Howdy, Stranger!

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

Advertise on LowEndTalk.com
Virtono – Cloud Mini (DE) benchmark / review
New on LowEndTalk? Please read our 'Community Rules' by clicking on it in the right menu!

Virtono – Cloud Mini (DE) benchmark / review

datanoisedatanoise Member
edited April 2019 in Reviews

Hi LET

I had been looking for a small yearly KVM in EU for a while, when I noticed that Virtono were adding a EUR 9.95/y "Cloud Mini" to their offering I decided to give it a try. Most cheap offers I found either had too little disk space or not enough RAM, this little beast (15GB SSD / 1 Core / 512MB RAM / 1 IPv4 / 1 IPv6 / 1TB Bandwidth @ 1Gbps) seemed quite capable.

I did some traceroutes and it seemed to me that Frankfurt was the best location for quick routing from various places in Europe. I was initially planning to downgrade the Miami KVM I have with them, but when I asked them if that was possible a few weeks ago there was no very small KVMs available, but they offered me to try a small OpenVZ server in another location which I wasn't interested in. When I saw that they started offering small KVMs I decided to pull the trigger and try a "Cloud Mini" KVM in Germany.

The Cloud Mini in DE was delivered really quickly. They are using WHMCS and Virtualizor, as I mentioned in my review of their KVM VPS in Miami. Everything works as expected.

Here is a bench.sh:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
CPU model            : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU           X5650  @ 2.67GHz
Number of cores      : 1
CPU frequency        : 2666.760 MHz
Total size of Disk   : 16.0 GB (3.9 GB Used)
Total amount of Mem  : 487 MB (86 MB Used)
Total amount of Swap : 1279 MB (15 MB Used)
System uptime        : 0 days, 2 hour 36 min
Load average         : 2.86, 2.34, 1.44
OS                   : CentOS 7.6.1810
Arch                 : x86_64 (64 Bit)
Kernel               : 3.10.0-957.10.1.el7.x86_64
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I/O speed(1st run)   : 436 MB/s
I/O speed(2nd run)   : 373 MB/s
I/O speed(3rd run)   : 392 MB/s
Average I/O speed    : 400.3 MB/s
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Node Name                       IPv4 address            Download Speed
CacheFly                        205.234.175.175         34.4MB/s      
Linode, Tokyo, JP               106.187.96.148          5.70MB/s      
Linode, Singapore, SG           139.162.23.4            8.51MB/s      
Linode, London, UK              176.58.107.39           42.5MB/s      
Linode, Frankfurt, DE           139.162.130.8           55.7MB/s      
Linode, Fremont, CA             50.116.14.9             3.67MB/s      
Softlayer, Dallas, TX           173.192.68.18           12.9MB/s      
Softlayer, Seattle, WA          67.228.112.250          12.3MB/s      
Softlayer, Frankfurt, DE        159.122.69.4            9.11MB/s      
Softlayer, Singapore, SG        119.81.28.170           11.5MB/s      
Softlayer, HongKong, CN         119.81.130.170          9.66MB/s      
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Node Name                       IPv6 address            Download Speed
Linode, Atlanta, GA             2600:3c02::4b           11.9MB/s      
Linode, Dallas, TX              2600:3c00::4b           6.87MB/s      
Linode, Newark, NJ              2600:3c03::4b           11.6MB/s      
Linode, Singapore, SG           2400:8901::4b           5.41MB/s      
Linode, Tokyo, JP               2400:8900::4b           5.28MB/s      
Softlayer, San Jose, CA         2607:f0d0:2601:2a::4    10.3MB/s      
Softlayer, Paris, FR            2a03:8180:1301:8::4     35.4MB/s      
Softlayer, Singapore, SG        2401:c900:1101:8::2     9.00MB/s      
Softlayer, Tokyo, JP            2401:c900:1001:16::4    6.98MB/s      
----------------------------------------------------------------------

And here is the initial serverscope bench: https://serverscope.io/trials/6qZq

You'll notice on it that the CPU is capped to around 1/4th of it's full power, as UnixBench result is 236.0. When asking the support about that, they told me that all they "Tiny" VPS plans are capped (KVM and OpenVZ) and that users needing more power should go to higher end plans: CLOUD S or SMALL VPS and higher aren't capped.

