Howdy, Stranger!

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


Contabo introducing VPS with NVMe drives - Page 6
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.

Contabo introducing VPS with NVMe drives

12346

Comments

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @SagnikS said:

    @jsg said: Oh, and "rarely used desktop distro"? Hahaha! Have a look at distrowatch. MXlinux is ranking number 1, debian is 7.

    Distrowatch is largely useless. It ranks distros based on the number of hits the Distrowatch page gets. The sole fact that MXlinux is #1 and Debian #7 is laughable.

    Maybe, but the point was whether MXlinux is an exotic distro almost nobody uses or even knows about. Most page views ~ Many know about and it's definitely not an exotic niche distro.

    Plus anyway that whole "which distro" point was but a nonsensical point by someone embedded within another attack attempt. Of bloody course I wouldn't use MXlinux on a purchased real (not local) VPS but Devuan or alpine.

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker
    edited August 2021

    @dev_vps and others

    UPDATE

    I now have got confirmation from the person in charge of virtualization at Contabo who was responsible for creating my test VMs that those VMs were normal VMs, just like those sold to customers, with exactly the same specs and limits, no difference whatsoever except for the fact that the nodes with my test VMs were (almost) empty.

    Can that statement be trusted? I think yes, among other reasons for the fact that Contabo regards my benchmarks as basically for internal use (the fact that I publish them on LET is allowed but seems to not be their goal).

    At the end every one must decide for themselves.

  • cybertechcybertech Member
    edited August 2021

    Update

    just got confirmation that the girth of my e-dick far exceeds the common average.

    Can this piece of information be trusted?

    Yes it can.

  • @jsg said:
    @dev_vps and others

    UPDATE

    I now have got confirmation from the person in charge of virtualization at Contabo who was responsible for creating my test VMs that those VMs were normal VMs, just like those sold to customers, with exactly the same specs and limits, no difference whatsoever except for the fact that the nodes with my test VMs were (almost) empty.

    Can that statement be trusted? I think yes, among other reasons for the fact that Contabo regards my benchmarks as basically for internal use (the fact that I publish them on LET is allowed but seems to not be their goal).

    At the end every one must decide for themselves.

    Did you finish the test for @dev_vps ? I think you could share the result to backing up your & your friend statement..

    Thanked by 1jackb
  • waiting too

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @chocolateshirt said:
    Did you finish the test for @dev_vps ? I think you could share the result to backing up your & your friend statement..

    You are really funny. First you thank the posts of the "jsg's benchmark is sh_tty, worthless, and crap" gang ... and then you ask me for the results of a current benchmark.

    But, tough luck. Before I could say 'yes' you'd first need to ask the user for whom I do this benchmark. If and only if he OK's me publishing the results, you can ask me.

    FYI: I'll be done probably tomorrow morning (central Europe tz).

    Btw, me, the oh so evil guy nevar listening to, let alone thinking about, constructive criticism (as if there was any ...) and nevar evar admitting being wrong in no matter what (hint: actually I admitted an error twice and even apologized) am ... tada, surprise! ... thinking about extending - or as some would say "enhancing" - my benchmark program ("thinking" as in "concretely planning and already laying out design details). Maybe I'll even make it publicly available, but currently I'm not feeling like it; one shouldn't reward nasty a__holes.

    Thanked by 1chocolateshirt
  • @jsg

    Thank you for your help with benchmark tests for vps.

    Kindly share the benchmark test results here. This will help to compare the benchmark tests.

  • edited August 2021

    Thank you @dev_vps for allowing the result to be shared. And thank to @jsg for providing the benchmark.

    Thanked by 1dev_vps
  • dev_vpsdev_vps Member
    edited August 2021

    @jsg said:

    FYI: I'll be done probably tomorrow morning (central Europe tz).

    @jsg
    I appreciate your help with benchmark tests.

    You had the VPS for over 36 hours. The access password has been reset.

    Kindly share the benchmark results you have collected so far.
    Thanks again.

    Best regards

    PS: The current Central Europe TZ time is 3pm

  • adlyadly Veteran

    @dev_vps said:
    Kindly share the benchmark results you have collected so far.

    The .bash_history file may (or may not) also make for interesting reading.

