e100.net (74.125.225.96): icmp_req=3 ttl=58 time=1.49 ms
    
    --- google.com ping statistics ---
    3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2003ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.440/1.475/1.495/0.024 ms
    
    

    Disk I/O:

    root@LET-test:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync; rm test
    16384+0 records in
    16384+0 records out
    1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 126.118 s, 8.5 MB/s
    

    ioping results:

    root@LET-test:~/ioping-0.6# ./ioping -c 10 .
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/1032): request=1 time=19.6 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/1032): request=2 time=5.3 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/1032): request=3 time=183.9 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/1032): request=4 time=6.2 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/1032): request=5 time=4.0 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/1032): request=6 time=5.4 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/1032): request=7 time=3.7 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/1032): request=8 time=4.2 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/1032): request=9 time=3.0 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/1032): request=10 time=5.4 ms
    
    --- . (simfs /vz/private/1032) ioping statistics ---
    10 requests completed in 9241.9 ms, 42 iops, 0.2 mb/s
    min/avg/max/mdev = 3.0/24.1/183.9/53.5 ms
    
    Catalyst Host - Pie Approved!
  • HalfEatenPieHalfEatenPie Member
    edited July 2012

    Well, I don't own a GeekBench license, but here:

    root@LET-test:~/dist/Geekbench-2.3.4-Linux# ./geekbench_x86_32
    Geekbench 2.3.4 Tryout : http://www.primatelabs.com/geekbench/
    
    Geekbench is in tryout mode.
    
    Benchmark results can only be viewed online when Geekbench is in tryout mode.
    Other features, like 64-bit benchmarks and hardware stress tests, are also
    unavailable in tryout mode.
    
      Running Gathering system information
    System Information
      Operating System      Linux 2.6.32-042stab039.10 i686
      Model
      Model ID
      Motherboard
      Processor             Intel Xeon L5520 @ 423 MHz
                            2 Processors, 8 Cores, 8 Threads
      Processor ID          GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 26 Stepping 5
      L1 Instruction Cache  32.0 KB x 2
      L1 Data Cache         32.0 KB x 2
      L2 Cache              256 KB x 2
      L3 Cache              8.00 MB
      Memory                256 MB
      BIOS
    
    

    It did get a overall score of 3715.

    Check out the full test here: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/view/848266

    Catalyst Host - Pie Approved!
  • HalfEatenPieHalfEatenPie Member
    edited July 2012

    Unix Bench:

    
       #    #  #    #  #  #    #          #####   ######  #    #   ####   #    #
       #    #  ##   #  #   #  #           #    #  #       ##   #  #    #  #    #
       #    #  # #  #  #    ##            #####   #####   # #  #  #       ######
       #    #  #  # #  #    ##            #    #  #       #  # #  #       #    #
       #    #  #   ##  #   #  #           #    #  #       #   ##  #    #  #    #
        ####   #    #  #  #    #          #####   ######  #    #   ####   #    #
    
    ========================================================================
       BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.3)
    
       System: LET-test: GNU/Linux
       OS: GNU/Linux -- 2.6.32-042stab039.10 -- #1 SMP Tue Nov 1 13:31:08 MSK 2011
       Machine: i686 (unknown)
       Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="ANSI_X3.4-1968", collate="ANSI_X3.4-1968")
       CPU 0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU L5520 @ 2.27GHz (4533.6 bogomips)
              Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
       CPU 1: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU L5520 @ 2.27GHz (4532.6 bogomips)
              Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
       CPU 2: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU L5520 @ 2.27GHz (4532.6 bogomips)
              Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
       CPU 3: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU L5520 @ 2.27GHz (4532.6 bogomips)
              Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
       CPU 4: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU L5520 @ 2.27GHz (4532.7 bogomips)
              Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
       CPU 5: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU L5520 @ 2.27GHz (4532.7 bogomips)
              Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
       CPU 6: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU L5520 @ 2.27GHz (4532.7 bogomips)
              Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
       CPU 7: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU L5520 @ 2.27GHz (4626.5 bogomips)
              Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
       17:41:25 up 51 min,  1 user,  load average: 0.31, 1.46, 0.90; runlevel 2
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Benchmark Run: Thu Jul 12 2012 17:41:25 - 18:12:56
    8 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests
    