IMO the ability to use 100% of one core for a few minutes/hours per day would have been better, but their choice is understandable given the very cheap price, and not necessarily a problem, as for many use cases this could be more than enough power. But this has to be taken into consideration before choosing to order one of their 'Tiny' VPS or another option. If your project is to run a busy php site this is probably not the right VPS, but for a small dynamic site or to serve your cached pages with nginx, it should perform decently.

The network seems good to me, the node is in Telehouse Frankfurt and they are using m247 (https://bgp.he.net/AS9009) like in their other locations.

don't buy what you don't need: you'll save money and will end up able to grab a quality VPS when really needed.

Comments

  • datanoisedatanoise Member
    edited April 2019

    CPU speed is capped at 1/2 of full CPU power, not 1/4: https://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/2959997/#Comment_2959997

    Thanked by 1virtono

    don't buy what you don't need: you'll save money and will end up able to grab a quality VPS when really needed.

  • datanoisedatanoise Member
    edited April 2019

    In case this can be useful to fellow LET members here are more benchmarks (without CPU capping):

    nench.sh:

    -------------------------------------------------
     nench.sh v2019.03.01 -- https://git.io/nench.sh
     benchmark timestamp:    2019-04-05 16:20:37 UTC
    -------------------------------------------------
    
    Processor:    Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU           X5650  @ 2.67GHz
    CPU cores:    1
    Frequency:    2666.760 MHz
    RAM:          487M
    Swap:         255M
    Kernel:       Linux 3.10.0-957.10.1.el7.x86_64 x86_64
    
    Disks:
    loop0    1.5G  HDD
    vda     15G  HDD
    
    CPU: SHA256-hashing 500 MB
        2.771 seconds
    CPU: bzip2-compressing 500 MB
        6.887 seconds
    CPU: AES-encrypting 500 MB
        1.519 seconds
    
    ioping: seek rate
        min/avg/max/mdev = 146.1 us / 332.6 us / 6.20 ms / 129.6 us
    ioping: sequential read speed
        generated 5.27 k requests in 5.00 s, 1.29 GiB, 1.05 k iops, 263.4 MiB/s
    
    dd: sequential write speed
        1st run:    606.54 MiB/s
        2nd run:    631.33 MiB/s
        3rd run:    627.52 MiB/s
        average:    621.80 MiB/s
    
    IPv4 speedtests
        your IPv4:    188.214.93.xxxx
    
        Cachefly CDN:         106.51 MiB/s
        Leaseweb (NL):        42.73 MiB/s
        Softlayer DAL (US):   10.46 MiB/s
        Online.net (FR):      65.30 MiB/s
        OVH BHS (CA):         13.36 MiB/s
    
    IPv6 speedtests
        your IPv6:    2001:ac8:20:xxxx
    
        Leaseweb (NL):        62.09 MiB/s
        Softlayer DAL (US):   0.00 MiB/s
        Online.net (FR):      13.84 MiB/s
        OVH BHS (CA):         5.11 MiB/s
    -------------------------------------------------
    

    Serverscope:

    https://serverscope.io/trials/B9ar

    Latency:

    --- vip1.g.edgefly.com ping statistics ---
    3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2002ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.710/0.736/0.771/0.033 ms
    
    --- syd-au-ping.vultr.com ping statistics ---
    3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2001ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 330.386/330.411/330.444/0.024 ms
    
    --- hnd-jp-ping.vultr.com ping statistics ---
    3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2000ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 252.563/252.586/252.608/0.580 ms
    
    --- sgp-ping.vultr.com ping statistics ---
    3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2001ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 193.783/193.832/193.858/0.361 ms
    
    --- lax-ca-us-ping.vultr.com ping statistics ---
    3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2002ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 149.767/149.794/149.838/0.447 ms
    
    --- wa-us-ping.vultr.com ping statistics ---
    3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2002ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 154.844/154.902/154.977/0.457 ms
    
    --- tx-us-ping.vultr.com ping statistics ---
    3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2002ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 133.851/133.938/134.083/0.103 ms
    
    --- il-us-ping.vultr.com ping statistics ---
    3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2002ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 103.113/103.182/103.225/0.049 ms
    
