Howdy, Stranger!

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


⭐ Hosted on our own physical server ⭐ HAZI.ro | VPS SSD | Game | Storage - Page 3
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.

⭐ Hosted on our own physical server ⭐ HAZI.ro | VPS SSD | Game | Storage

13»

Comments

  • Mr_TomMr_Tom Member, Host Rep

    @FlorinMarian said: Also if I leave it as it is, how this will help me to solve the problem as long I dont know the cause?

    I just meant if you leave it running at home and it doesn't crash, but it crashes in the DC then maybe it's an environment issue (difference in heat/cold/etc) - but you'd potentially have to leave it running at home for a few days to check this.

    Thanked by 1tux
  • ProfforgProfforg Member
    edited November 2021

    @FlorinMarian You should do one of the two:
    1. Fix an issue with customers (move them to not-so-yours hardware in the data center); then calmly work to find a root of issue with your hardware.
    2. Calmly work to find a root of issue with your hardware. But i doubt any single customer can wait so long.

    Regarding the root cause, I'd suggest doing 10 days minimal setup test first. Disconnect all components and do minimal setup with one memory stick, fresh hard drive with W10 installed, re-inserted CPU, i'd recommend to buy or rent another power supply as it is usual root of system unexpected shut down. Run Windows 10 with AIDA64 benchmark with full load on all components on the running server. Be sure to run your hardware with enterprise-grade or professional voltage stabilizer during these tests.

    If it still shut down in 10 days of non-stop work with minimal setup, then replace memory stick with another (foreign / new) memory stick and repeat test for 10 days.

    If it still shut down in 10 days of non-stop work, then replace components one by one, starting with PSU, then CPU, then MB.

    If during components replace you see that you can not replace some components due to missing or not-possible-to-find parts, then i'd suggest to just give hardware to local hardware repair service, as without spare parts it can be impossible to find a root cause.

    When it do not shut down, then add components one by one, repeat 10 days test, and see when it will shut down.

  • did you load must up to date BIOS version?

    load BIOS default settings and then review all settings

    do you have any repeatability in observed MemTest86 errors?
    if so than you could run MemTest in selective mode (go to MemTest configuration and choose only this specific test which fails first, and even you could narrow test address range) ONLY to accelerate speed of finding the root of problem (affected module)
    if not sure than start recording these errors details (test number and address)

    if you have any other system(s) compliant with these memory modules than use it(them) as well to pre-test these modules (maybe only some of them are broken). it will speed things up, if you could run these tests in parallel

    check if all these modules are identical (model name/PN/spare PN...). try to match identical ones

    make visual inspection if they are free of some mechanical defects

    check/reapply new thermal paste on CPUs

    hope you are aware of precautions for dealing with ESD sensitive semiconductor devices…

    Thanked by 1FlorinMarian
  • FlorinMarianFlorinMarian Member, Host Rep

    @Andrews said:
    did you load must up to date BIOS version?

    load BIOS default settings and then review all settings

    do you have any repeatability in observed MemTest86 errors?
    if so than you could run MemTest in selective mode (go to MemTest configuration and choose only this specific test which fails first, and even you could narrow test address range) ONLY to accelerate speed of finding the root of problem (affected module)
    if not sure than start recording these errors details (test number and address)

    if you have any other system(s) compliant with these memory modules than use it(them) as well to pre-test these modules (maybe only some of them are broken). it will speed things up, if you could run these tests in parallel

    check if all these modules are identical (model name/PN/spare PN...). try to match identical ones

    make visual inspection if they are free of some mechanical defects

    check/reapply new thermal paste on CPUs

    hope you are aware of precautions for dealing with ESD sensitive semiconductor devices…

    Thank you for feedback!
    Unfortunatelly I have no idea about BIOS because I didn't found any information related to it on HP Firmware database.
    About RAM, all performed tests with memtest86 reported 0 errors.

    Best regards, Florin.

  • FlorinMarianFlorinMarian Member, Host Rep

    I've sat down and re-evaluated the situation. The conclusion is: reliability is king and I'm not willing to risk using that server again. It will serve as an 'organ donor'.
    I thank everyone who provided advice and helped.
    This promo will continue on another hardware rented from the same DC.
    Not later than tomorrow we'll start to migrate all the services (0 downtime, proxmox live-migration in action).

    Best regards, Florin.

  • FlorinMarianFlorinMarian Member, Host Rep

    We're happy to announce that we'll have this year black friday offers, being part of the huge list of providers involved in this sale event on LET.
    Also we added 2nd server to securely receive load if 1st will cause more troubles.
    If before our physical server crashed in 12-26 hours, now it has about 40 hours without downtime.
    We found a critical BIOS update which wasn't applied (even it was released by HP in 2019).

    Thank you everyone for your cooperation! :smile:

    Thanked by 1Andrews
  • @jsg said:
    With all due respect, I don't care what the lab staff said unless I see tangible relevant info. Why? Because if the two drives really failed at the same point in time then with very high likelihood a quite different problem were to be looked at and discussed. As I do not think your classmate was simply lying I have to assume that he - and the lab staff - presumed that both disks failed at the same time but have no hard data to confirm that impression.

