Seedbox vs Dedicated Server (Kimsufi)
New on LowEndTalk? Please read our 'Community Rules' by clicking on it in the right menu!

Seedbox vs Dedicated Server (Kimsufi)

I am seeding few torrents from private trackers on Kimsufi box. It works, but, sometimes I feel that 100mbit seems slower.

Does it make sense to go to a seedbox provider? Any advantages of using a dedicated box vs a seedbox for this only?

I do not want much disk space as I plan to use the Kimsufi box with 2TB disc to save data after seeding.

Any recommendations/ suggestions?

Comments

  • What are the specs on your rented server?

    I was able to push 30 TB a month using a server like this: https://www.online.net/en/server-dedicated/start-2-m-sata

    I noticed memory was fully utilized to cache the disk read & writes. With spinning disk, I think this was important to keep up with all the peers requesting different blocks of a torrent.

    If your server has little ram like 4GB, then there is a disk bottle neck and you will not be able to utilize all the bandwidth.

    If Bittorrent implements sequential seeding, I think you'll be able to do more with less hardware because disk reads will be sequential. Until this is a standard, random disk reads & writes will be your biggest bottleneck I think.

  • What's your disk I/O speed @HowLowCanYouGo ?

  • edited July 11

    I don't use that server any more. The price went up, but I think this is the same, but I pay less for it per month.

    https://www.online.net/en/server-dedicated/start-2-s-sata

    Server is 100% load, but I ran the bench.sh for you:


    CPU model : Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU C2338 @ 1.74GHz
    Number of cores : 2
    CPU frequency : 2100.000 MHz
    Total size of Disk : 916.2 GB (521.1 GB Used)
    Total amount of Mem : 3947 MB (2874 MB Used)
    Total amount of Swap : 1048 MB (894 MB Used)
    System uptime : 230 days, 9 hour 52 min
    Load average : 1.95, 2.06, 2.07
    OS : Ubuntu 16.04.3 LTS
    Arch : x86_64 (64 Bit)

    Kernel : 4.4.0-101-generic

    I/O speed(1st run) : 109 MB/s
    I/O speed(2nd run) : 105 MB/s
    I/O speed(3rd run) : 118 MB/s

    Average I/O speed : 110.7 MB/s

    Node Name IPv4 address Download Speed
    CacheFly 205.234.175.175 47.5MB/s
    Linode, Tokyo, JP 106.187.96.148 3.68MB/s
    Linode, Singapore, SG 139.162.23.4 2.55MB/s
    Linode, London, UK 176.58.107.39 17.9MB/s
    Linode, Frankfurt, DE 139.162.130.8 25.8MB/s
    Linode, Fremont, CA 50.116.14.9 4.33MB/s
    Softlayer, Dallas, TX 173.192.68.18 12.6MB/s
    Softlayer, Seattle, WA 67.228.112.250 9.85MB/s
    Softlayer, Frankfurt, DE 159.122.69.4 13.8MB/s
    Softlayer, Singapore, SG 119.81.28.170 5.23MB/s

    Softlayer, HongKong, CN 119.81.130.170 5.99MB/s

  • plumbergplumberg Member
    edited July 11

    @HowLowCanYouGo said: What are the specs on your rented server?

    ------------- i5 - 16GB RAM

    I was able to push 30 TB a month using a server like this: https://www.online.net/en/server-dedicated/start-2-m-sata

    -------------Guess its cause they offer 1Gbps link instead of my 100mbits?

    I noticed memory was fully utilized to cache the disk read & writes. With spinning disk, I think this was important to keep up with all the peers requesting different blocks of a torrent.

    If your server has little ram like 4GB, then there is a disk bottle neck and you will not be able to utilize all the bandwidth.

    If Bittorrent implements sequential seeding, I think you'll be able to do more with less hardware because disk reads will be sequential. Until this is a standard, random disk reads & writes will be your biggest bottleneck I think.

  • You could run both servers at the same time and see which works better for you. Otherwise, maybe tweaking your existing client will be easiest thing to try. I like UTServer (µTorrent for Linux) because it has so many options for peers, seeding priority, disk caching, etc.

    @plumberg said: Guess its cause they offer 1Gbps link instead of my 100mbits?

    When I was using server, they only gave me "basic" 100Mbps bandwidth. I was still able to push 30TB/month. 100Mbit/s could be bottleneck, but even with 1Gbps if it is over-provisioned, you may not get full speeds anyway. There's a lot of factors involved and I think who your host peers with.

    I guess you want a good ratio, but p2p has so many variables... who really knows if switching will help or not.

  • plumbergplumberg Member

    @HowLowCanYouGo said: You could run both servers at the same time and see which works better for you. Otherwise, maybe tweaking your existing client will be easiest thing to try. I like UTServer (µTorrent for Linux) because it has so many options for peers, seeding priority, disk caching, etc.

    @plumberg said: Guess its cause they offer 1Gbps link instead of my 100mbits?

    When I was using server, they only gave me "basic" 100Mbps bandwidth. I was still able to push 30TB/month. 100Mbit/s could be bottleneck, but even with 1Gbps if it is over-provisioned, you may not get full speeds anyway. There's a lot of factors involved and I think who your host peers with.

    I guess you want a good ratio, but p2p has so many variables... who really knows if switching will help or not.

    Hmmm, in terms of privacy, which would be better? seedbox, correct as it does not have a dedicated ip for me?

  • Privacy? You want a VPN then not bandwidth performance... that's a different question. You should research VPN and installing it on your server.

  • quickquick Member

    @plumberg said:

    @HowLowCanYouGo said: You could run both servers at the same time and see which works better for you. Otherwise, maybe tweaking your existing client will be easiest thing to try. I like UTServer (µTorrent for Linux) because it has so many options for peers, seeding priority, disk caching, etc.

    @plumberg said: Guess its cause they offer 1Gbps link instead of my 100mbits?

    When I was using server, they only gave me "basic" 100Mbps bandwidth. I was still able to push 30TB/month. 100Mbit/s could be bottleneck, but even with 1Gbps if it is over-provisioned, you may not get full speeds anyway. There's a lot of factors involved and I think who your host peers with.

    I guess you want a good ratio, but p2p has so many variables... who really knows if switching will help or not.

    Hmmm, in terms of privacy, which would be better? seedbox, correct as it does not have a dedicated ip for me?

    You need a bulletproof vps from mzunguhosting

  • plumbergplumberg Member

    @quick said:

    @plumberg said:

    @HowLowCanYouGo said: You could run both servers at the same time and see which works better for you. Otherwise, maybe tweaking your existing client will be easiest thing to try. I like UTServer (µTorrent for Linux) because it has so many options for peers, seeding priority, disk caching, etc.

    @plumberg said: Guess its cause they offer 1Gbps link instead of my 100mbits?

    When I was using server, they only gave me "basic" 100Mbps bandwidth. I was still able to push 30TB/month. 100Mbit/s could be bottleneck, but even with 1Gbps if it is over-provisioned, you may not get full speeds anyway. There's a lot of factors involved and I think who your host peers with.

    I guess you want a good ratio, but p2p has so many variables... who really knows if switching will help or not.

    Hmmm, in terms of privacy, which would be better? seedbox, correct as it does not have a dedicated ip for me?

    You need a bulletproof vps from mzunguhosting

    I already have a rack from mzunghosting. Guess need a new one

Sign In or Register to comment.