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @dev_vps said:

    @jsg said:

    FYI: I'll be done probably tomorrow morning (central Europe tz).

    @jsg
    I appreciate your help with benchmark tests.

    You had the VPS for over 36 hours. The access password has been reset.

    Kindly share the benchmark results you have collected so far.
    Thanks again.

    Best regards

    PS: The current Central Europe TZ time is 3pm

    I needed some more time because I saw considerable spread and wanted to have more runs for you. And now you treat me like someone who wants to extend a free ride for his own advantage.
    I never, no exceptions, use a test VM for anything but testing/benchmarking.

    My standard minimum test period is 48 hours for a reason. But I'll admit that I first tried to go faster, which failed, so I had to ask for more time. My bad.

    Now I'll compile the results I managed to collect and publish them a bit later.

  • ArkasArkas Moderator

    @cybertech said: Update

    just got confirmation that the girth of my e-dick far exceeds the common average.

    Can this piece of information be trusted?

    Yes it can.

    It's always the small ones that feel the need to prove something...

    Thanked by 1cybertech
  • dev_vpsdev_vps Member
    edited August 2021

    @jsg said:

    I needed some more time because I saw considerable spread and wanted to have more runs for you. And now you treat me like someone who wants to extend a free ride for his own advantage.
    I never, no exceptions, use a test VM for anything but testing/benchmarking.

    My standard minimum test period is 48 hours for a reason. But I'll admit that I first tried to go faster, which failed, so I had to ask for more time. My bad.

    Now I'll compile the results I managed to collect and publish them a bit later.

    I really appreciate your help with the benchmark tests. And for that reason, I will let any negatives you mentioned pass.

    I am sorry if you feel that way. But these are your words, not mine.

    I am a data scientist by profession, and in my field numbers speak for themselves. Based on my limited testing, the disk I/O is limited for small file sizes. For example, compare disk i/o for small block sizes with that of Host Hatch.

    Thank you, again.

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker
    edited August 2021

    Here are the results:

    4 KB

    --- Disk - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 662.48 - min 11.12 (1.7%), max 1999.88 (301.9%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 1935.63 - min 25.32 (1.3%), max 4583.66 (236.8%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 924.83 - min 96.89 (10.5%), max 3153.85 (341.0%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 2860.83 - min 60.81 (2.1%), max 7122.41 (249.0%)
    --- Disk - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 327.61 - min 1.83 (0.6%), max 921.10 (281.2%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 353.25 - min 3.51 (1.0%), max 910.61 (257.8%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 708.88 - min 68.52 (9.7%), max 2503.70 (353.2%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 2959.44 - min 67.86 (2.3%), max 7735.63 (261.4%)
    

    256 KB

    --- Disk - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 394.42 - min 76.26 (19.3%), max 733.07 (185.9%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 2042.64 - min 1381.87 (67.7%), max 2914.72 (142.7%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2873.25 - min 285.80 (9.9%), max 4587.48 (159.7%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 3365.94 - min 2371.12 (70.4%), max 4414.40 (131.1%)
    --- Disk - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 134.42 - min 63.82 (47.5%), max 221.78 (165.0%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 218.74 - min 148.94 (68.1%), max 288.03 (131.7%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2677.78 - min 1200.27 (44.8%), max 3562.88 (133.1%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 3249.58 - min 1957.55 (60.2%), max 4646.60 (143.0%)
    

    4 MB

    --- Disk - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 1308.32 - min 438.40 (33.5%), max 1999.88 (152.9%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 3863.60 - min 3078.99 (79.7%), max 4583.66 (118.6%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 1699.27 - min 861.22 (50.7%), max 3153.85 (185.6%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 5656.09 - min 4158.18 (73.5%), max 7122.41 (125.9%)
    --- Disk - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 661.26 - min 464.40 (70.2%), max 921.10 (139.3%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 712.20 - min 502.00 (70.5%), max 910.61 (127.9%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 1257.83 - min 782.80 (62.2%), max 2503.70 (199.0%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 5849.09 - min 4259.07 (72.8%), max 7735.63 (132.3%)
    

    Notes:
    The node appeared to be very busy (and possibly crowded).
    I mainly focused on smaller sized probes (4K and 256K) because those are typically more significant for a DB or dynamic (DB driven) website server.
    While the system did meet what my guesstimate was (600+ MB/s in direct/sync mode) I'm somewhat disappointed, especially by the very large spread with small probe size.
    I don't know the reasons, maybe an overcrowded node, maybe abusers on the node, maybe quite unbalanced occupation, but I would strongly suggest (and highly likely will) Contabo to get their node management and statistics improved.
    Due to sudden early test termination some result sets are smaller than desirable.

