Howdy, Stranger!

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


Triple NexusBytes review UK, SGP, JP
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

Triple NexusBytes review UK, SGP, JP

jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

As I've said in my last review @seriesn provided me with a full month access to two nodes, UK and SGP and a bit later he added access to his (new it seems) Japan/Tokyo node for a normal 3 day test.

Here are the results for the SGP node:

Machine: amd64, Arch.: amd64, Model: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12-Core Processor            
OS, version: FreeBSD 12.0, Mem.: 1.985 GB
CPU - Cores: 2, Family/Model/Stepping: 23/113/0
Cache: 32K/32K L1d/L1i, 512K L2, 64M L3
Std. Flags: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat
          pse36 cflsh mmx fxsr sse sse2 sse3 pclmulqdq ssse3 fma cx16 sse4_1
          sse4_2 popcnt aes xsave osxsave avx f16c rdrnd hypervisor
Ext. Flags: fsgsbase bmi1 avx2 smep bmi2 syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt pdpe1gb
          rdtscp lm lahf_lm cmp_legacy svm cr8_legacy lzcnt sse4a misalignsse
          3dnowprefetch osvw

ProcMem SC: avg 383.9 - min 331.4 (86.3 %), max 440.9 (114.9 %)
ProcMem MC: avg 845.9 - min 769.6 (91.0 %), max 954.9 (112.9 %)

--- Disk - Buffered ---
Write seq.: avg 1291.70 - min 718.89 (55.7%), max 1613.92 (124.9%)
Write rnd.: avg 6025.82 - min 4298.97 (71.3%), max 8615.83 (143.0%)
Read seq.:  avg 1270.81 - min 1113.02 (87.6%), max 1665.00 (131.0%)
Read rnd.:  avg 5372.93 - min 3989.73 (74.3%), max 6804.24 (126.6%)
--- Disk - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq.: avg 116.86 - min 88.82 (76.0%), max 145.86 (124.8%)
Write rnd.: avg 217.56 - min 90.01 (41.4%), max 264.93 (121.8%)
Read seq.:  avg 2894.63 - min 2239.15 (77.4%), max 4338.47 (149.9%)
Read rnd.:  avg 513.16 - min 401.53 (78.2%), max 634.31 (123.6%)

US LAX lax.download.datapacket.com
  DL [Mb/s]: avg 35.83 - min 5.01 (14.0%), max 41.42 (115.6%)
  Ping:      avg 175.3 - min 164.5 (93.9%), max 221.8 (126.6%)
  Web ping:  avg 177.9 - min 164.5 (92.5%), max 221.8 (124.7%)

NO OSL speedtest.osl01.softlayer.com
  DL [Mb/s]: avg 23.00 - min 17.20 (74.8%), max 24.72 (107.5%)
  Ping:      avg 259.8 - min 253.6 (97.6%), max 336.7 (129.6%)
  Web ping:  avg 335.2 - min 253.6 (75.7%), max 2711.4 (809.0%)

US SJC speedtest.sjc01.softlayer.com
  DL [Mb/s]: avg 32.89 - min 26.00 (79.0%), max 36.39 (110.6%)
  Ping:      avg 174.4 - min 115.7 (66.3%), max 180.2 (103.3%)
  Web ping:  avg 220.5 - min 169.7 (77.0%), max 2766.1 (1254.6%)

JP TOK speedtest.tokyo2.linode.com
  DL [Mb/s]: avg 76.02 - min 12.82 (16.9%), max 90.90 (119.6%)
  Ping:      avg 70.8 - min 70.0 (98.9%), max 109.8 (155.2%)
  Web ping:  avg 72.6 - min 70.0 (96.5%), max 109.8 (151.3%)

AU MEL speedtest.mel01.softlayer.com
  DL [Mb/s]: avg 26.85 - min 0.00 (0.0%), max 30.16 (112.3%) - (http error: -10)
  Ping:      avg 214.5 - min 139.0 (64.8%), max 311.4 (145.2%)
  Web ping:  avg 265.3 - min 200.4 (75.5%), max 2311.9 (871.4%)

IT MIL speedtest.mil01.softlayer.com
  DL [Mb/s]: avg 33.07 - min 22.16 (67.0%), max 39.06 (118.1%)
  Ping:      avg 172.7 - min 158.9 (92.0%), max 264.7 (153.3%)
  Web ping:  avg 204.7 - min 158.9 (77.6%), max 2017.9 (985.6%)