    This is very common. There's lots of stats that show failures among drives from the same batches failing close together. Real defects show up in first few years but normal drives have roughly the same lifespan, so it's common to see 4+ years old drives from same batch fail within weeks of each other or during a rebuild after the first went tits up. So it's common advice to use drives from different MFG dates to avoid this.

    Thanked by 1yoursunny
  • FlorinMarianFlorinMarian Member, Host Rep

    Today only
    Use coupon code 80H61FEFUO and get 50% OFF LIFETIME for any VPS SSD/Storage/Game package.

    Best regards, Florin.

  • FlorinMarianFlorinMarian Member, Host Rep

    Hello, dear ones!
    We're glad to announce that our VPS packages will be extended due of successful sales from past days :smile: .
    Without other introductions, we ordered 8x 4TB Drives and another 8x 16GB DDR4 DIMMs.
    They will be delivered in about one week and our physical server will have 16/16 DIMMs busy and also 12/12 LFF drives, 2/4 SFF drives. (New Samsung SSDs will be ordered soon).
    Thank you for your trust!

    Best regards, Florin.

  • Best of luck to you sir. Personally i run Dell 730xd`s with 2 x xeon e5 2697v3, 384gb memory and 24 x 1tb ssd disks. I got this dirt cheap. Wondering what systems you run actually costs today, as i have pallets of such servers laying in my storage unit

    Thanked by 1FlorinMarian
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker
    edited November 2021

    A while ago I got access to two VPSs from the promo, one with 10 GB SSD and one with 50 GB HDD. Both cost about €24 per year. If I'm not mistaken that's the only difference between the two VMs.

    As one of the nodes failed repeatedly during the tests I deleted all "old" results and what you get to see here is based on about 50 runs on one and about 150 runs on the other system. Btw, I'm happy to report that since @FlorinMarian installed the new node everything has been running flawlessly and without interruptions.

    Thanks, FlorinMarian, for providing the two test VMs.

    Here are the results of the SSD VPS, using the second newest vpsbench version (more below):

    Version 2.4.4a, (c) 2018+ jsg (->lowendtalk.com)
    Machine: amd64, Arch.: amd64, Model: Common KVM processor
    OS, version: FreeBSD 12.3, Mem.: 474 MB
    CPU - Cores: 1, Family/Model/Stepping: 15/6/1
    Cache: 32K/32K L1d/L1i, 2M L2, 16M 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 cx16 x2apic hypervisor
    Ext. Flags: syscall nx lm lahf_lm
    
    AES? No
    Nested Virt.? No
    HW RNG? No
    
    ProcMem SC [MB/s]: avg 184.6 - min 172.9 (93.7 %), max 192.5 (104.3 %)
    ProcMem MA [MB/s]: avg 178.9 - min 167.7 (93.8 %), max 183.6 (102.6 %)
    ProcMem MB [MB/s]: avg 180.1 - min 166.9 (92.7 %), max 185.2 (102.8 %)
    
    --- Disk 4 KB - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 17.74 - min 16.13 (90.9%), max 20.35 (114.7%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 18.13 - min 16.82 (92.8%), max 20.80 (114.7%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 38.98 - min 32.93 (84.5%), max 51.70 (132.6%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 34.72 - min 30.28 (87.2%), max 44.89 (129.3%)
    --- Disk 4 KB - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 17.07 - min 15.75 (92.3%), max 19.83 (116.1%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 17.78 - min 16.43 (92.4%), max 19.72 (110.9%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 38.81 - min 34.44 (88.7%), max 47.88 (123.4%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 34.34 - min 29.68 (86.4%), max 43.12 (125.6%)
    
    --- Disk 64 KB - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 147.99 - min 87.62 (59.2%), max 160.18 (108.2%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 212.52 - min 203.02 (95.5%), max 223.40 (105.1%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 1089.42 - min 987.96 (90.7%), max 1312.26 (120.5%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 421.99 - min 375.08 (88.9%), max 508.40 (120.5%)
    --- Disk 64 KB - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 22.54 - min 17.83 (79.1%), max 24.49 (108.7%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 19.39 - min 14.18 (73.1%), max 20.64 (106.5%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 1090.64 - min 918.17 (84.2%), max 1292.52 (118.5%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 421.38 - min 359.91 (85.4%), max 528.18 (125.3%)
    
    --- Disk 1 MB - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 83.77 - min 69.43 (82.9%), max 90.92 (108.5%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 273.03 - min 233.16 (85.4%), max 307.14 (112.5%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2309.93 - min 1808.12 (78.3%), max 2546.34 (110.2%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 1356.68 - min 1179.92 (87.0%), max 1470.82 (108.4%)
    --- Disk 1 MB - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 66.55 - min 57.84 (86.9%), max 70.30 (105.6%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 138.23 - min 114.41 (82.8%), max 153.97 (111.4%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2304.25 - min 2054.08 (89.1%), max 2502.68 (108.6%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 1385.19 - min 1164.04 (84.0%), max 1501.75 (108.4%)
    --- Disk IOps (Sync/Direct) ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 14.47 - min 13.13 (90.7%), max 15.89 (109.8%)
    IOps             : avg 3705.49 - min 3360.91 (90.7%), max 4066.67 (109.7%)
    
