Howdy, Stranger!

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


How many VPS can be created with this?
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.

How many VPS can be created with this?

jane98211jane98211 Member
edited January 2016 in Help

I am planning to buy the below server along with ~160 Ipv4 so that 160 VPS can be created with 768 mb each running linux. I have budget of 800$ overall. The below mentioned server costs 135$ monthly. Would I be able to create 160 openvz out of it (or KVM)? I will use proxmox to create vps and each will be assigned 1 virtual cpu. Cpu will be used at 60%. The constraint is CPU, so please comment on that also. Thanks

Intel  Xeon D
D-1520
4/8t  
2,2 / 2,6 GHz
128 GB of RAM
DDR4 ECC 2133 MHz
2 x2TB  SOFT/JBOD
vRack 1 Gbps

EDIT - Purchased the 64GB version of Xeon D 1520. If that can support 80 VMs, it'll be good. Time to experiment...

«1

Comments

  • just get a E3 which will be faster.

  • @jane98211 said:
    I am planning to buy the below server along with ~160 Ipv4 so that 160 VPS can be created with 768 mb each running linux. I have budget of 800$ overall. The below mentioned server costs 135$ monthly. Would I be able to create 160 openvz out of it? I will use proxmox to create vps and each will be assigned 1 virtual cpu. Cpu will be used at 60%. The constraint is CPU, so please comment on that also. Thanks

    Intel  Xeon D
    D-1520
    4/8t  
    2,2 / 2,6 GHz
    128 GB of RAM
    DDR4 ECC 2133 MHz
    2 x2TB  SOFT/JBOD
    vRack 1 Gbps

    Or maybe a dual E5-2640v2?

    That'll be faster for you.

  • @TarZZ92 said:
    just get a E3 which will be faster.

    How many can be created with the Xeon D 1520?

  • @MSPNick said:
    That'll be faster for you.

    That'll be costly. Can you tell how many can be created with the above mentioned cpu?

  • jane98211 said: How many can be created with the Xeon D 1520?

    Depends on load but really there is no point. E3 has faster single thread and even multi thread from the tests i have seen.

  • WebProjectWebProject Host Rep, Veteran
    edited January 2016

    Server with Raid-10 will better speed for 160 vps accounts

  • I presume this is for a traffic exchange? Give us specs of the VMs you want to create. Linux? Windows? 128MB ram? 1GB ran?

  • GM2015GM2015 Member
    edited January 2016

    I believe you do traffic exchange right? Wouldn't running your browser through 1 squid3 installation with ~150 outbound IP be cheaper?

  • Nic_20TBSSDNic_20TBSSD Member
    edited January 2016

    @TarZZZ92 He cant use an E3 if he is looking for 128GB RAM, he obviously needs the 128GB ram is he skipped 64GB.

    @jane98211 are you setting these up for traffic exchange if so its simple math, 1vCPU core each VM with 512MB ram or 768MB ram.

  • jane98211 said: I am planning to buy the below server along with ~160 Ipv4 so that 160 VPS can be created with 768 mb each running linux.

    We're not going to assist you with your traffic exchange although I admire you for stepping up to dedicated servers versus crapping on VPS nodes

  • I smell an upcoming new topic:

    "Purchased from [brandName] and didn't read the ToS"

    -They hacked my paypal, mail and just about everything.

    The world is hard but unjust. ;)

  • exception0x876exception0x876 Member, Host Rep, LIR

    2 x2TB SOFT HDD is not enough for running 160 VPS with multiple traffic exchanges

  • doughmanesdoughmanes Member
    edited January 2016

    Wolf said: "Purchased from [brandName] and didn't read the ToS"

    "OVH won't give me a refund because my experiment failed"

    "OVH is a scam! Beware! They threatened to kill my family!"

    Thanked by 2Wolf WebProject
  • @exception0x876 said:
    2 x2TB SOFT HDD is not enough for running 160 VPS with multiple traffic exchanges

    It is enough they only use 1-5GB or so of disk space, 5x160=800GB.

  • Awmusic12635Awmusic12635 Member, Host Rep

    Nic_20TBSSD said: It is enough they only use 1-5GB or so of disk space, 5x160=800GB.