FR PAR speedtest.par01.softlayer.com
  DL [Mb/s]: avg 32.90 - min 22.05 (67.0%), max 37.38 (113.6%)
  Ping:      avg 172.8 - min 109.3 (63.3%), max 251.3 (145.5%)
  Web ping:  avg 244.0 - min 160.6 (65.8%), max 2537.3 (1039.8%)

SG SGP mirror.sg.leaseweb.net
  DL [Mb/s]: avg 910.36 - min 94.73 (10.4%), max 961.64 (105.6%)
  Ping:      avg 1.3 - min 1.1 (83.2%), max 5.7 (431.0%)
  Web ping:  avg 1.4 - min 1.2 (87.3%), max 5.7 (414.7%)

BR SAO speedtest.sao01.softlayer.com
  DL [Mb/s]: avg 17.36 - min 0.00 (0.0%), max 18.36 (105.7%) - (http error: -10)
  Ping:      avg 347.7 - min 340.1 (97.8%), max 493.1 (141.8%)
  Web ping:  avg 410.9 - min 340.7 (82.9%), max 2982.3 (725.8%)

IN CHN speedtest.che01.softlayer.com
  DL [Mb/s]: avg 27.66 - min 4.10 (14.8%), max 30.01 (108.5%)
  Ping:      avg 210.9 - min 207.6 (98.4%), max 254.2 (120.5%)
  Web ping:  avg 233.7 - min 207.9 (89.0%), max 1627.8 (696.6%)

GR UNK speedtest.ftp.otenet.gr
  DL [Mb/s]: avg 23.24 - min 0.00 (0.0%), max 31.75 (136.6%) - (http error: -10)
  Ping:      avg 13905.6 - min 196.9 (1.4%), max 1398713.1 (10058.6%)
  Web ping:  avg 13941.5 - min 197.0 (1.4%), max 1398713.1 (10032.8%)

US WDC mirror.wdc1.us.leaseweb.net
  DL [Mb/s]: avg 26.52 - min 0.59 (2.2%), max 29.29 (110.4%)
  Ping:      avg 856.1 - min 220.7 (25.8%), max 215908.3 (25218.7%)
  Web ping:  avg 860.6 - min 220.8 (25.7%), max 215908.3 (25088.5%)

DE FRA speedtest.fra02.softlayer.com
  DL [Mb/s]: avg 33.34 - min 5.38 (16.1%), max 38.66 (115.9%)
  Ping:      avg 170.1 - min 158.7 (93.3%), max 247.4 (145.4%)
  Web ping:  avg 224.3 - min 158.8 (70.8%), max 2624.6 (1170.0%)

RU MOS speedtest.hostkey.ru
  DL [Mb/s]: avg 31.57 - min 0.00 (0.0%), max 35.98 (114.0%) - (http error: -10)
  Ping:      avg 200.4 - min 186.1 (92.9%), max 323.3 (161.3%)
  Web ping:  avg 211.8 - min 186.4 (88.0%), max 343.0 (161.9%)

US DAL speedtest.dal05.softlayer.com
  DL [Mb/s]: avg 27.24 - min 23.56 (86.5%), max 29.75 (109.2%)
  Ping:      avg 213.9 - min 208.0 (97.3%), max 219.0 (102.4%)
  Web ping:  avg 217.9 - min 208.6 (95.7%), max 1119.9 (513.9%)

UK LON speedtest.lon02.softlayer.com
  DL [Mb/s]: avg 32.95 - min 5.78 (17.5%), max 37.62 (114.2%)
  Ping:      avg 2786.0 - min 164.8 (5.9%), max 1166077.1 (41855.6%)
  Web ping:  avg 2843.9 - min 164.8 (5.8%), max 1166077.1 (41002.1%)

US NYC nyc.download.datapacket.com
  DL [Mb/s]: avg 21.76 - min 0.52 (2.4%), max 30.08 (138.2%)
  Ping:      avg 229.2 - min 132.5 (57.8%), max 262.7 (114.6%)
  Web ping:  avg 233.8 - min 220.4 (94.3%), max 485.3 (207.6%)

RO BUC 185.183.99.8
  DL [Mb/s]: avg 31.20 - min 2.57 (8.2%), max 37.43 (120.0%)
  Ping:      avg 2993.2 - min 177.7 (5.9%), max 1248759.8 (41719.3%)
  Web ping:  avg 3004.6 - min 177.9 (5.9%), max 1248759.8 (41561.7%)

CN_HK  mirror.hk.leaseweb.net
  DL [Mb/s]: avg 134.05 - min 11.58 (8.6%), max 160.32 (119.6%)
  Ping:      avg 12069.6 - min 37.4 (0.3%), max 1407793.8 (11663.9%)
  Web ping:  avg 12069.8 - min 37.4 (0.3%), max 1407793.8 (11663.8%)

First the CPU and memory: It's what one expects from a Zen 2 processor with decent memory and from NexusBytes. Nice, really nice. Also note the low spread which suggests that the node is not crowded.