    --- Network ---
    US LAX lax.download.datapacket.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 35.6 - min 29.5 (82.8%), max 39.5 (111.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 175.6 - min 168.9 (96.2%), max 312.5 (177.9%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 176.6 - min 168.9 (95.6%), max 312.5 (176.9%)
    
    NO OSL speedtest.osl01.softlayer.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 71.5 - min 46.6 (65.3%), max 77.0 (107.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 64.6 - min 62.4 (96.5%), max 74.7 (115.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 71.1 - min 62.4 (87.7%), max 906.6 (1274.3%)
    
    US SJC speedtest.sjc01.softlayer.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 33.6 - min 24.2 (72.1%), max 35.6 (106.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 188.2 - min 184.6 (98.1%), max 196.8 (104.6%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 224.6 - min 184.6 (82.2%), max 1283.7 (571.5%)
    
    AU MEL speedtest.c1.mel1.dediserve.com [F: 43]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 15.6 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 24.2 (155.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 299.4 - min 281.9 (94.2%), max 314.1 (104.9%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 306.5 - min 286.5 (93.5%), max 327.8 (106.9%)
    
    JP TOK speedtest.tokyo2.linode.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 23.0 - min 21.1 (91.7%), max 25.4 (110.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 292.2 - min 281.2 (96.2%), max 309.0 (105.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 292.7 - min 281.2 (96.1%), max 309.4 (105.7%)
    
    IT MIL speedtest.mil01.softlayer.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 81.8 - min 56.0 (68.5%), max 85.5 (104.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 42.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 52.6 (123.7%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 48.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 640.1 (1334.2%)
    
    TR UNK 185.65.204.169 [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 73.6 - min 70.1 (95.4%), max 78.8 (107.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 42.6 - min 42.1 (98.9%), max 64.2 (150.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 42.9 - min 42.2 (98.4%), max 64.2 (149.7%)
    
    FR PAR speedtest.par01.softlayer.com [F: 15]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 74.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 85.6 (115.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 46.7 - min 44.5 (95.3%), max 55.5 (118.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 81.9 - min 44.5 (54.4%), max 1435.1 (1753.0%)
    
    SG SGP mirror.sg.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 23.5 - min 20.3 (86.3%), max 26.2 (111.2%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 267.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 290.8 (108.9%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 273.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 293.6 (107.3%)
    
    BR SAO speedtest.sao01.softlayer.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 26.7 - min 20.9 (78.0%), max 29.1 (109.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 223.9 - min 220.3 (98.4%), max 234.0 (104.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 263.1 - min 220.3 (83.7%), max 1464.6 (556.6%)
    
    IN CHN speedtest.che01.softlayer.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 35.6 - min 26.0 (73.1%), max 39.5 (111.2%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 168.2 - min 160.2 (95.3%), max 227.8 (135.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 173.6 - min 160.5 (92.4%), max 348.2 (200.5%)
    
    GR UNK speedtest.ftp.otenet.gr [F: 69]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 39.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 76.2 (191.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 38.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 80.8 (210.9%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 51.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 1173.8 (2264.7%)
    
    US WDC mirror.wdc1.us.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 50.6 - min 35.1 (69.2%), max 56.4 (111.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 122.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 147.1 (120.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 123.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 154.5 (125.5%)
    
    RU MOS speedtest.hostkey.ru [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 71.8 - min 43.9 (61.2%), max 76.7 (106.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 63.4 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 96.0 (151.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 66.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 269.0 (406.2%)
    
    US DAL speedtest.dal05.softlayer.com [F: 12]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 37.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 42.5 (114.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 146.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 318.5 (217.0%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 160.6 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 931.5 (580.0%)
    
    UK LON speedtest.lon02.softlayer.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 83.4 - min 78.5 (94.1%), max 85.8 (102.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 46.0 - min 43.5 (94.6%), max 57.5 (125.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 83.2 - min 43.5 (52.3%), max 1334.4 (1603.3%)
    
    US NYC nyc.download.datapacket.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 50.5 - min 41.8 (82.9%), max 54.0 (107.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 122.4 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 160.4 (131.0%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 123.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 160.4 (130.2%)
    
    RO BUC 185.183.99.8 [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 95.1 - min 91.3 (96.0%), max 95.5 (100.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 6.1 - min 5.9 (97.1%), max 13.3 (218.9%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 8.0 - min 6.1 (76.6%), max 65.9 (827.6%)
    
    NL AMS mirror.nl.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 85.1 - min 68.6 (80.6%), max 88.9 (104.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 39.6 - min 37.0 (93.4%), max 49.2 (124.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 39.9 - min 37.1 (93.0%), max 54.2 (135.9%)
    
    CN HK mirror.hk.leaseweb.net [F: 7]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 22.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 25.6 (115.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 287.4 - min 264.2 (91.9%), max 380.4 (132.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 288.4 - min 264.2 (91.6%), max 380.4 (131.9%)
    
    DE FRA fra.lg.core-backbone.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 86.6 - min 80.1 (92.4%), max 89.2 (103.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 38.6 - min 37.5 (97.1%), max 63.9 (165.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 39.0 - min 37.5 (96.2%), max 63.9 (163.9%)
    

    When looking at those results keep in mind that we talk about VMs that cost less than €25 per year yet come with Voxility anti-DDOS up to 1 Tb/s so evidently it makes little sense to compare those systems to Epyc or Xeon 26xx v4 VMs with NVMe.

