New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
https://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/1954878/#Comment_1954878
Thanks. Would you happen to have random R/W benchmarks, e.g. sysbench? https://wiki.mikejung.biz/Sysbench#VPS_and_Cloud_Server_Random_Read_Performance_Tests_Using_Sysbench
@emmd19 I have one. I'm hoping to buy more if they have another sale like their one last month (they were OOS of the location I wanted and the price had gone up by the time I could get one that had been restocked). Network-wise, it's been quite good. However, the server has been laggy more than expected while I've been logged in/interacting with it. That is, there is sometimes a large lag between typing a command into my terminal and it actually appearing on the screen or being carried out, even when my line is unused. Sometimes, it affects download speeds. I've noticed that when I was transferring files from other servers, speeds would be very variable (from 500kB/s to 8MB/s) and sometimes even go to zero. My guess is that it was because the disk was overwhelmed (there would be a lot of lag at that time), but that's just my guess. Honestly, they're so cheap I would buy more during the next sale because I need the extra storage for overflow files.
I don't think they'd be keen on you torrenting on it, unless it was just Linux ISOs and you drastically throttled the reads, writes, connections, and speed.
Not to hand, If you let me know which location/package you are interested in I can ask one of the tech's to run the benchmark for you shortly.
Thanks! Also that should read random, not sequential. I'm interested in the S250 package @ CA/BHS.
@i83 any plans on adding more NAT locations such Romania, Russia, Hong Kong, or some other exotic locations? I have 5 NATs with you guys and want to add more but in other locations
Open a ticket if its still an issue and we can take a deeper look.
No problem, added to internal tasklist for when one of the techs has a moment.
Maybe, we will have to see what 2017 holds...
@i83
Thanks, will do. It is intermittent and I had avoided opening one because it's a NAT plan (force of habit from LES), but I will open a ticket if it keeps happening. The bench (below) I ran after typing this out does point to the disk I/O potentially being a problem.
@emmd19 bench from their NC location as of just now:
@user123 Wild guess your on nc7? - It is currently undergoing a RAID rebuild so performance is down on the disks over standard which may explain the lag you mentioned.
If its still persistent once the rebuild is complete (can be checked via the status page) then open up a ticket and we can investigate further.
@i83 Probably (external IP ends in 71), though unlike the lag I was talking about before, I'm not getting any lag right now when entering commands. I'm sure it will be fine.
@emmd19 - S250, CA
freevps.us
Sysbench
[root@testSTOR250 ~]# sysbench --test=fileio --file-total-size=1G --file-test-mode=rndrw --max-time=120 --max-requests=0 --file-block-size=4K --file-num=64 --num-threads=1 run sysbench 0.4.12: multi-threaded system evaluation benchmark Running the test with following options: Number of threads: 1 Extra file open flags: 0 64 files, 16Mb each 1Gb total file size Block size 4Kb Number of random requests for random IO: 0 Read/Write ratio for combined random IO test: 1.50 Periodic FSYNC enabled, calling fsync() each 100 requests. Calling fsync() at the end of test, Enabled. Using synchronous I/O mode Doing random r/w test Threads started! Time limit exceeded, exiting... Done. Operations performed: 16800 Read, 11200 Write, 17878 Other = 45878 Total Read 65.625Mb Written 43.75Mb Total transferred 109.38Mb (933.33Kb/sec) 233.33 Requests/sec executed Test execution summary: total time: 120.0010s total number of events: 28000 total time taken by event execution: 0.0909 per-request statistics: min: 0.00ms avg: 0.00ms max: 0.29ms approx. 95 percentile: 0.01ms Threads fairness: events (avg/stddev): 28000.0000/0.00 execution time (avg/stddev): 0.0909/0.00@i83 Thank you. To be honest, that is a bit slower than I was hoping. Would you say that is the normal level of performance I can expect out of it? Would any of the higher-tier storage options be faster? I ask because my current 200GB KVM and RAID10-based storage VPS from HostUS (which only costs a little bit more) benched the following using the same parameters:
Little slower than usual but the node is quite busy today. That is also our smallest storage VM which is assigned the lowest I/O priority.
Yes, also the OVH nodes are generally slower on I/O over our other locations. Alternatively you could look into the Premium KVM range from QuadHost rather than a NAT solution.
Depending on the RAM allocation (as per the link below) you may also still be in cache, as per your linked document the value was set double the RAM offered on our service.
Forgive me but their site lists a 200G KVM as $70/m? https://hostus.us/kvm-vps.html .
Our product is £20/yr (~$24).
Ah, gotcha. I forgot to mention that the HostUS plan I'm on was a 256MB RAM LEB special, which was pretty cheap with annual billing: https://lowendbox.com/blog/hostus-new-storage-kvm-line-starting-10quarter-asia-openvz-25year-8-locations/
Can you give me an idea of how the higher-tier plans perform? My second choice would be the S250 or S500 plan in London.
As for the Premium KVM line, I see you a have a custom option - would it be possible to provision something similarly, i.e. 256-512MB of RAM and ~200GB spinning disk? How much would that run me monthly or annually?
Sorry for all the questions, I'm just trying to do some research before I buy :v
I had a jolly old chuckle when I read "Victim of its Success" on @i83's website. Thanks @i83!
I have 2 of these servers and could you guys please take it easy on them? They're storage servers, I like to think not intended for running databases or torrents. I like them a lot but the idea is to park semi-cold data on them and get it again later. The iops available is not all that high and doesn't need to be. I do sshfs mount them for convenient serial access but don't expect that to be as fast as local files.
The usual signs are that if you type "ls" or the like, there's usually a little pause before output, that you rarely experience with SSD servers. If they beefed up the servers to get rid of that pause, it would cost more without doing its intended function any better, and I'd rather not pay for that.
If you want cheap network SSD storage, try Scaleway, 2 euro/month per 50GB chunk. Not like a local NVMe but still faster than any HDD. I think they advertise 2000 iops per chunk.