The disks are decent, too and again, we find that the node isn't crowded although there certainly is some business going on.

Regarding the network I first need to explain something. When you see 'http error: X' (x being -1 or -10) that does not mean that those error always happen or even just frequently. What it means is that they did happen at least once. both -1 and -10 boil down to a receive error, either early on (connection and headers) or during the test file download itself.

First the good news: one does indeed get a 1 Gb/s port as is demonstrated by the test against another SGP target.

As for the rest, oh well ... what doesn't worry me so much is the relatively low download speed all around the globe. After all those are rather cheap VPSs and frankly, for very many use cases 20 or 30 Mb/s is sufficient. What really does worry me is the (lack of) consistency that shows itself in sometimes really extreme numbers like 1.2% min and 40000% max (400 times slower ping) and average ping times in the seconds range rather than milliseconds for quite a few targets.

Now, I don't know that corner of the world well and maybe, even probably they are way less pampered than we are in Europe and North-America, but still those results are nothing to write home about.

I'll end this on a positive node. The download speeds both to Hongkong and Tokyo are quite decent based on what I've seen in that region.

Thanked by 1seriesn

The problem with democracy is that by definition > 85% of the voters are not particularly intelligent.

Comments

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    Next, the UK node:

    Machine: amd64, Arch.: amd64, Model: AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16-Core Processor            
    OS, version: FreeBSD 12.0, Mem.: 1.985 GB
    CPU - Cores: 2, Family/Model/Stepping: 23/113/0
    Cache: 32K/32K L1d/L1i, 512K L2, 64M L3
    Std. Flags: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat
              pse36 cflsh mmx fxsr sse sse2 sse3 pclmulqdq ssse3 fma cx16 sse4_1
              sse4_2 popcnt aes xsave osxsave avx f16c rdrnd hypervisor
    Ext. Flags: fsgsbase bmi1 avx2 smep bmi2 syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt pdpe1gb
              rdtscp lm lahf_lm cmp_legacy svm cr8_legacy lzcnt sse4a misalignsse
              3dnowprefetch osvw
    
    ProcMem SC: avg 369.1 - min 325.7 (88.2 %), max 428.4 (116.1 %)
    ProcMem MC: avg 838.1 - min 666.2 (79.5 %), max 905.9 (108.1 %)
    
    --- Disk - Buffered ---
    Write seq.: avg 1263.79 - min 714.40 (56.5%), max 1469.15 (116.2%)
    Write rnd.: avg 5081.01 - min 1449.19 (28.5%), max 6442.30 (126.8%)
    Read seq.:  avg 1217.00 - min 288.56 (23.7%), max 1423.48 (117.0%)
    Read rnd.:  avg 4965.94 - min 1794.97 (36.1%), max 6287.17 (126.6%)
    --- Disk - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq.: avg 115.13 - min 74.51 (64.7%), max 128.30 (111.4%)
    Write rnd.: avg 218.14 - min 163.75 (75.1%), max 246.50 (113.0%)
    Read seq.:  avg 2512.15 - min 1255.87 (50.0%), max 3493.93 (139.1%)
    Read rnd.:  avg 540.37 - min 362.27 (67.0%), max 623.48 (115.4%)
    
    US LAX lax.download.datapacket.com
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 42.98 - min 25.68 (59.8%), max 47.36 (110.2%)
      Ping:      avg 1113.1 - min 138.1 (12.4%), max 420968.4 (37819.3%)
      Web ping:  avg 1114.2 - min 140.8 (12.6%), max 420968.4 (37781.8%)
    
    NO OSL speedtest.osl01.softlayer.com
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 321.58 - min 36.52 (11.4%), max 358.29 (111.4%)
      Ping:      avg 17.4 - min 16.8 (96.6%), max 82.2 (472.9%)
      Web ping:  avg 62.9 - min 16.9 (26.9%), max 2495.4 (3968.9%)
    
    US SJC speedtest.sjc01.softlayer.com
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 40.93 - min 0.00 (0.0%), max 44.78 (109.4%) - (http error: -1)
      Ping:      avg 138.2 - min 135.8 (98.2%), max 140.7 (101.8%)
      Web ping:  avg 217.4 - min 135.9 (62.5%), max 2842.3 (1307.5%)
    