    CPU and memory performance are decent and a bit higher than what I saw on the many 26xx v2 that are quite common on LET. I'd like to guide your attention to the rather decent (low) spread although the node occupation increased during the time period of the tests. Considering that quite many not at all small dynamic sites run fine and not slow on the somewhat weaker v2 processors I'd call this machine a decent bread and butter work horse albeit due to its modest amount of RAM I wouldn't try to put massive WordPress sites on it. But for (largely) static sites and many other purposes this machine is a decent basis.

    Now to some new features of vpsbench albeit small ones: You now get to see whether a system offers hardware AES support, nested virtualization, and hardware random generator support.

    On to the drive. vpsbench now not only does the 3 common load sizes, 4KB, 64KB, and 1MB but it also does a (4KB based) IOPS test using 4 threads. One could obviously discuss whether 4 threads do justice to say an 8 vCore system but keep in mind what vpsbench is about! It's much about comparability and not about benchmarking and exploring the depths of each area and for that standard tests are needed. Testing e.g. an 8 vCore systems drives using 32 threads certainly would reflect its disk speed better - but we'd loose comparability.

    The results are quite decent for a SSD based system and I like the low spread which boils down to stable and reliable performance. (Hint: but wait for the 2nd test VM ...)

    Finally to the network.

    Only few failures, and largely where they are expected, so far so good. But only one target, Romania, with close to 100 Mb/s. Yes, the VMs are known to be limited to 100 MB/s as is not uncommon and IMO OK for cheap systems, but all in all those results are nothing to write home about; NL AMS, DE FRA and UK LON in the low to mid 80s and US NYC about 50 Mb/s is "OK" but I'd like to see higher numbers. I mean we're talking about a €2/mo system with 512 MB memory so I'd expect somewhat better connectivity. The 5 TB traffic included in the package are nice though.

    Regarding the other system, the one with 50 GB HDD, I'll only present the drive results because otherwise the systems are virtually identical.

    --- Disk 4 KB - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 14.04 - min 12.67 (90.3%), max 16.14 (115.0%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 14.62 - min 14.02 (95.9%), max 16.31 (111.6%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 26.71 - min 20.12 (75.3%), max 33.47 (125.3%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 24.26 - min 20.28 (83.6%), max 31.58 (130.2%)
    --- Disk 4 KB - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 13.67 - min 12.87 (94.2%), max 14.85 (108.7%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 14.24 - min 11.06 (77.7%), max 15.75 (110.6%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 26.28 - min 18.04 (68.6%), max 34.27 (130.4%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 24.00 - min 20.41 (85.1%), max 31.08 (129.5%)
    
    --- Disk 64 KB - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 107.77 - min 34.15 (31.7%), max 146.04 (135.5%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 167.26 - min 140.01 (83.7%), max 192.91 (115.3%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 1153.83 - min 1035.33 (89.7%), max 1417.09 (122.8%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 288.30 - min 246.48 (85.5%), max 357.58 (124.0%)
    --- Disk 64 KB - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 20.72 - min 16.25 (78.4%), max 70.94 (342.4%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 19.54 - min 14.76 (75.6%), max 87.62 (448.5%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 1160.42 - min 1026.75 (88.5%), max 1424.82 (122.8%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 291.57 - min 251.71 (86.3%), max 323.46 (110.9%)
    
    --- Disk 1 MB - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 76.07 - min 45.32 (59.6%), max 86.94 (114.3%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 280.61 - min 198.36 (70.7%), max 307.78 (109.7%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2336.20 - min 2011.97 (86.1%), max 2631.02 (112.6%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 862.54 - min 709.28 (82.2%), max 1089.61 (126.3%)
    --- Disk 1 MB - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 65.32 - min 44.53 (68.2%), max 74.30 (113.7%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 140.38 - min 112.26 (80.0%), max 207.52 (147.8%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2327.37 - min 2034.71 (87.4%), max 2582.27 (111.0%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 870.15 - min 710.98 (81.7%), max 1084.32 (124.6%)
    --- Disk IOps (Sync/Direct) ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 14.39 - min 12.75 (88.6%), max 15.14 (105.2%)
    IOps             : avg 3684.75 - min 3264.70 (88.6%), max 3875.80 (105.2%)
    

    Uhm, I don't see a major difference compared to the SSD results. Yes, some numbers are somewhat lower for the HDD system, no surprise there, but IMO those HDD results are quite close and actually great for a HDD based VM.