    Summary: Not a crappy server at all but certainly not what could and should be expected from the node hardware. The NVMe hardware is great but it's sad to see what negative factors (or node management) make of that great hardware in terms of effective performance on the VPS level. Note though that I've seen much better nodes (also in production). But still, there should be no subpar nodes with a top-provider.

    Advice: N/A
    Further private tests or benchmarks: N/A

    Thanked by 1chocolateshirt
  • cybertechcybertech Member
    edited August 2021

    gets some good bench results:
    OH YEAH SOLDDDDD THIS PROVIDER GOOD SO YUM , WOW THEY ARE 100% KOSHER VPS

    got some bad results:
    hmmmmm.
    hmmmmmmmmmm.
    lets look at this from an anal-ysis. hmm it appears to be bad. it appears to be....it appears to be.....but inconclusive. inconclusive ok? why no enough time? why?

    hysterical-laughter.gif

    Thanked by 1adly
  • Having customer VPS on crowded (busy) node
    Test VPS on empty node

    enough said.

  • dev_vpsdev_vps Member
    edited August 2021

    Thank you @jsg for your unbiased analysis from benchmark testing of a customer VPS.

    Respect. ✊

    PS : I am thinking of returning of the VPS (14 day money back guarantee). There are other providers who are better suited for my use cases (coding and testing of machine learning algorithms)

    Thanked by 1chocolateshirt
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker
    edited August 2021

    @dev_vps said:
    Having customer VPS on crowded (busy) node
    Test VPS on empty node

    enough said.

    Not really. For one: show me the benchmarker who say "no" when being offered a pre-launch VPS/VDS on an almost empty node.
    Plus I did (and still do) quite a few benchmarks on other Contabo VPS (which I purchased) and I never saw that level of difference.

    Plus it's actually useful to sometimes do pre-launch tests because it offers some (rarely available) insights by being able to compare (almost) empty node performance vs. production performance which allows one to derive quite some interesting and valuable information (and to share that with the community).

    And btw, if I approach Contabo with solid data under my belt my chances to convince them to fine tune some screws are probably much higher than someone approaching them with just some complaining and little relevant - and comparative - data.

    And at the end of the day I do my reviews for our community - and that's where my loyalty is - and not for this or that provider.

    PS : I am thinking of returning of the VPS (14 day money back guarantee). There are other providers who are better suited for my use cases (coding and testing of machine learning algorithms)

    So? I don't care. I'm not doing my benchmarks to drive people to buy from a particular provider, nor btw. to drive people away. That I'm fair and as unbiased as is humanly possible, is proven. I made a very positive review (because his VPS I benchmarked was really, really great) for a provider whom, as almost everybody here knows, I detest.

    You buy or buy not or keep or keep not a VPS? Me not care, just do what's best for you.

    Thanked by 1chocolateshirt
  • dev_vpsdev_vps Member
    edited August 2021

    @jsg said:

    Plus it's actually useful to sometimes do pre-launch tests because it offers some (rarely available) insights by being able to compare (almost) empty node performance vs. production performance which allows one to derive quite some interesting and valuable information (and to share that with the community).

    Totally agree with you that running tests on a VPS (on empty node) is pretty useful. But only for the provider.

    From customer point of view, it has little to no value, as it presents the best case scenario to the customer.

    It is like driving a car on an empty highway vs crowded highway.

  • @jsg said:

    And at the end of the day I do my reviews for our community - and that's where my loyalty is - and not for this or that provider.

    You have my respect and sincere appreciation for this.

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @dev_vps said:

    @jsg said:

    And at the end of the day I do my reviews for our community - and that's where my loyalty is - and not for this or that provider.

    You have my respect and sincere appreciation for this.

    We have a "Thanks" links at LET posts for saying "thank you". Btw. you have thanked me way more than often enough.