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables       11993025.4 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Double-Precision Whetstone                     2334.6 MWIPS (10.2 s, 7 samples)
    Execl Throughput                               2972.4 lps   (29.5 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks        457443.6 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks          127029.0 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks       1079409.8 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Pipe Throughput                              795158.3 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Pipe-based Context Switching                 106346.0 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Process Creation                               7712.4 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                   4573.3 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                    915.5 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    System Call Overhead                         598391.5 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    
    System Benchmarks Index Values               BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables         116700.0   11993025.4   1027.7
    Double-Precision Whetstone                       55.0       2334.6    424.5
    Execl Throughput                                 43.0       2972.4    691.2
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks          3960.0     457443.6   1155.2
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks            1655.0     127029.0    767.5
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks          5800.0    1079409.8   1861.1
    Pipe Throughput                               12440.0     795158.3    639.2
    Pipe-based Context Switching                   4000.0     106346.0    265.9
    Process Creation                                126.0       7712.4    612.1
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                     42.4       4573.3   1078.6
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                      6.0        915.5   1525.8
    System Call Overhead                          15000.0     598391.5    398.9
                                                                       ========
    System Benchmarks Index Score                                         754.4
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Benchmark Run: Thu Jul 12 2012 18:12:56 - 18:51:38
    8 CPUs in system; running 8 parallel copies of tests
    
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables       19016674.1 lps   (10.2 s, 7 samples)
    Double-Precision Whetstone                    18002.3 MWIPS (10.2 s, 7 samples)
    Execl Throughput                               5688.4 lps   (29.6 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks        539385.1 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks          149388.4 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks       1408232.0 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Pipe Throughput                             1273607.6 lps   (10.3 s, 7 samples)
    Pipe-based Context Switching                 204500.3 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Process Creation                              13958.6 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                   5936.9 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                    689.5 lpm   (60.3 s, 2 samples)
    System Call Overhead                         913165.3 lps   (10.4 s, 7 samples)
    
    System Benchmarks Index Values               BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables         116700.0   19016674.1   1629.5
    Double-Precision Whetstone                       55.0      18002.3   3273.1
    Execl Throughput                                 43.0       5688.4   1322.9
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks          3960.0     539385.1   1362.1
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks            1655.0     149388.4    902.6
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks          5800.0    1408232.0   2428.0
    Pipe Throughput                               12440.0    1273607.6   1023.8
    Pipe-based Context Switching                   4000.0     204500.3    511.3
    Process Creation                                126.0      13958.6   1107.8
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                     42.4       5936.9   1400.2
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                      6.0        689.5   1149.2
    System Call Overhead                          15000.0     913165.3    608.8
                                                                       ========
    System Benchmarks Index Score                                        1229.8
    
    
    
    Catalyst Host - Pie Approved!
  • HalfEatenPieHalfEatenPie Member
    edited July 2012

    Note: After talking with Luke for a bit apparently I'm currently on their old hardware (L5420s) that usually only has 8 to 9 customers per node. They're from CreeperHost.net and ran low contention gameserver VPSes.
    They're currently in the process of setting up their first offical node which will have the following specs: - 4 X 1.5 TB (7200 RPM SATA Raid 10) - 64 GB DDR3 - Dual Intel Xeon E5530s

    So if anyone's curious I'm more than willing to re-run all of these tests once I get onto the new node (I'm assuming that is).

    Personal Opinion: Obviously I'm not going to use this in any production environment until I get atleast above 20 MB/s I/O and until/unless I am switched to the newer node. After talking with the guys, I think they need some time to adjust to everything (I mean they kinda JUST opened for business and all). They probably had several problems right off the bat (like SolusVM being a pain and whatnot) so I don't blame them, its just a rocky start. Let them mature a bit and we'll see where it goes. I'll report back if I do get onto a different node.

    Author Note: Let me know how I did. This was pretty hastily done (which you can obviously assume) and I actually really wasn't planning on reviewing anything (just posting the specs onto the main thread). But yeah tell me how I can improve.