    So I have two pieces of advice/conclusion, one for LET users (and potential buyers) and one for Florin Marian:

    @LET users - forget about the SSD box, get the HDD offer. You'll get only slightly less performance but 5 times the capacity!

    @FlorinMarian - I'm not sure you did yourself a favour there. Let me word it positively: your HDD setup/config is great, really; "unfortunately" it's almost as good as your (not at all bad) SSD so why should we ignore 80% of the capacity for a not really significant performance gain?

    Thanked by 1FlorinMarian
  • Do people actually need cheap servers in Romania?

  • @Virtual said:
    Do people actually need cheap servers in Romania?

    no, we need cheap servers anywhere

    Thanked by 1tux
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @Virtual said:
    Do people actually need cheap servers in Romania?

    I think so, yes, and some success stories of romanian providers confirm that, even cociu's success (although he went up into a clusterf_ck, he still had thousands of customers).
    The reason probably is in different factors, ranging from low el. power costs to a liberal attitude (up to and including the - highly likely not properly founded in reality - reputation of not caring much about copyrights and such ("no DCMA")).
    Finally, while many European tend to consider Romania some kind of second rate country at the periphery, from a global perspective it makes little difference whether a server is in say Finland, Romania, or the Netherlands.

  • @jsg said: 我认为是的,是的,罗马尼亚供应商的一些成功案例证实了这一点,即使是 cociu 的成功(虽然他进入了一个 clusterf_ck,但他仍然有成千上万的客户)。

    @jsg said:
    A while ago I got access to two VPSs from the promo, one with 10 GB SSD and one with 50 GB HDD. Both cost about €24 per year. If I'm not mistaken that's the only difference between the two VMs.

    As one of the nodes failed repeatedly during the tests I deleted all "old" results and what you get to see here is based on about 50 runs on one and about 150 runs on the other system. Btw, I'm happy to report that since @FlorinMarian installed the new node everything has been running flawlessly and without interruptions.

    Thanks, FlorinMarian, for providing the two test VMs.

    Here are the results of the SSD VPS, using the second newest vpsbench version (more below):

    Version 2.4.4a, (c) 2018+ jsg (->lowendtalk.com)
    Machine: amd64, Arch.: amd64, Model: Common KVM processor
    OS, version: FreeBSD 12.3, Mem.: 474 MB
    CPU - Cores: 1, Family/Model/Stepping: 15/6/1
    Cache: 32K/32K L1d/L1i, 2M L2, 16M 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 cx16 x2apic hypervisor
    Ext. Flags: syscall nx lm lahf_lm
    
    AES? No
    Nested Virt.? No
    HW RNG? No
    
    ProcMem SC [MB/s]: avg 184.6 - min 172.9 (93.7 %), max 192.5 (104.3 %)
    ProcMem MA [MB/s]: avg 178.9 - min 167.7 (93.8 %), max 183.6 (102.6 %)
    ProcMem MB [MB/s]: avg 180.1 - min 166.9 (92.7 %), max 185.2 (102.8 %)
    
    --- Disk 4 KB - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 17.74 - min 16.13 (90.9%), max 20.35 (114.7%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 18.13 - min 16.82 (92.8%), max 20.80 (114.7%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 38.98 - min 32.93 (84.5%), max 51.70 (132.6%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 34.72 - min 30.28 (87.2%), max 44.89 (129.3%)
    --- Disk 4 KB - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 17.07 - min 15.75 (92.3%), max 19.83 (116.1%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 17.78 - min 16.43 (92.4%), max 19.72 (110.9%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 38.81 - min 34.44 (88.7%), max 47.88 (123.4%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 34.34 - min 29.68 (86.4%), max 43.12 (125.6%)
    
    --- Disk 64 KB - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 147.99 - min 87.62 (59.2%), max 160.18 (108.2%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 212.52 - min 203.02 (95.5%), max 223.40 (105.1%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 1089.42 - min 987.96 (90.7%), max 1312.26 (120.5%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 421.99 - min 375.08 (88.9%), max 508.40 (120.5%)
    --- Disk 64 KB - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 22.54 - min 17.83 (79.1%), max 24.49 (108.7%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 19.39 - min 14.18 (73.1%), max 20.64 (106.5%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 1090.64 - min 918.17 (84.2%), max 1292.52 (118.5%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 421.38 - min 359.91 (85.4%), max 528.18 (125.3%)
    
    --- Disk 1 MB - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 83.77 - min 69.43 (82.9%), max 90.92 (108.5%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 273.03 - min 233.16 (85.4%), max 307.14 (112.5%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2309.93 - min 1808.12 (78.3%), max 2546.34 (110.2%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 1356.68 - min 1179.92 (87.0%), max 1470.82 (108.4%)
    --- Disk 1 MB - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 66.55 - min 57.84 (86.9%), max 70.30 (105.6%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 138.23 - min 114.41 (82.8%), max 153.97 (111.4%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2304.25 - min 2054.08 (89.1%), max 2502.68 (108.6%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 1385.19 - min 1164.04 (84.0%), max 1501.75 (108.4%)
    --- Disk IOps (Sync/Direct) ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 14.47 - min 13.13 (90.7%), max 15.89 (109.8%)
    IOps             : avg 3705.49 - min 3360.91 (90.7%), max 4066.67 (109.7%)
    
