Howdy, Stranger!

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


Is this really bad?
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.

Is this really bad?

qtriangleqtriangle Member
edited December 2012 in Help

I have a low performing VPS, and I am finding ways of telling this to my host.
This VPS was extremely fast a few weeks back but I think node overload has caused this reduced performance.
I tried to run geekbench, and got following results.
Do you think it is any good?

System Information
Operating System Linux 2.6.32-042stab049.6 i686
Model N/A
Motherboard N/A
Processor Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5150 @ 2.66GHz @ 2.67 GHz
2 Processors, 4 Threads
Processor ID GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 15 Stepping 6
L1 Instruction Cache 32.0 KB x 2
L1 Data Cache 32.0 KB x 2
L2 Cache 4.00 MB
L3 Cache 0.00 B
Memory 2.00 GB
BIOS N/A

Integer
Blowfish
single-threaded scalar 1902 |||||||
multi-threaded scalar 7779 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text Compress
single-threaded scalar 2127 ||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 7838 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text Decompress
single-threaded scalar 1898 |||||||
multi-threaded scalar 7469 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Image Compress
single-threaded scalar 1813 |||||||
multi-threaded scalar 6296 |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Image Decompress
single-threaded scalar 1581 ||||||
multi-threaded scalar 5981 |||||||||||||||||||||||
Lua
single-threaded scalar 3307 |||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 8426 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Floating Point
Mandelbrot
single-threaded scalar 1976 |||||||
multi-threaded scalar 5408 |||||||||||||||||||||
Dot Product
single-threaded scalar 3609 ||||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 14770 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
single-threaded vector 2695 ||||||||||
multi-threaded vector 9694 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LU Decomposition
single-threaded scalar 1584 ||||||
multi-threaded scalar 3513 ||||||||||||||
Primality Test
single-threaded scalar 2985 |||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 7309 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sharpen Image
single-threaded scalar 6409 |||||||||||||||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 15991 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blur Image
single-threaded scalar 4709 ||||||||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 12415 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Memory
Read Sequential
single-threaded scalar 2490 |||||||||
Write Sequential
single-threaded scalar 2826 |||||||||||
Stdlib Allocate
single-threaded scalar 2021 ||||||||
Stdlib Write
single-threaded scalar 963 |||
Stdlib Copy
single-threaded scalar 1778 |||||||

Stream
Stream Copy
single-threaded scalar 1820 |||||||
single-threaded vector 2050 ||||||||
Stream Scale
single-threaded scalar 1958 |||||||
single-threaded vector 1938 |||||||
Stream Add
single-threaded scalar 1871 |||||||
single-threaded vector 2093 ||||||||
Stream Triad
single-threaded scalar 2025 ||||||||
single-threaded vector 1557 ||||||

Benchmark Summary
Integer Score 4701 ||||||||||||||||||
Floating Point Score 6647 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Memory Score 2015 ||||||||
Stream Score 1914 |||||||

Geekbench Score 4566 ||||||||||||||||||

«1

Comments

  • Are you using it for computing something?

  • Out of curiosity in what way do you feel this "reduced performance" and does this affect your practical vps usage?

  • qtriangleqtriangle Member
    edited December 2012

    @Damian said: Are you using it for computing something?

    I am using this for hosting 30 odd websites.

    @Spirit said: Out of curiosity in what way do you feel this "reduced performance" and does this affect your practical vps usage?

    web access for my websites is continuously going to slower side since a few weeks.
    Also it is terrible when I use shell. ls command prints result after 30+ seconds, when dir has only 4 files.

  • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Member, Patron Provider

    That's a pretty good score for 2 cores. imo

  • Do a serverbear benchmark

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran

    Looks fine from what I see here. Maybe a network issue?

  • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Member, Patron Provider

    Yup, network or serious disk IO issues.

    have you done an mtr trace to your vps?

    e.g.

    mtr -c 200 --report your.vps.ip

  • @qtriangle said: ls command prints result after 30+ seconds, when dir has only 4 files.