    Catalyst Host - Pie Approved!
  • DamianDamian Member

    @HalfEatenPie said: Author Note: Let me know how I did. This was pretty hastily done (which you can obviously assume) and I actually really wasn't planning on reviewing anything (just posting the specs onto the main thread). But yeah tell me how I can improve.

    I like it.

    I am no longer affiliated with IPXcore.
  • I like it; And I remember CreeperHost from when I was a MC Host; They never seemed to do too well; but hopefully, this time around, they'll do good. :]

    Systems Administrator | IWFHosting

    Comments expressed are solely my own opinion and not of that of the companies, unless stated.

  • jcalebjcaleb Moderator

    @HalfEatenPie thank you for spending money and effort for this review. Your the pie!

    Twitter Bootstrap Themes for your software projects. I recommend Prometeus and Catalyst Host

  • Updated with the Unix Bench test.

    Also not a problem for you guys almost anything :P

    Catalyst Host - Pie Approved!
  • luke_hluke_h Member
    edited July 2012

    @HalfEatenPie Thank you very much for your kind and detailed review, it is highly appreciated and I think this format is perfect. I hope that you will get better results on our new machines.

    @Damian +1

    @eastonch We have been doing quite well with Creeperhost, we had one extremely bad patch where we were knocked out for three weeks, however Creeperhost is still going strong as well.

  • Ash_HawkridgeAsh_Hawkridge Member
    edited July 2012

    @HalfEatenPie said: 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 126.118 s, 8.5 MB/s

    @HalfEatenPie said: 100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 627K/s in 2m 44s 2012-07-12 17:22:01 (624 KB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]

    Ouch!

  • @Luke_H -- The MCForums were utter gay after they implemented "approved" hosts. -- They wouldnt accept a Sole Proprietors letter from HMRC to say I was "approved"; considering most of them were not even legally self-employed.

    I can't remember if it was you, or another MChost who was really bad at things... Must of been another; It's funny how many hosts actually called themselves ([insertminecraftnamehere]host)... -- [Creeper]Host; [Pigsaddle]Host; etc.

    Where are your servers hosted at for CH?

    Systems Administrator | IWFHosting

    Comments expressed are solely my own opinion and not of that of the companies, unless stated.

  • luke_hluke_h Member
    edited July 2012

    @eastonch The reason that was implemented is because a lot of VPS Resellers, and Quick-Buck hosts, and null-billing hosting companies were causing issues and the owner of MinecraftForums had to pay out his own pocket at one point. Legal documents and registrations were implemented to stop this. A bit of a double edge sword, however it is effective, and you can still post in the "other hosts" section to offer wares. Again, we did have a bad patch, but not constant "bad things".

    We have a few locations available, can I re-direct you to our post so you can look over them? Here you go: http://tinyurl.com/cqf7aqy

    @GetKVM_Ash Yes, I know, ouch. Don't worry, our new servers are beast.

  • @Luke_H are your servers managed from within a VPS? Just setting a client up with a VPS modelled around MC hosting?

    Systems Administrator | IWFHosting

    Comments expressed are solely my own opinion and not of that of the companies, unless stated.

  • luke_hluke_h Member
    edited July 2012

    @eastonch Your first one is correct, we create an individual VPS for each Minecraft Server (And install script is ran on the VPS, comes with a dedicated IP and Free Sub Domain), users are given root SSH access as well, so the more advanced users can take advantage of the package they are buying. Not very common for Minecraft hosting I believe?

    We allow users to install other programs on their service as well, such as teamspeak, but we don't offer support if it breaks. We do have install scripts on the Control Panel for MySQL/Apache/Terraria/CSS :P

  • @Luke_H didnt uhm... Redstone Host do the same thing; are they still around?

    Systems Administrator | IWFHosting

    Comments expressed are solely my own opinion and not of that of the companies, unless stated.

  • luke_hluke_h Member

    @eastonch Redstonehost are the pit of the Minecraft Hosting Community, they turned into another Brohoster :P They still accept orders since it is all automatic, still haven't been shut down, however you get absolutely no refund, and all of their servers are oversold like hell.