    --- Network ---
    US LAX lax.download.datapacket.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 35.6 - min 29.5 (82.8%), max 39.5 (111.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 175.6 - min 168.9 (96.2%), max 312.5 (177.9%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 176.6 - min 168.9 (95.6%), max 312.5 (176.9%)
    
    NO OSL speedtest.osl01.softlayer.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 71.5 - min 46.6 (65.3%), max 77.0 (107.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 64.6 - min 62.4 (96.5%), max 74.7 (115.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 71.1 - min 62.4 (87.7%), max 906.6 (1274.3%)
    
    US SJC speedtest.sjc01.softlayer.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 33.6 - min 24.2 (72.1%), max 35.6 (106.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 188.2 - min 184.6 (98.1%), max 196.8 (104.6%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 224.6 - min 184.6 (82.2%), max 1283.7 (571.5%)
    
    AU MEL speedtest.c1.mel1.dediserve.com [F: 43]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 15.6 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 24.2 (155.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 299.4 - min 281.9 (94.2%), max 314.1 (104.9%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 306.5 - min 286.5 (93.5%), max 327.8 (106.9%)
    
    JP TOK speedtest.tokyo2.linode.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 23.0 - min 21.1 (91.7%), max 25.4 (110.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 292.2 - min 281.2 (96.2%), max 309.0 (105.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 292.7 - min 281.2 (96.1%), max 309.4 (105.7%)
    
    IT MIL speedtest.mil01.softlayer.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 81.8 - min 56.0 (68.5%), max 85.5 (104.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 42.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 52.6 (123.7%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 48.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 640.1 (1334.2%)
    
    TR UNK 185.65.204.169 [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 73.6 - min 70.1 (95.4%), max 78.8 (107.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 42.6 - min 42.1 (98.9%), max 64.2 (150.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 42.9 - min 42.2 (98.4%), max 64.2 (149.7%)
    
    FR PAR speedtest.par01.softlayer.com [F: 15]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 74.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 85.6 (115.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 46.7 - min 44.5 (95.3%), max 55.5 (118.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 81.9 - min 44.5 (54.4%), max 1435.1 (1753.0%)
    
    SG SGP mirror.sg.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 23.5 - min 20.3 (86.3%), max 26.2 (111.2%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 267.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 290.8 (108.9%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 273.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 293.6 (107.3%)
    
    BR SAO speedtest.sao01.softlayer.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 26.7 - min 20.9 (78.0%), max 29.1 (109.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 223.9 - min 220.3 (98.4%), max 234.0 (104.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 263.1 - min 220.3 (83.7%), max 1464.6 (556.6%)
    
    IN CHN speedtest.che01.softlayer.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 35.6 - min 26.0 (73.1%), max 39.5 (111.2%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 168.2 - min 160.2 (95.3%), max 227.8 (135.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 173.6 - min 160.5 (92.4%), max 348.2 (200.5%)
    
    GR UNK speedtest.ftp.otenet.gr [F: 69]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 39.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 76.2 (191.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 38.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 80.8 (210.9%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 51.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 1173.8 (2264.7%)
    
    US WDC mirror.wdc1.us.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 50.6 - min 35.1 (69.2%), max 56.4 (111.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 122.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 147.1 (120.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 123.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 154.5 (125.5%)
    
    RU MOS speedtest.hostkey.ru [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 71.8 - min 43.9 (61.2%), max 76.7 (106.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 63.4 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 96.0 (151.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 66.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 269.0 (406.2%)
    
    US DAL speedtest.dal05.softlayer.com [F: 12]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 37.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 42.5 (114.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 146.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 318.5 (217.0%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 160.6 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 931.5 (580.0%)
    
    UK LON speedtest.lon02.softlayer.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 83.4 - min 78.5 (94.1%), max 85.8 (102.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 46.0 - min 43.5 (94.6%), max 57.5 (125.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 83.2 - min 43.5 (52.3%), max 1334.4 (1603.3%)
    
    US NYC nyc.download.datapacket.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 50.5 - min 41.8 (82.9%), max 54.0 (107.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 122.4 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 160.4 (131.0%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 123.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 160.4 (130.2%)
    
    RO BUC 185.183.99.8 [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 95.1 - min 91.3 (96.0%), max 95.5 (100.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 6.1 - min 5.9 (97.1%), max 13.3 (218.9%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 8.0 - min 6.1 (76.6%), max 65.9 (827.6%)
    
    NL AMS mirror.nl.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 85.1 - min 68.6 (80.6%), max 88.9 (104.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 39.6 - min 37.0 (93.4%), max 49.2 (124.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 39.9 - min 37.1 (93.0%), max 54.2 (135.9%)
    