  • @jsg said:
    Here are the results:

    4 KB

    --- Disk - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 662.48 - min 11.12 (1.7%), max 1999.88 (301.9%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 1935.63 - min 25.32 (1.3%), max 4583.66 (236.8%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 924.83 - min 96.89 (10.5%), max 3153.85 (341.0%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 2860.83 - min 60.81 (2.1%), max 7122.41 (249.0%)
    --- Disk - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 327.61 - min 1.83 (0.6%), max 921.10 (281.2%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 353.25 - min 3.51 (1.0%), max 910.61 (257.8%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 708.88 - min 68.52 (9.7%), max 2503.70 (353.2%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 2959.44 - min 67.86 (2.3%), max 7735.63 (261.4%)
    

    256 KB

    --- Disk - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 394.42 - min 76.26 (19.3%), max 733.07 (185.9%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 2042.64 - min 1381.87 (67.7%), max 2914.72 (142.7%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2873.25 - min 285.80 (9.9%), max 4587.48 (159.7%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 3365.94 - min 2371.12 (70.4%), max 4414.40 (131.1%)
    --- Disk - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 134.42 - min 63.82 (47.5%), max 221.78 (165.0%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 218.74 - min 148.94 (68.1%), max 288.03 (131.7%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2677.78 - min 1200.27 (44.8%), max 3562.88 (133.1%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 3249.58 - min 1957.55 (60.2%), max 4646.60 (143.0%)
    

    4 MB

    --- Disk - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 1308.32 - min 438.40 (33.5%), max 1999.88 (152.9%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 3863.60 - min 3078.99 (79.7%), max 4583.66 (118.6%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 1699.27 - min 861.22 (50.7%), max 3153.85 (185.6%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 5656.09 - min 4158.18 (73.5%), max 7122.41 (125.9%)
    --- Disk - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 661.26 - min 464.40 (70.2%), max 921.10 (139.3%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 712.20 - min 502.00 (70.5%), max 910.61 (127.9%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 1257.83 - min 782.80 (62.2%), max 2503.70 (199.0%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 5849.09 - min 4259.07 (72.8%), max 7735.63 (132.3%)
    

    Notes:
    The node appeared to be very busy (and possibly crowded).
    I mainly focused on smaller sized probes (4K and 256K) because those are typically more significant for a DB or dynamic (DB driven) website server.
    While the system did meet what my guesstimate was (600+ MB/s in direct/sync mode) I'm somewhat disappointed, especially by the very large spread with small probe size.
    I don't know the reasons, maybe an overcrowded node, maybe abusers on the node, maybe quite unbalanced occupation, but I would strongly suggest (and highly likely will) Contabo to get their node management and statistics improved.
    Due to sudden early test termination some result sets are smaller than desirable.

    Summary: Not a crappy server at all but certainly not what could and should be expected from the node hardware. The NVMe hardware is great but it's sad to see what negative factors (or node management) make of that great hardware in terms of effective performance on the VPS level. Note though that I've seen much better nodes (also in production). But still, there should be no subpar nodes with a top-provider.

    Advice: N/A
    Further private tests or benchmarks: N/A

    The 4KB numbers are extremely high yet being called poor and overcrowded. I know those numbers are bogus, but even if they were real, 3GB/s at 4KB is hardcore good. If you've "seen much better nodes" than a 2800MB/s (up to 7700MB/s!!!) at 4KB, we'd all like to know.

  • yatesyates Member
    edited September 2021

    Hi everyone! The reason I'm posting and have joined the website is that I've recently bought a Contabo VPS NVMe and the disk I/O speeds reported with standard linux tools is ATROCIOUS. I've yet to run a test with nench though. So I stumbled on the website after googling my problem. And unfortunately my fears have been confirmed - Contabo is definitely trying to rip their customers off and really the statements about "super fast NVMes" are just unbelievable. This feels like a scam.

    I went with Contabo because they're so cheap and the hardware specs looked impressive so I thought this was a great deal. But yeah, if it sounds too good to be true then it probably is as they say. They're still ridiculously cheap though. The price is maybe 50% cheaper than the other budget options.