  • @Luke_H -- They tried to say they were colocating inside of OVH, yet they rented from OVH? Strange guys.

    I never had a server from them but they always seems "good".

    They must still be paying for theit WHMCS and stuff then, and the servers.

    Systems Administrator | IWFHosting

    Comments expressed are solely my own opinion and not of that of the companies, unless stated.

  • Paul_TPaul_T Member
    edited July 2012

    I was aware of the drive issues for about 4 months, we've been testing the best way to improve our service at creeperhost.net and decided the drive access speed was definately our weakness.

    The box up above was our first EVER machine we rented when we started CreeperHost.net... Our modern ones fare much more like;

    ``[root@mdn3 vz]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync; rm test 16384+0 records in 16384+0 records out 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 6.01612 s, 178 MB/s

    [root@atl5 vz]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync; rm test 16384+0 records in 16384+0 records out 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 5.99772 s, 179 MB/s

    [root@la6 vz]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync; rm test 16384+0 records in 16384+0 records out 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 4.30006 s, 250 MB/s``

    These are the same drive setup as we have planned for our node for pixelshost.net when it comes up, it's being custom built for us then shipped from CA all the way to GA, should be ready for next week.

    These boxes except for the la6 box are all fully loaded, and honestly oversold slightly (Only a couple of gb due to stock shortages, the actual usage % is still below 30% of them however).

    So I personally think the new boxes fix the issue quite well, and hopefully we'll provide a really good service on pixelshost.net, we're only using our old chicago boxes before we retire them for a 'beta' period.

    We do still use L5420/E5420 processors as we decided the extra money was better spent on improving the drives instead of switching to E3 processors. (We tried a few E3's and our customers didn't actually notice the difference.)

    I'm still concerned about why that system performed THAT poorly on that test, I'll be taking a look at it later today, mind you, I haven't rebooted it or anything since October last year...

    We have some rented boxes inside OVH, they're not all that good when things go wrong, and the lack of raid arrays etc hurt, that's why we're moving away from OVH ourselves now.

    ~Paul T

  • I like @Paul_T's answer.

    So you're saying we can expect better specs by next week?

    Catalyst Host - Pie Approved!
  • Thanks for the review, you did an excellent job :-)

    Reviews | Website | Projects (Minstall, Scripts, etc)
    Thanked by 1HalfEatenPie
  • JarJar Member
    edited July 2012

    I'm currently on their old hardware

    ran low contention gameserver VPSes

    1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 126.118 s, 8.5 MB/s min/avg/max/mdev = 3.0/24.1/183.9/53.5 ms

    The box up above was our first EVER machine we rented when we started CreeperHost.net

    My interpretation of the above quoted information: They provided very low quality Minecraft servers if they used this system, and that they were aware of it's low performance way back when they started their previous venture and had the nerve to try to pass it off for the new one, safe to say they don't share the priorities that I expect from either my Minecraft or generic VPS provider. Thanks for the review. I won't be trying them.

    For the guys at Pixelshost...tough love is what you get here, make it better and move forward. Don't take my words as an insult, take them as a challenge. Respect warranted for honesty.

  • Paul_TPaul_T Member
    edited July 2012

    Honestly, it wasn't that bad at the start, that machine is heavily loaded by minecraft servers, and those are being replaced now we're more established.

    We was a small company, with no leverage to bring prices down, we couldn't afford the 4 and 8 drive setups we use now, simple as, we gave people ramdrives to resolve the issue regarding drive contention.

    I understand your notes, and we are working on them, just unfortunately the guy who builds for us in the US lives on the other side of the country to where we want the new machine to be, so we're relying on UPS actually delivering to the right place. (They sent our machine destined for Los Angeles to New York last week... Only a small mistake I guess... They're like, right next to each other, right?)

    Thanks for the 'tough-love' although my admittance of the issues should have shown we're ready to work on them, as I know very few places who'd admit it then refuse to fix it.

    But yes, hopefully there'll be far better performance next week, and I didn't realise this particular machine was suffering so badly, I'll actually be looking into that later today once I've done migrating our solusvm master to a new machine to cope with the extra load.