    JP TOK speedtest.tokyo2.linode.com
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 27.37 - min 2.44 (8.9%), max 30.42 (111.2%)
      Ping:      avg 217.9 - min 212.2 (97.4%), max 233.5 (107.2%)
      Web ping:  avg 220.2 - min 212.2 (96.4%), max 351.1 (159.5%)
    
    AU MEL speedtest.mel01.softlayer.com
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 7.89 - min 0.00 (0.0%), max 23.87 (302.7%) - (http error: -10)
      Ping:      avg 1112.1 - min 256.4 (23.1%), max 205214.5 (18452.5%)
      Web ping:  avg 1151.1 - min 257.7 (22.4%), max 205214.5 (17828.1%)
    
    IT MIL speedtest.mil01.softlayer.com
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 249.29 - min 0.00 (0.0%), max 264.03 (105.9%) - (http error: -1)
      Ping:      avg 21.0 - min 20.8 (99.1%), max 32.6 (155.3%)
      Web ping:  avg 40.3 - min 20.8 (51.6%), max 2146.7 (5323.4%)
    
    FR PAR speedtest.par01.softlayer.com
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 529.79 - min 128.22 (24.2%), max 664.18 (125.4%)
      Ping:      avg 9.3 - min 8.4 (90.1%), max 16.5 (177.0%)
      Web ping:  avg 37.8 - min 8.5 (22.5%), max 1994.3 (5277.2%)
    
    SG SGP mirror.sg.leaseweb.net
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 37.80 - min 1.38 (3.7%), max 40.36 (106.8%)
      Ping:      avg 2346.6 - min 103.6 (4.4%), max 542955.9 (23138.3%)
      Web ping:  avg 2346.8 - min 151.8 (6.5%), max 542955.9 (23136.3%)
    
    BR SAO speedtest.sao01.softlayer.com
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 8.79 - min 0.31 (3.5%), max 31.42 (357.5%)
      Ping:      avg 4280.2 - min 188.5 (4.4%), max 1079606.4 (25223.0%)
      Web ping:  avg 4355.5 - min 188.5 (4.3%), max 1079606.4 (24787.0%)
    
    IN CHN speedtest.che01.softlayer.com
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 25.17 - min 7.52 (29.9%), max 38.25 (152.0%)
      Ping:      avg 239.9 - min 156.1 (65.1%), max 2413.4 (1005.9%)
      Web ping:  avg 277.3 - min 156.1 (56.3%), max 2413.4 (870.3%)
    
    GR UNK speedtest.ftp.otenet.gr
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 99.40 - min 0.00 (0.0%), max 135.12 (135.9%) - (http error: -10)
      Ping:      avg 19106.0 - min 42.2 (0.2%), max 1394858.2 (7300.6%)
      Web ping:  avg 19113.9 - min 42.2 (0.2%), max 1394858.2 (7297.6%)
    
    US WDC mirror.wdc1.us.leaseweb.net
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 60.25 - min 1.27 (2.1%), max 75.45 (125.2%)
      Ping:      avg 83.3 - min 77.3 (92.8%), max 84.5 (101.5%)
      Web ping:  avg 84.6 - min 77.3 (91.4%), max 155.2 (183.4%)
    
    DE FRA speedtest.fra02.softlayer.com
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 436.38 - min 67.31 (15.4%), max 467.05 (107.0%)
      Ping:      avg 11.6 - min 11.5 (98.7%), max 13.9 (119.3%)
      Web ping:  avg 87.4 - min 11.5 (13.2%), max 2510.5 (2872.3%)
    
    RU MOS speedtest.hostkey.ru
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 118.39 - min 3.80 (3.2%), max 137.91 (116.5%)
      Ping:      avg 50.5 - min 47.0 (93.0%), max 138.0 (273.0%)
      Web ping:  avg 54.6 - min 47.0 (86.1%), max 138.0 (252.7%)
    
    US DAL speedtest.dal05.softlayer.com
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 49.31 - min 7.31 (14.8%), max 57.12 (115.8%)
      Ping:      avg 113.0 - min 108.7 (96.2%), max 144.6 (127.9%)
      Web ping:  avg 120.7 - min 109.4 (90.7%), max 1279.9 (1060.7%)
    
    UK LON speedtest.lon02.softlayer.com
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 894.95 - min 98.07 (11.0%), max 998.64 (111.6%)
      Ping:      avg 501.4 - min 1.0 (0.2%), max 218471.8 (43573.1%)
      Web ping:  avg 588.2 - min 1.1 (0.2%), max 218471.8 (37140.4%)
    
