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.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Poor UnixBench results
This is my UnixBench results from one of the best provider from LET:
BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.3)
System: localhost: GNU/Linux
OS: GNU/Linux -- 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6.x86_64 -- #1 SMP Tue Sep 9 21:36:05 UTC 2014
Machine: x86_64 (x86_64)
Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="UTF-8", collate="UTF-8")
CPU 0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 0 @ 2.00GHz (4000.1 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET
CPU 1: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 0 @ 2.00GHz (4000.1 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET
CPU 2: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 0 @ 2.00GHz (4000.1 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET
CPU 3: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 0 @ 2.00GHz (4000.1 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET
12:16:24 up 2 days, 28 min, 1 user, load average: 0.06, 0.02, 0.00; runlevel 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Run: Fri Oct 17 2014 12:16:24 - 12:44:18
4 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 18927875.8 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 2311.2 MWIPS (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 934.0 lps (29.8 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 167943.2 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 40676.4 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 539053.6 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 279807.9 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 41104.7 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 1813.3 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 1384.9 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 196.2 lpm (60.1 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 256279.4 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 18927875.8 1621.9
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 2311.2 420.2
Execl Throughput 43.0 934.0 217.2
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 167943.2 424.1
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 40676.4 245.8
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 539053.6 929.4
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 279807.9 224.9
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 41104.7 102.8
Process Creation 126.0 1813.3 143.9
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 1384.9 326.6
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 196.2 327.0
System Call Overhead 15000.0 256279.4 170.9
========
System Benchmarks Index Score 312.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Run: Fri Oct 17 2014 12:44:18 - 13:12:40
4 CPUs in system; running 4 parallel copies of tests
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 21635533.3 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 2366.0 MWIPS (9.7 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 902.5 lps (29.7 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 100628.5 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 27786.0 KBps (30.1 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 300432.2 KBps (30.1 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 283293.1 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 50425.8 lps (10.1 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 1854.8 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 1491.6 lpm (60.2 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 200.6 lpm (60.6 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 254029.5 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 21635533.3 1853.9
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 2366.0 430.2
Execl Throughput 43.0 902.5 209.9
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 100628.5 254.1
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 27786.0 167.9
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 300432.2 518.0
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 283293.1 227.7
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 50425.8 126.1
Process Creation 126.0 1854.8 147.2
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 1491.6 351.8
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 200.6 334.4
System Call Overhead 15000.0 254029.5 169.4
========
System Benchmarks Index Score 286.9
Why is it so slow ? The fact is I have 4 core access of Intel's 2620 cpu and the node is supposed to be "not oversold" ...
I have sent tickets regarding this issue and they do not find anything abnormal.
Is it time to move on ?
Fred
Comments
What provider?
Is the cpu capped to a limit like 10% of a core or something?
Really depends who it is, I mean you could class G*H as one of the best, I don't know.
Who uses E5-2620 beyond DO? I don't think they give 4 cores for a LE VPS?
E5-2620 ? Just about every ColoCrossing provider, and a large section of the Budget market pre-facebook dump load. (before the *5639 and *5520 servers became immediately popular over night due to the price alone.)
dr.server in Chicago.
Is it a storage VPS ?
Ressource pool.
Seems to be geared more towards a storage VPS so you can't really expect much performance out of it. The node shouldn't be oversold because it is a XEN VPS.
Thanks @FredQc I wondered how that resource pool would work out ...
@FredQc I gave you answer in the ticket.
If you allow i will re post it here.
That sounded loaded.
@W1V_Lee Nothing fancy really, just private conversation which leads to following conclusion. It is 2ghz core, you are getting thread, that thread is not only yours. It is impossible to get full thread performance on virtualized environment. And as bottom line i have offered full refund if @FredQc is unhappy with service level or service quality.
That is about it.
Now if we are speaking if this is good result, platform is designed as backup system so cpu is not representative but it is usable for most backup scenarios.
Is this XEN? XEN usually gives poor unixbench results but has better real-world performance. I see this happening on the new iwstack XEN VMs, they have about the same real-world performance as similar-priced Vultr servers regarding CPU but their unixbench scores suck.
No problem.
--
Things are now resolved.
With the same cpu specs and allowance ?
@fredQc
It's a storage VPS, forget the pointless benchmark, what does the VPS not do that is causing you concerns?
It was never advertised as such...
lowendtalk.com/discussion/33903/drserver-net-low-end-xen-resource-pool-for-7-usd-only
I will take it then that there was in fact nothing wrong with it? it's simply that you let a benchmark dictate whether it's good or not.
I can't see what was not advertised that you are not happy with.
It's a storage server, it's not supposed to be used for high end performance. It's supposed to be used to backup data.