    Thanked by 2Jar HalfEatenPie
  • Paul_TPaul_T Member
    edited July 2012

    I just re-ran the reviewers test on the node he is on and got these results;

    [root@us1 vz]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync; rm test 16384+0 records in 16384+0 records out 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 7.14918 s, 150 MB/s

    If the reviewer doesn't mind, I'd like permission to access his VPS so I can investigate the performance difference closer.


    To avoid a tripple post

    I created a VPS on the same node, and ran the two tests which concerned me again.

    [root@us1 vz]# vzlist -a CTID NPROC STATUS IP_ADDR HOSTNAME 129 37 running
    136 148 running
    770 37 running
    818 66 running
    936 36 running
    938 80 running
    1032 12 running LET-test 1039 3 running test [root@us1 vz]# vzctl enter 1039 entered into CT 1039 [root@test /]# wget -O /dev/null http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test --2012-07-13 00:19:28-- http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test Resolving cachefly.cachefly.net... 205.234.175.175 Connecting to cachefly.cachefly.net|205.234.175.175|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream] Saving to: â/dev/nullâ

    100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 2.73M/s in 40s

    2012-07-13 00:20:07 (2.53 MB/s) - â/dev/nullâ

    [root@test /]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync; rm test 16384+0 records in 16384+0 records out 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 7.58158 s, 142 MB/s rm: remove regular file `test'? y [root@test /]#

    I'm personally quite satisified with the performance of the VPS, but still concerned as to why the reviewers VPS performed so poorly and would like to resolve this, as this is not the service we intended to provide.

  • Are you saying that right now, that server had MC Servers with 10MB/s? That must lag like a bitch!

    Systems Administrator | IWFHosting

    Comments expressed are solely my own opinion and not of that of the companies, unless stated.

  • Paul_TPaul_T Member

    I think you've misread 142MB/sec for 10MB/sec.

    Plus we used RamDrives for the MC servers world files so everything was instant.

  • Every Provider is banging on about RamDisk; there's only so much you can do with RamDisk :D!

    Systems Administrator | IWFHosting

    Comments expressed are solely my own opinion and not of that of the companies, unless stated.

  • Paul_TPaul_T Member

    Especially with the new MC versions eating drive space for worlds, thats why we've switched to RAID arrays with 15,000rpm SAS drives like the machine I'm setting up as we speak; [root@mdn5 ~]# hdparm -tT /dev/sda1

    /dev/sda1: Timing cached reads: 12258 MB in 2.00 seconds = 6138.03 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 1402 MB in 3.00 seconds = 467.21 MB/sec

    :D I still want to know why the reviewers VPS performed so badly, need to wait for his permission before I start poking around though.

  • @HalfEatenPie said: Disk I/O:

    root@LET-test:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync; rm test 16384+0 records in 16384+0 records out 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 126.118 s, 8.5 MB/s

    @Paul_T -- this is what I was referring to; and you said this was on the same node as MC servers.

    Systems Administrator | IWFHosting

    Comments expressed are solely my own opinion and not of that of the companies, unless stated.

  • Paul_TPaul_T Member
    edited July 2012

    [root@test /]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync; rm test 16384+0 records in 16384+0 records out 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 7.58158 s, 142 MB/s

    So was that which is a test I did about 5 minutes ago... I'm not sure why he got such poor results. (The same node as evidenced by the vzlist command in post above)

  • JarJar Member

    What's an ioping test look like from the node now?

  • Paul_TPaul_T Member

    I've done it directly from the node as I removed the VPS I used for testing;

    [root@us1 ioping-0.6]# ./ioping -c 10 . 4096 bytes from . (ext4 /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol02): request=1 time=13.9 ms 4096 bytes from . (ext4 /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol02): request=2 time=4.6 ms 4096 bytes from . (ext4 /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol02): request=3 time=4.8 ms 4096 bytes from . (ext4 /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol02): request=4 time=10.0 ms 4096 bytes from . (ext4 /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol02): request=5 time=6.7 ms 4096 bytes from . (ext4 /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol02): request=6 time=4.1 ms 4096 bytes from . (ext4 /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol02): request=7 time=5.1 ms 4096 bytes from . (ext4 /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol02): request=8 time=6.7 ms 4096 bytes from . (ext4 /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol02): request=9 time=4.1 ms 4096 bytes from . (ext4 /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol02): request=10 time=0.3 ms