    US NYC nyc.download.datapacket.com
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 76.45 - min 13.94 (18.2%), max 98.90 (129.4%)
      Ping:      avg 73.4 - min 66.9 (91.2%), max 155.1 (211.3%)
      Web ping:  avg 75.5 - min 67.0 (88.7%), max 376.8 (499.0%)
    
    RO BUC 185.183.99.8
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 133.61 - min 22.33 (16.7%), max 169.49 (126.8%)
      Ping:      avg 38.4 - min 36.0 (93.8%), max 73.4 (191.2%)
      Web ping:  avg 45.2 - min 36.2 (80.1%), max 374.3 (828.1%)
    
    CN_HK  mirror.hk.leaseweb.net
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 33.36 - min 31.71 (95.0%), max 34.77 (104.2%)
      Ping:      avg 174.1 - min 174.0 (99.9%), max 174.4 (100.2%)
      Web ping:  avg 174.6 - min 174.0 (99.7%), max 177.9 (101.9%)
    

    Front up: I like seriesn/NexusBytes and am a happy customer myself so, frankly I seriously considered to suggest to blow it off and to do the benchmark and review at a later point in time after they tuned some things - but I know seriesn, his response would be (and already was once) "We are transparent. That's one of our principles" ...

    The Zen 2 processor and matching memory are great as always. The disk is a bit stressed as it seems to be a well occupied node, but OK. But the network, oh boy ... and here we are not talking about some far off Asian location but about London which certainly is among the best and massively connected locations on this planet.

    Just look at the LON softlayer test target. Just shy of 900 Mb/s download speed against a node that might even be in the same colo or, at worst, is connected via multiple short and fat fibers. And a ping of avg. almost half a second and up to 40 or even 50 seconds?! Let me mercifully end this with a positive remark: the latency to Hongkong is quite decent, and the average download speeds are not great for a London node but OK.

    Note: both 1 month test results are based on between 400 and 500 benchmark runs. As usual with my benchmarks the runs are randomly timed and around the clock.

    Thanked by 1seriesn

    The problem with democracy is that by definition > 85% of the voters are not particularly intelligent.

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    Now, to the Japan node. This one is the pleasant surprise, but before I begin I have to apologize for a silly mistake: I forgot to run the '-s' option at the beginning, so there are no data provided for the systems details. I do remember though that the processor was a Ryzen 37xx and the rest was the usual, just with the other tested VPSs (2 GB mem., etc.). Again, my sincere apologies.

    ProcMem SC: avg 446.0 - min 416.7 (93.4 %), max 463.0 (103.8 %)
    ProcMem MC: avg 836.8 - min 695.7 (83.1 %), max 971.8 (116.1 %)
    
    --- Disk - Buffered ---
    Write seq.: avg 1483.96 - min 1053.74 (71.0%), max 2078.32 (140.1%)
    Write rnd.: avg 9131.80 - min 7561.02 (82.8%), max 11925.35 (130.6%)
    Read seq.:  avg 1338.39 - min 984.04 (73.5%), max 1720.99 (128.6%)
    Read rnd.:  avg 6823.28 - min 5793.12 (84.9%), max 8962.49 (131.4%)
    --- Disk - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq.: avg 158.60 - min 149.51 (94.3%), max 169.37 (106.8%)
    Write rnd.: avg 313.76 - min 296.94 (94.6%), max 331.68 (105.7%)
    Read seq.:  avg 3963.32 - min 3060.14 (77.2%), max 4674.87 (118.0%)
    Read rnd.:  avg 878.88 - min 671.56 (76.4%), max 1015.31 (115.5%)
    
    US LAX lax.download.datapacket.com
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 56.67 - min 22.84 (40.3%), max 66.70 (117.7%)
      Ping:      avg 111.0 - min 104.9 (94.5%), max 121.5 (109.5%)
      Web ping:  avg 114.5 - min 105.1 (91.8%), max 121.5 (106.1%)
    
    NO OSL speedtest.osl01.softlayer.com
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 18.98 - min 13.99 (73.7%), max 19.92 (104.9%)
      Ping:      avg 320.0 - min 319.1 (99.7%), max 320.8 (100.3%)
      Web ping:  avg 390.3 - min 319.2 (81.8%), max 2195.5 (562.6%)
    
    US SJC speedtest.sjc01.softlayer.com
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 30.81 - min 14.99 (48.7%), max 33.63 (109.2%)
      Ping:      avg 184.1 - min 179.5 (97.5%), max 189.7 (103.0%)
      Web ping:  avg 228.5 - min 179.6 (78.6%), max 1334.2 (583.9%)
    