    CN HK mirror.hk.leaseweb.net [F: 7]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 22.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 25.6 (115.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 287.4 - min 264.2 (91.9%), max 380.4 (132.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 288.4 - min 264.2 (91.6%), max 380.4 (131.9%)
    
    DE FRA fra.lg.core-backbone.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 86.6 - min 80.1 (92.4%), max 89.2 (103.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 38.6 - min 37.5 (97.1%), max 63.9 (165.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 39.0 - min 37.5 (96.2%), max 63.9 (163.9%)
    

    When looking at those results keep in mind that we talk about VMs that cost less than €25 per year yet come with Voxility anti-DDOS up to 1 Tb/s so evidently it makes little sense to compare those systems to Epyc or Xeon 26xx v4 VMs with NVMe.

    CPU and memory performance are decent and a bit higher than what I saw on the many 26xx v2 that are quite common on LET. I'd like to guide your attention to the rather decent (low) spread although the node occupation increased during the time period of the tests. Considering that quite many not at all small dynamic sites run fine and not slow on the somewhat weaker v2 processors I'd call this machine a decent bread and butter work horse albeit due to its modest amount of RAM I wouldn't try to put massive WordPress sites on it. But for (largely) static sites and many other purposes this machine is a decent basis.

    Now to some new features of vpsbench albeit small ones: You now get to see whether a system offers hardware AES support, nested virtualization, and hardware random generator support.

    On to the drive. vpsbench now not only does the 3 common load sizes, 4KB, 64KB, and 1MB but it also does a (4KB based) IOPS test using 4 threads. One could obviously discuss whether 4 threads do justice to say an 8 vCore system but keep in mind what vpsbench is about! It's much about comparability and not about benchmarking and exploring the depths of each area and for that standard tests are needed. Testing e.g. an 8 vCore systems drives using 32 threads certainly would reflect its disk speed better - but we'd loose comparability.

    The results are quite decent for a SSD based system and I like the low spread which boils down to stable and reliable performance. (Hint: but wait for the 2nd test VM ...)

    Finally to the network.

    Only few failures, and largely where they are expected, so far so good. But only one target, Romania, with close to 100 Mb/s. Yes, the VMs are known to be limited to 100 MB/s as is not uncommon and IMO OK for cheap systems, but all in all those results are nothing to write home about; NL AMS, DE FRA and UK LON in the low to mid 80s and US NYC about 50 Mb/s is "OK" but I'd like to see higher numbers. I mean we're talking about a €2/mo system with 512 MB memory so I'd expect somewhat better connectivity. The 5 TB traffic included in the package are nice though.

    Regarding the other system, the one with 50 GB HDD, I'll only present the drive results because otherwise the systems are virtually identical.

    --- Disk 4 KB - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 14.04 - min 12.67 (90.3%), max 16.14 (115.0%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 14.62 - min 14.02 (95.9%), max 16.31 (111.6%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 26.71 - min 20.12 (75.3%), max 33.47 (125.3%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 24.26 - min 20.28 (83.6%), max 31.58 (130.2%)
    --- Disk 4 KB - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 13.67 - min 12.87 (94.2%), max 14.85 (108.7%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 14.24 - min 11.06 (77.7%), max 15.75 (110.6%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 26.28 - min 18.04 (68.6%), max 34.27 (130.4%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 24.00 - min 20.41 (85.1%), max 31.08 (129.5%)
    
    --- Disk 64 KB - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 107.77 - min 34.15 (31.7%), max 146.04 (135.5%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 167.26 - min 140.01 (83.7%), max 192.91 (115.3%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 1153.83 - min 1035.33 (89.7%), max 1417.09 (122.8%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 288.30 - min 246.48 (85.5%), max 357.58 (124.0%)
    --- Disk 64 KB - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 20.72 - min 16.25 (78.4%), max 70.94 (342.4%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 19.54 - min 14.76 (75.6%), max 87.62 (448.5%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 1160.42 - min 1026.75 (88.5%), max 1424.82 (122.8%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 291.57 - min 251.71 (86.3%), max 323.46 (110.9%)
    
    --- Disk 1 MB - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 76.07 - min 45.32 (59.6%), max 86.94 (114.3%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 280.61 - min 198.36 (70.7%), max 307.78 (109.7%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2336.20 - min 2011.97 (86.1%), max 2631.02 (112.6%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 862.54 - min 709.28 (82.2%), max 1089.61 (126.3%)
    --- Disk 1 MB - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 65.32 - min 44.53 (68.2%), max 74.30 (113.7%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 140.38 - min 112.26 (80.0%), max 207.52 (147.8%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2327.37 - min 2034.71 (87.4%), max 2582.27 (111.0%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 870.15 - min 710.98 (81.7%), max 1084.32 (124.6%)
    --- Disk IOps (Sync/Direct) ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 14.39 - min 12.75 (88.6%), max 15.14 (105.2%)
    IOps             : avg 3684.75 - min 3264.70 (88.6%), max 3875.80 (105.2%)
    

    Uhm, I don't see a major difference compared to the SSD results. Yes, some numbers are somewhat lower for the HDD system, no surprise there, but IMO those HDD results are quite close and actually great for a HDD based VM.