    This seems like a disk issue. Run the dd test, and also download and compile ioping and then run: ioping -c 25 / and post the results here.

  • dd says this

    284086928+0 records in
    284086928+0 records out
    284086928 bytes (284 MB) copied, 719.328 seconds, 395 kB/s

  • Omg

  • @Jack said: 284086928 bytes (284 MB) copied, 719.328 seconds, 395 kB/s

    copying ~300 MB in ~10 minutes is good???

  • There you go...

  • @George_Fusioned said: There you go...

    @twain said: Omg

    It will be good if you provide a helpful answer. thanks

  • joepie91joepie91 Member, Patron Provider

    Wow. Just wow. That is absolutely horrible disk performance.

  • @qtriangle - acceptable would be ~100x that

  • @qtriangle said: It will be good if you provide a helpful answer. thanks

    Anything less than 60MB/s is not acceptable.

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran
    edited December 2012

    @qtriangle said: 284086928 bytes (284 MB) copied, 719.328 seconds, 395 kB/s

    That's perfect. If you just tunnel your data through about 50 of the slowest servers in the world, it should arrive at your VPS at just the right speed to match the drive. If there was ever a time to "name and shame" I think this is it. Don't let anyone end up there...

  • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Member, Patron Provider

    officially the lowest speed I have ever seen.

  • @jarland said: f there was ever a time to "name and shame" I think this is it. Don't let anyone end up there...

    I'd personally like to see how the host responds to @qtriangle's ticket. That, for me, will show whether they're "name and shame" worthy.
    If they fix it, then that's OK, If not, then fair enough.

  • joepie91joepie91 Member, Patron Provider

    I have to agree with @ElliotJ here.

    Damn Thanks button, where are you.

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran
    edited December 2012

    @ElliotJ said: will show whether they're "name and shame" worthy.

    I've used a couple providers in the past that would fix issues like these when notified, but what made them unusable was the fact that it took a ticket for them to see it. I just couldn't go to sleep at night knowing my stuff would be taken care of.

  • well they are saying they will see how to move me to other server.
    They don't know the pain i have to endure since i will have to transfer a lot of things on a new node and new ip.

  • @jarland said: I've used a couple providers in the past that would fix issues like these when notified, but what made them unusable was the fact that it took a ticket for them to see it.

    Totally. I thought about adding "but qtriangle shouldn't need to open a ticket in the first place"

    This kinda reminds me of my fun experience with Virpus a couple years ago >_>

  • DamianDamian Member
    edited December 2012

    @ElliotJ said: "but qtriangle shouldn't need to open a ticket in the first place"

    Indeed, I keep pointing out that clients really shouldn't need to open tickets with providers about heinously bad resource availability. This usually gets tagged as "providers bashing providers", so I limit it. Monitoring systems are easy to implement and do a world of difference in client perception.

    Selling VPSes and not sucking at it: not that hard.

  • .. and you know all this when i had put a good review on a forum for them ..

  • PatrickPatrick Member
    edited December 2012

    @qtriangle said: .. and you know all this when i had put a good review on a forum for them ..

    Don't be shy, you can say WHT here :P

  • @StormVZ said: These jaguars must be really slow?

    hmm yup WHT, but jaguars have altogether different set of issue, not this one. They have 10 times more customers than they can handle.

  • Friendly reminder, backup your data if you haven't in case the node transfer goes terribly wrong.

  • @AnthonySmith said: officially the lowest speed I have ever seen.

    Have you forgotten Hostrail? :)

    http://www.lowendbox.com/blog/hostrail-1-05-256mb-openvz-vps/#comment-17015

  • I have had a problem recently where a node was only achieving 13MB/s at best, which isn't good at all. After rebooting the node, checking iotop, shutting down all containers..

    Drives are good, and show no smart errors. It's quite a wierd issue.

Sign In or Register to comment.