    JP TOK speedtest.tokyo2.linode.com
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 591.02 - min 499.26 (84.5%), max 639.32 (108.2%)
      Ping:      avg 1.6 - min 1.5 (92.1%), max 1.8 (110.5%)
      Web ping:  avg 1.9 - min 1.6 (86.5%), max 2.3 (124.3%)
    
    AU MEL speedtest.mel01.softlayer.com
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 44.00 - min 18.81 (42.8%), max 48.56 (110.4%)
      Ping:      avg 125.7 - min 125.2 (99.6%), max 126.6 (100.7%)
      Web ping:  avg 250.1 - min 125.9 (50.3%), max 2497.3 (998.4%)
    
    IT MIL speedtest.mil01.softlayer.com
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 21.89 - min 16.69 (76.2%), max 22.93 (104.7%)
      Ping:      avg 278.6 - min 278.1 (99.8%), max 279.4 (100.3%)
      Web ping:  avg 279.3 - min 278.1 (99.6%), max 282.2 (101.0%)
    
    FR PAR speedtest.par01.softlayer.com
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 20.00 - min 11.13 (55.7%), max 21.82 (109.1%)
      Ping:      avg 298.3 - min 297.6 (99.8%), max 299.0 (100.2%)
      Web ping:  avg 334.1 - min 297.6 (89.1%), max 1295.9 (387.9%)
    
    SG SGP mirror.sg.leaseweb.net
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 75.06 - min 11.57 (15.4%), max 90.18 (120.1%)
      Ping:      avg 67.1 - min 66.6 (99.3%), max 70.0 (104.4%)
      Web ping:  avg 69.0 - min 66.8 (96.9%), max 70.3 (101.9%)
    
    BR SAO speedtest.sao01.softlayer.com
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 16.66 - min 9.46 (56.8%), max 18.57 (111.5%)
      Ping:      avg 353.2 - min 347.4 (98.4%), max 361.9 (102.5%)
      Web ping:  avg 391.5 - min 348.4 (89.0%), max 1324.7 (338.3%)
    
    IN CHN speedtest.che01.softlayer.com
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 30.90 - min 16.35 (52.9%), max 34.80 (112.6%)
      Ping:      avg 180.5 - min 179.8 (99.6%), max 181.2 (100.4%)
      Web ping:  avg 180.6 - min 179.8 (99.6%), max 181.2 (100.3%)
    
    GR UNK speedtest.ftp.otenet.gr
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 21.12 - min 0.00 (0.0%), max 24.29 (115.0%) - (http error: -10)
      Ping:      avg 266.8 - min 266.2 (99.8%), max 267.4 (100.2%)
      Web ping:  avg 288.2 - min 266.2 (92.4%), max 732.6 (254.2%)
    
    US WDC mirror.wdc1.us.leaseweb.net
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 34.93 - min 6.55 (18.8%), max 40.93 (117.2%)
      Ping:      avg 171.2 - min 166.2 (97.1%), max 172.7 (100.9%)
      Web ping:  avg 172.8 - min 166.2 (96.2%), max 193.3 (111.8%)
    
    DE FRA speedtest.fra02.softlayer.com
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 20.43 - min 9.90 (48.5%), max 22.14 (108.4%)
      Ping:      avg 284.7 - min 283.8 (99.7%), max 287.3 (100.9%)
      Web ping:  avg 356.8 - min 283.8 (79.5%), max 1940.0 (543.7%)
    
    RU MOS speedtest.hostkey.ru
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 26.12 - min 8.76 (33.5%), max 29.33 (112.3%)
      Ping:      avg 240.7 - min 237.1 (98.5%), max 245.4 (102.0%)
      Web ping:  avg 242.6 - min 237.1 (97.7%), max 253.4 (104.5%)
    
    US DAL speedtest.dal05.softlayer.com
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 27.60 - min 13.66 (49.5%), max 30.49 (110.5%)
      Ping:      avg 213.3 - min 209.3 (98.1%), max 219.3 (102.8%)
      Web ping:  avg 216.2 - min 209.4 (96.9%), max 221.3 (102.4%)
    
    UK LON speedtest.lon02.softlayer.com
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 18.86 - min 8.93 (47.4%), max 21.30 (113.0%)
      Ping:      avg 299.4 - min 298.8 (99.8%), max 300.2 (100.3%)
      Web ping:  avg 306.4 - min 298.8 (97.5%), max 402.5 (131.3%)
    