    I think you are overlooking disk IO limitations

    Thanked by 1Junkless
  • exception0x876exception0x876 Member, Host Rep, LIR

    @Awmusic12635 said:
    I think you are overlooking disk IO limitations

    exactly what I meant

  • Nic_20TBSSDNic_20TBSSD Member
    edited January 2016

    @Awmusic12635 said:
    I think you are overlooking disk IO limitations

    Yea I am overlooking it considering he is running traffic exchanges lol, he might now know what disk IO limits are. I'm just telling him flat out what he can do with the dedicated server. He might not get max performance or nowhere near it but if he knows what he's doing he can run them.

  • jvnadrjvnadr Member
    edited January 2016

    At first, proxmox (I assume openvz) cannot cap cpu, you can only chose number of cpu/ht and then, give priority to each vm. For example, you can give to vps 101 priority 1000 and to vps 102 priority 5000. That means that if both of vps are trying to use a lot of cpu power with same number of cores assigned, then, vps 101 will have 1/6 of the power when vps 2 will have 5/6 of the power.
    You can cap cpu in terminal, but I am not sure that this can cooperate with proxmox's settings. For this, another solution would be using "Openvz Web Panel". With this panel, you can cap cpu power in percentage % (can be installed on Centos 6).

    Now, if you try to run firefox to 160 vps in the same node and run desktop with firefox on all of them simultaneously, then your node will crash. You will face cpu and i/o serious issues and, depending on load and network speed, even network issues.
    You have to assign 1 single ht core to 20 vps to simultaneously load firefox, aka, webpages. I assume that webpages will be normal webpages with graphics, javascript, css etc. And each vm will have only 768MB RAM. That means that you will almost all of the time use swap, because firefox/chrome will be memory hungry, especially after the load of the first 5-10 web pages.
    Swaping to a 2x2 JBOD simultaneously for 160 vps (!) combined with normal HDD access, will cause a huge I/O wait.
    Overall, if you use 160 instances of virtual machines with 160 instances of virtual desktop and 160 instances of running firefox to a single 4 core cpu node and just 768 MB mem to each of the vm, it won't work smoothly, you will face freequently crashes.

    On the other hand, if you are not planing to use virtual desktops with firefox instances but just normal vps as a provider, then, this node can handle the usual load, assuming that those virtual machines won't be loaded all of them at the same time and most of them will be used for light stuff like lite web servers, proxy servers / vpn, backups / storage etc.
    But then again, you will have to always monitor the load, have a backup server for disaster policy and/or for moving "hungry" vms that causes problems to their neighbours.
    If you plan to sell 160 vps from a single node without having at least another one, it is not a good idea.
    (Of course, there were been some providers here that tried to fill thousands of vms to single nodes, much more than 160. That have never lead to success...)

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran

    Aw, come on, you silly fools.

    He's not setting up TE - he's creating a LEB host and will soon post offers.

    Then HE'LL be the one stealing YOUR gmail accounts!

  • @WebProject said:
    Server with Raid-10 will better speed for 160 vps accounts

    Yes, RAID-10 it is

    @TinyTunnel_Tom said:
    I presume this is for a traffic exchange? Give us specs of the VMs you want to create. Linux? Windows? 128MB ram? 1GB ran?

    Already mentioned. 768MB ram linux

    @doughmanes said:
    We're not going to assist you with your traffic exchange although I admire you for stepping up to dedicated servers versus crapping on VPS nodes
    @Wolf said:
    I smell an upcoming new topic:

    "Purchased from [brandName] and didn't read the ToS"

    -They hacked my paypal, mail and just about everything.

    The world is hard but unjust. ;)
    @raindog308 said:
    Aw, come on, you silly fools.

    He's not setting up TE - he's creating a LEB host and will soon post offers.

    Then HE'LL be the one stealing YOUR gmail accounts!