    --- . (ext4 /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol02) ioping statistics --- 10 requests completed in 9061.2 ms, 166 iops, 0.6 mb/s min/avg/max/mdev = 0.3/6.0/13.9/3.5 ms [root@us1 ioping-0.6]#

    Still not great but minecraft is a bit of a killer at times, seems about consistant with his results really...

  • JarJar Member

    Much better, definitely acceptable results.

    Thanked by 2Paul_T HalfEatenPie
  • netomxnetomx Member

    Talking abut MC servers, anyone uses a C server with auth login feature?

    Referral links: DigitalOcean referral link | Get 500MB free with Dropbox | I sell domains with Google Apps, $1 p/ user
  • Paul_TPaul_T Member
    edited July 2012

    @jarland What I'm concerned about is why are we getting such differing results without me actually doing anything at all to the node? OS issues with the OS he chose to test with? Mine where run using CentOS 6 x64, he used Debian 6 x86... Can't see why though..

  • eastoncheastonch Member
    edited July 2012

    Only one way to find out, vzctl enter VPS_ID dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync; rm test output.... exit

    Maybe a broken file system? Dont know if that would affect it; try apt-get upgrade / update

    Systems Administrator | IWFHosting

    Comments expressed are solely my own opinion and not of that of the companies, unless stated.

  • @Paul_T said: If the reviewer doesn't mind, I'd like permission to access his VPS so I can investigate the performance difference closer.

    Go for it I don't mind. Sorry about the late response!

    Catalyst Host - Pie Approved!
  • @eastonch said: apt-get upgrade / update

    That's the first thing I do on every VPS I get. Safe to say, that's also what I did before starting the test (making sure it was the most up-to-date there). Sorry I guess I forgot to mention that

    Catalyst Host - Pie Approved!
  • Update: Ioping has improved.

    
    root@LET-test:~/ioping-0.6# ./ioping -c 10 .
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/1032): request=1 time=12.1 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/1032): request=2 time=31.8 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/1032): request=3 time=0.5 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/1032): request=4 time=0.4 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/1032): request=5 time=0.3 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/1032): request=6 time=0.4 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/1032): request=7 time=0.3 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/1032): request=8 time=0.3 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/1032): request=9 time=0.3 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/1032): request=10 time=0.4 ms
    
    --- . (simfs /vz/private/1032) ioping statistics ---
    10 requests completed in 9048.2 ms, 214 iops, 0.8 mb/s
    min/avg/max/mdev = 0.3/4.7/31.8/9.7 ms
    
    
    Catalyst Host - Pie Approved!
  • Paul_TPaul_T Member

    I can't help but wonder if someone was just super heavily loading the box right at the time you ran your tests or something, I'm going to have a look at the graphs.

    I'm very confused by all this, because all I did from the node was repeat your tests (that concerned me) and install smartmontools so I could check the drive model etc and health status, It's a cheetah 15,000rpm sas drive and is showing up fine, so no way should've had such bad results with only 7VPS's on it.

    Thanks for letting me poke around, I'll have a look later, performance needs to be consistant or it won't be much use.

  • @Paul_T take your time and just let me know if there's anything I can do.

    It could have been bad timing just all around honestly, but I did redo the CacheFly test on my VPS and got similar results. If your internal monitoring systems says everything is ok then I honestly don't know. Could be the settings on the VZ?

    Catalyst Host - Pie Approved!
  • Paul_TPaul_T Member

    The connection speed is a possability as I do have traffic shaping enabled on that particular machine, being the older generation of boxes it's only 100mbit, not gigabit like the ones we get now, so from fear of network contention I enabled that before using it for getting the site up and running etc.

    I wonder if that's interfering.

  • Could be a possibility. It does seem to have a limit at around 700 KB/s

    Catalyst Host - Pie Approved!
Sign In or Register to comment.