    US NYC nyc.download.datapacket.com
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 30.40 - min 15.18 (49.9%), max 36.96 (121.6%)
      Ping:      avg 170.2 - min 165.5 (97.3%), max 173.8 (102.1%)
      Web ping:  avg 178.7 - min 172.5 (96.5%), max 255.7 (143.1%)
    
    RO BUC 185.183.99.8
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 21.41 - min 6.27 (29.3%), max 23.41 (109.4%)
      Ping:      avg 291.7 - min 289.6 (99.3%), max 344.6 (118.1%)
      Web ping:  avg 295.0 - min 289.6 (98.2%), max 370.8 (125.7%)
    
    CN_HK  mirror.hk.leaseweb.net
      DL [Mb/s]: avg 107.06 - min 77.83 (72.7%), max 123.19 (115.1%)
      Ping:      avg 51.2 - min 51.1 (99.8%), max 51.4 (100.4%)
      Web ping:  avg 54.3 - min 51.1 (94.2%), max 115.6 (213.1%)
    

    Not much to say about the processor and memory. It's what we came to expect from NexusBytes and Zen2. Very nice indeed.
    Similarly the disks, obviously NVMes, are within the range of what we expect from NexusBytes.

    But the network! Look at those numbers! Nice, really nice. While the download speed to another Tokyo target does not reach a full Gigabit per second it's certainly easily damn good enough. To/from SGP 75 Mb/s and to/from Hongkong even above 100 Mb/s seems remarkable to me and generally download speeds in the 20 to 50 Mb/s range all over the globe are quite OK, too.
    But what really pleases me is that everything is largely consistent with well acceptable to nice low spreads, quite OK ping times with OK to nice spreads, really nice.

    If you need a decent and decently priced VPS in East Asia with a really decent HongKong (China) connectivity NexusBytes Tokyo VPS certainly should be near the top of your candidates list!

    Kudos to seriesn - and a big Thank you both for providing the test VPSs and for being such a straight guy who not just talks about transparency but actually lives it!

    The problem with democracy is that by definition > 85% of the voters are not particularly intelligent.

  • seriesnseriesn Member, Top Provider

    @jsg thank you for continuing to invest your time and helping Nexus Bytes :). Your feedbacks are always valuable and helps me see things from a different perspective. Appreciate the honesty and transparency.

    You know how I am. Might not get things fixed immediately but I will work on the concerns on the backend and will get back to you once things improves :)

    Thanked by 2vyas11 jsg
  • iwaswrongonceiwaswrongonce Member
    edited October 2020

    @jsg said: UK LON speedtest.lon02.softlayer.com
    DL [Mb/s]: avg 894.95 - min 98.07 (11.0%), max 998.64 (111.6%)
    Ping: avg 501.4 - min 1.0 (0.2%), max 218471.8 (43573.1%)
    Web ping: avg 588.2 - min 1.1 (0.2%), max 218471.8 (37140.4%)

    @jsg said: Just look at the LON softlayer test target. Just shy of 900 Mb/s download speed against a node that might even be in the same colo or, at worst, is connected via multiple short and fat fibers. And a ping of avg. almost half a second and up to 40 or even 50 seconds?! Let me mercifully end this with a positive remark: the latency to Hongkong is quite decent, and the average download speeds are not great for a London node but OK.

    You've just discovered the difference between mean and median. My guess is that the median ping is somewhere around 1ms but there was one packet that (apparently??) took 218 seconds which makes the mean value soar, but is pretty irrelevant and frankly seems like some other issue with the benchmark.

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker
    edited October 2020

    @iwaswrongonce said:
    You've just discovered the difference between mean and median. My guess is that the median ping is somewhere around 1ms but there was one packet that (apparently??) took 218 seconds which makes the mean value soar, but is pretty irrelevant and frankly seems like some other issue with the benchmark.

    • the median would provide us less relevant information and would require additional computing
    • especially on VPSs the median value is next to worthless
    • the mean value actually reflects the average performance better
    • Unlike most benchmarks my tests are based on many runs; even short 2 or 3 days tests are based on dozens of benchmark runs, hence the influence of a single outsider value has little weight
    • I've yet to see another VPS/Dedi benchmark/review that actually computes the average, the minimum, the maximum and the spreads at all - which do provide valuable information

    some other issue with the benchmark

    Feel free to actually write a better benchmark... or actually you might first want to learn how to properly criticize (hint: be specific and provide evidence or clear indicators).

    Have a nice day and be sure to update your nick.

    The problem with democracy is that by definition > 85% of the voters are not particularly intelligent.

  • Boy, the irony is strong with this one.