    I'm also very sceptical of their Trustpilot rating. Compared to their competitors, such as OVH or Digitalocean, they have a stellar rating (I thought Digitalocean was actually supposed to be a bit more decent, but they're rated 2.2 out of 5 stars). But when you look at who is actually posting the positive reviews (and there are a lot of them), it's users who have most of the time not posted any other reviews AND they were redirected. Now, why would so many people post 5 star reviews only for this particular business out of their good will? Who would bother? I know I wouldn't, even if I really enjoyed some service or website. I think there must have been some incentive, a discount? Some sort of shady stuff like that.

    Which brings me to my last point which is that I've found this whole back-and-forth between jsg and others really annoying, or rather jsg's responses. What sort of self-styled "Server review king" does one have to be to keep BSing for 6 pages, burst out with indignation at the mere suggestion one may be wrong and keep disputing everyone else's experience?

    I think there are only two explanations, either jsg has received some sort of financial "reward" from Contabo OR he's so full of himself (certainly takes a lot of modesty to call yourself a "King") that he can't admit he's been tricked by the quite obviously dishonest company (and I'm sure they're not the only ones in the low-end server industry). Thanks for the benchmarks guys! I was really confused about what was going on.

    @jsg said:

    There is a grain of salt though: my contact is pretty high up at Contabo and what he says is based on what the techies tell him. Based on multiple rather technical information I got at multiple occasions (after asking rather detailed tech. questions) though it seems that the internal communication lines work fine. The answers I got evidently came from tech people (and my contact just relayed them to me) and were of good quality.

    Seriously... A "grain of salt" - the "contact" is "pretty high up". Can't make this up.

    Thanked by 1adly
  • @yates said: burst out with indignation at the mere suggestion one may be wrong and keep disputing everyone else's experience?

    https://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/173716/jsg-the-server-review-king-can-you-trust-him-is-yabs-misleading-you#latest

  • yatesyates Member
    edited September 2021

    Oh, sorry, so he was actually given the title. Thanks for the link! Yeah, he's certainly being very defensive and something's not quite right. At least when it comes to Contabo, you can add my experience to the list of dissatisfied customers who feel a bit like they've been scammed. Certainly not a company to be raving about, which is what @jsg has been doing in this thread. (myself, I certainly didn't have high expectations to begin with, given the price bracket)

    Thanked by 1adly
  • AXYZEAXYZE Member
    edited September 2021

    @yates said:
    Oh, sorry, so he was actually given the title. Thanks for the link! Yeah, he's certainly being very defensive and something's not quite right. At least when it comes to Contabo, you can add my experience to the list of dissatisfied customers who feel a bit like they've been scammed. Certainly not a company to be raving about, which is what @jsg has been doing in this thread. (myself, I certainly didn't have high expectations to begin with, given the price bracket)

    As usual - if you want good german provider then go with netcup, php-friends or hetzner. They wont disappoint.

  • yatesyates Member
    edited September 2021

    Thanks for the recommendations! I was actually specifically looking for the most budget option, haha (I wanted a cheap set-up to play around with). But well, you get what you pay for (or less than that)...I've had a look at netcup, I like that they're using Ryzen GPUs in their more expensive package.

  • @yates said:
    Oh, sorry, so he was actually given the title. Thanks for the link! Yeah, he's certainly being very defensive and something's not quite right. At least when it comes to Contabo, you can add my experience to the list of dissatisfied customers who feel a bit like they've been scammed. Certainly not a company to be raving about, which is what @jsg has been doing in this thread. (myself, I certainly didn't have high expectations to begin with, given the price bracket)

    he's a server review king. where are your creds?

  • @yates said:
    Thanks for the recommendations! I was actually specifically looking for the most budget option, haha (I wanted a cheap set-up to play around with). But well, you get what you pay for (or less than that)...I've had a look at netcup, I like that they're using Ryzen GPUs in their more expensive package.

    Well I dont know what specs you need, but also check Scaleway Stardust. Its 0.37euro/mo if you remove flexible ip/ipv4.
    1vCore AMD EPYC
    1GB ram
    200Mbps-1Gbps network
    10GB NVMe
    Amsterdam location

    Good enough for basic game server, web server...

  • Interesting, thanks! I actually need at least 6GB RAM as I need to run a desktop environment.

Sign In or Register to comment.