    So I have two pieces of advice/conclusion, one for LET users (and potential buyers) and one for Florin Marian:

    @LET users - forget about the SSD box, get the HDD offer. You'll get only slightly less performance but 5 times the capacity!

    @FlorinMarian - I'm not sure you did yourself a favour there. Let me word it positively: your HDD setup/config is great, really; "unfortunately" it's almost as good as your (not at all bad) SSD so why should we ignore 80% of the capacity for a not really significant performance gain?

    i need genkbench5 test

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @shuier said:
    i need genkbench5 test

    No problem, just run it.

  • yoursunnyyoursunny Member, IPv6 Advocate

    @shuier said:
    i need genkbench5 test

    https://talk.lowendspirit.com/discussion/comment/76453/#Comment_76453

    Geekbench 5 Benchmark Test:
    ---------------------------------
    Test            | Value                         
                    |                               
    Single Core     | 784                           
    Multi Core      | 813                           
    Full Test       | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/11250729
    

    Incoming UDP is completed blocked due to DDoS mitigation.

  • brueggusbrueggus Member, IPv6 Advocate

    @yoursunny said: Incoming UDP is completed blocked due to DDoS mitigation.

  • yoursunnyyoursunny Member, IPv6 Advocate

    @brueggus said:

    @yoursunny said: Incoming UDP is completed blocked due to DDoS mitigation.

    It's somehow my fault.
    I ran iperf3 tests, which triggered Voxility AntiDDoS to block the port as soon as I increased the rate to 100Mbps.

    SpartanHost has a similar block, but it wouldn't kick in so quickly, and I was given the option to choose an unprotected IP when I complained.
    Florin asked about unprotected IP but data center won't provide one.

  • edited December 2021

    ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##

    Yet-Another-Bench-Script

    v2021-12-03

    https://github.com/masonr/yet-another-bench-script

    ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##

    Fri Dec 10 19:20:02 UTC 2021

    Basic System Information:

    Processor : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2637 v3 @ 3.50GHz
    CPU cores : 1 @ 1199.952 MHz
    AES-NI : ✔ Enabled
    VM-x/AMD-V : ✔ Enabled
    RAM : 1.0 GiB
    Swap : 0.0 KiB
    Disk :
    bash: line 422: bc: command not found

    fio Disk Speed Tests (Mixed R/W 50/50):

    Block Size 4k (IOPS) 64k (IOPS)
    Read 5.48 MB/s (1.3k) 42.85 MB/s (669)
    Write 5.50 MB/s (1.3k) 43.02 MB/s (672)
    Total 10.99 MB/s (2.7k) 85.88 MB/s (1.3k)
    Block Size 512k (IOPS) 1m (IOPS)
    ------ --- ---- ---- ----
    Read 53.97 MB/s (105) 53.39 MB/s (52)
    Write 56.93 MB/s (111) 57.04 MB/s (55)
    Total 110.90 MB/s (216) 110.44 MB/s (107)

    iperf3 Network Speed Tests (IPv4):

    Provider | Location (Link) | Send Speed | Recv Speed
    | | |
    Clouvider | London, UK (10G) | 717 Mbits/sec | 468 Mbits/sec
    Online.net | Paris, FR (10G) | 733 Mbits/sec | 584 Mbits/sec
    WorldStream | The Netherlands (10G) | busy | busy
    WebHorizon | Singapore (1G) | 174 Mbits/sec | busy
    Clouvider | NYC, NY, US (10G) | 517 Mbits/sec | 559 Mbits/sec
    Velocity Online | Tallahassee, FL, US (10G) | 17.3 Mbits/sec | 111 Mbits/sec
    Clouvider | Los Angeles, CA, US (10G) | 439 Mbits/sec | 418 Mbits/sec
    Iveloz Telecom | Sao Paulo, BR (2G) | 296 Mbits/sec | 516 Mbits/sec

    iperf3 Network Speed Tests (IPv6):

    Provider | Location (Link) | Send Speed | Recv Speed
    | | |
    Clouvider | London, UK (10G) | 456 Mbits/sec | 445 Mbits/sec
    Online.net | Paris, FR (10G) | 449 Mbits/sec | 66.9 Mbits/sec
    WorldStream | The Netherlands (10G) | busy | 424 Mbits/sec
    WebHorizon | Singapore (1G) | 119 Mbits/sec | 362 Mbits/sec
    Clouvider | NYC, NY, US (10G) | 302 Mbits/sec | 384 Mbits/sec
    Clouvider | Los Angeles, CA, US (10G) | 350 Mbits/sec | 321 Mbits/sec

    Geekbench 5 Benchmark Test:

    Test | Value
    |
    Single Core | 83
    Multi Core | 92
    Full Test | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/11533760
    [LXC]VPS Storage - Black Friday

Sign In or Register to comment.