    @jsg said:

    • the median would provide us less relevant information and would require additional computing
    • especially on VPSs the median value is next to worthless
    • the mean value actually reflects the average performance better

    Proceeds to make multiple unsubstantiated claims...

    @jsg said:
    Feel free to actually write a better benchmark... or actually you might first want to learn how to properly criticize (hint: be specific and provide evidence or clear indicators).

    ...and then mocks for not providing evidence. Lol you can't make this sort of cluelessness up.

    The embodiment of someone who walks around believing they are far smarter than they are. Adorable.

  • How smart can a LET user be if they are a LET user... xD

    So Say We All

    [Yer lame ad could have been here]

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker
    edited October 2020

    @iwaswrongonce said:
    The embodiment of someone who walks around believing they are far smarter than they are. Adorable.

    I fully confirm your self-evaluation with one exception: I don't think your attitude is adorable. Your arrogant first statement in your first post supports my impression.

    You've just discovered the difference between mean and median.

    Followed by "guessing" ...

    My guess is that the median ping is somewhere around 1ms but there was one packet that (apparently??) took 218 seconds which makes the mean value soar, but is pretty irrelevant and frankly seems like some other issue with the benchmark.

    Indeed, most pings are about 1.4 ms .. but there was a ping that took 218471.8 ms on Sun Sep 6, at 13:39:46 BST, and there were some more out of the normal values spread over the whole testing period. Am I supposed to not include and report that? Am I supposed to offer 95 percentile results?

    I run benchmarks and plenty of them - which is a plus. And then I compile all those results and report the best, the worst and the average, which is another plus.
    I like @seriesn and I'm certainly not trying to make him look bad - but neither can I try to make him look good. I simply and objectively report what I measured, that is my task. And if there is/are gross and extreme out of range values I report those just as I report particularly good values.

    If there is a value that is about 100000 times the normal then there is a problem and I in fact consider it to be a useful service both to the community and to the provider to discover and report such cases.Now seriesn has something concrete in his hands and he can approach his colo or his technicians and ask them why in hell something like that can happen.

    ...and then mocks for not providing evidence. Lol you can't make this sort of cluelessness up.

    I have data from hundreds of benchmark runs - and you? But that wasn't even my point. My point was that your criticism has no value for me because it's based on wild guessing (and arrogance). And my other point was that "criticising" is cheap; in your case even just based on guessing. Designing and building a benchmark on the other hand is a lot of work and requires a lot of research, experience and knowledge. Hell, even just running hundreds of benchmarks is quite a bit of work. In fact I wrote yet another program to automate the runs and to spread them all over the day and running them at unpredictable times (to not induce providers to "optimize" ...). Yet I still need to spend a lot of time to "herd" those testee VPSs and to verify that everything runs smoothly, to download interim result sets, etc.

    Of bloody course I'm p_ssed off when some comes and wildly but vaguely hand-wavingly - and arrogantly - "criticizes" my work, especially when he targets added value work (again: AFAIK no other benchmark/review offers series of runs plus compilation of the results at all).

    The problem with democracy is that by definition > 85% of the voters are not particularly intelligent.

  • @jsg Is it possibly to get more speedtests from local providers? It is not very relevant for US/EU, but "Western" provider in Asia are usually bad to real local providers.

    For example, if you use the softlayer jp, you will get worse results usually than native provider like sakura internet.

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker
    edited October 2020

    @1606234 said:
    @jsg Is it possibly to get more speedtests from local providers? It is not very relevant for US/EU, but "Western" provider in Asia are usually bad to real local providers.

    For example, if you use the softlayer jp, you will get worse results usually than native provider like sakura internet.

    I have all the good will in the world but keep in mind that my benchmarking is my private hobby, so I don't have lots of resources, people, etc, and in particular I have no VPS or dedi east of Moscow.
    As NexusBytes has multiple locations in Asia I added a (reasonably fast and reliable, it seems) target in Hongkong; actually I added that target during the 2 long term tests.

    But my benchmark software is free, so you and others users could run tests against a targets list of their own choice.

    Also I could add a small server to my benchmark software that would allow users to run tests from their home but I see two problems, (a) probably due to a well known phaenomenon (few but loud "critics" while the majority stays silent/unheard) I'm not at all motivated to invest more work into my benchmark; it anyway does everything I was interested in, and (b) I don't know whether the providers would be OK with me publicly telling the IP of the provided test VPS and I certainly would not do that without their expressed consent.

    The problem with democracy is that by definition > 85% of the voters are not particularly intelligent.

Sign In or Register to comment.