    --- ga-us-ping.vultr.com ping statistics ---
    3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2001ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 123.148/123.258/123.401/0.418 ms
    
    --- fl-us-ping.vultr.com ping statistics ---
    3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2002ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 113.827/113.863/113.906/0.032 ms
    
    --- nj-us-ping.vultr.com ping statistics ---
    3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2002ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 87.928/89.250/90.062/1.004 ms
    
    --- fra-de-ping.vultr.com ping statistics ---
    3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2001ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.698/0.775/0.824/0.064 ms
    
    --- ams-nl-ping.vultr.com ping statistics ---
    3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2003ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 9.262/9.361/9.421/0.070 ms
    
    --- lon-gb-ping.vultr.com ping statistics ---
    3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2003ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 16.344/16.424/16.520/0.164 ms
    
    --- par-fr-ping.vultr.com ping statistics ---
    3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2002ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 21.860/23.912/27.982/2.880 ms
    
    --- bhs.proof.ovh.net ping statistics ---
    3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2002ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 89.651/89.666/89.675/0.345 ms
    
    Thanked by 1virtono

    don't buy what you don't need: you'll save money and will end up able to grab a quality VPS when really needed.

  • TheLinuxBugTheLinuxBug Member
    edited April 2019

    Can someone with their service try to do a high PPS transfer and see if they still auto-null-route / suspend you? My experience with their services directly, when previously testing them, was that any high rate PPS transfer would cause the server to be suspended. I am curious to know if this is resolved?

    To note: I now have services through their re-seller Greenwebpages and don't see this happen, but per their explanation in their thread, they supposedly have their own hypervisors and manage them a bit differently.

    Also, when I tested it was in the DE location.

    Appreciate any feedback on this.

    Cheers!

    Thanked by 1vimalware

    Have an Allwinner H3 device? Android? Check out H3Droid! | Lichee Pi Zero - The 6$ SBC | #SYSarm - Get It! | Atomic Pi - $35 x86 SBC
    21+ Years IT Experience in Linux/Windows Hosting, Administration and Development Services

  • TheLinuxBug said: try to do a high PPS transfer and see if they still auto-null-route / suspend you?

    What kind of test would work out for you? (What activity did get you null-routed?)

    Maybe @catalingmn has a direct answer to your question, though.

    don't buy what you don't need: you'll save money and will end up able to grab a quality VPS when really needed.

  • WolfWolf Member

    Thanks for the bench. How about a new UnixBench with 1/2 Core now?

    Cheers

  • datanoise said: What kind of test would work out for you? (What activity did get you null-routed?)

    I can't remember exactly, but I would expect my first thought was to check iperf, so very likely iperf would be enough to have triggered what I saw. It has been 6-8 months since I had a server though, so things could have changed for the better.

    Cheers!

    Have an Allwinner H3 device? Android? Check out H3Droid! | Lichee Pi Zero - The 6$ SBC | #SYSarm - Get It! | Atomic Pi - $35 x86 SBC
    21+ Years IT Experience in Linux/Windows Hosting, Administration and Development Services

  • datanoisedatanoise Member
    edited April 2019

    Wolf said: How about a new UnixBench with 1/2 Core now?

    As I understand it, the first one is with what you can expect from "1/2 core" (1/4 was my guess, based on unixbench results given the CPU used).

    TheLinuxBug said: so very likely iperf would be enough to have triggered what I saw.

    Just tried: I had no problem running many iperf tests.

    Thanked by 1TheLinuxBug

    don't buy what you don't need: you'll save money and will end up able to grab a quality VPS when really needed.

  • WolfWolf Member

    Are you sure?

    Reading @catalingmn post, it sounded like an issue which has been resolved...

  • datanoisedatanoise Member
    edited April 2019

    Wolf said: Are you sure?

    Yep. I just contacted support, they confirmed that. It was 1/2 from the beginning, 1/4 was just my (wrong) guess. This CPU cap is only on the smaller plans (Cloud Mini / Tiny VPS), all other plans aren't capped at all.

    don't buy what you don't need: you'll save money and will end up able to grab a quality VPS when really needed.

  • Any review or comment on this provider? Virtono seems formally was shockvps.

Sign In or Register to comment.