    If you have nothing to contribute, Leave and scam like your leader virmach

    @jvnadr said:
    At first, proxmox (I assume openvz) cannot cap cpu, you can only chose number of cpu/ht and then, give priority to each vm. For example, you can give to vps 101 priority 1000 and to vps 102 priority 5000. That means that if both of vps are trying to use a lot of cpu power with same number of cores assigned, then, vps 101 will have 1/6 of the power when vps 2 will have 5/6 of the power.
    You can cap cpu in terminal, but I am not sure that this can cooperate with proxmox's settings. For this, another solution would be using "Openvz Web Panel". With this panel, you can cap cpu power in percentage % (can be installed on Centos 6).


    Now, if you try to run firefox to 160 vps in the same node and run desktop with firefox on all of them simultaneously, then your node will crash. You will face cpu and i/o serious issues and, depending on load and network speed, even network issues.
    You have to assign 1 single ht core to 20 vps to simultaneously load firefox, aka, webpages. I assume that webpages will be normal webpages with graphics, javascript, css etc. And each vm will have only 768MB RAM. That means that you will almost all of the time use swap, because firefox/chrome will be memory hungry, especially after the load of the first 5-10 web pages.
    Swaping to a 2x2 JBOD simultaneously for 160 vps (!) combined with normal HDD access, will cause a huge I/O wait.
    Overall, if you use 160 instances of virtual machines with 160 instances of virtual desktop and 160 instances of running firefox to a single 4 core cpu node and just 768 MB mem to each of the vm, it won't work smoothly, you will face freequently crashes.

    On the other hand, if you are not planing to use virtual desktops with firefox instances but just normal vps as a provider, then, this node can handle the usual load, assuming that those virtual machines won't be loaded all of them at the same time and most of them will be used for light stuff like lite web servers, proxy servers / vpn, backups / storage etc.
    But then again, you will have to always monitor the load, have a backup server for disaster policy and/or for moving "hungry" vms that causes problems to their neighbours.
    If you plan to sell 160 vps from a single node without having at least another one, it is not a good idea.
    (Of course, there were been some providers here that tried to fill thousands of vms to single nodes, much more than 160. That have never lead to success...)

    Would KVM be better? Say for 80 VPS on the same specs? Nothing heavy would be there.

  • GM2015 said: I believe you do traffic exchange right? Wouldn't running your browser through 1 squid3 installation with ~150 outbound IP be cheaper?

    Would have to pay for IP. Main cost is IP and not the server. Is there any tutorial on what you are mentioning?

  • jane98211 said: Would have to pay for IP. Main cost is IP and not the server. Is there any tutorial on what you are mentioning?

    What about using IPV6? Millions of IP's - free.

  • @Frecyboy said:
    What about using IPV6? Millions of IP's - free.

    IPs may be blacklisted. Where can I find the details and availability of IPv6? Thanks

  • @jane98211 said:

    How much disk? Have you took into account the disk I/O. Running 160 firefoxes will murder your disks and your CPU.

    Thanked by 1Nic_20TBSSD
  • @TinyTunnel_Tom said:
    How much disk? Have you took into account the disk I/O. Running 160 firefoxes will murder your disks and your CPU.

    2x2TB. Firefox wouldn't be used on all 160.

  • @jane98211 said:
    2x2TB. Firefox wouldn't be used on all 160.

    RAID 1 or 0? What would be used on all 160. I'm just trying to get a feel of how the server will run. I'm using an E3 running 20 windows maxing the CPU/Disk

  • jane98211jane98211 Member
    edited January 2016

    @TinyTunnel_Tom said:
    RAID 1 or 0? What would be used on all 160. I'm just trying to get a feel of how the server will run. I'm using an E3 running 20 windows maxing the CPU/Disk

    Hardware RAID based on MegaRAID 9271 Cache 1 GB + CacheVault.

  • @jane98211 said:
    Hardware RAID based on MegaRAID 9271 Cache 1 GB + CacheVault.

    5GB for each VM? You better be running OVZ. Also whats running on them all

  • @TinyTunnel_Tom said:
    RAID 1 or 0? What would be used on all 160. I'm just trying to get a feel of how the server will run. I'm using an E3 running 20 windows maxing the CPU/Disk

    Also E3 is not supported by 128GB RAM

  • Shoaib_AShoaib_A Member
    edited January 2016

    I would recommend at least 4 SSDs in RAID 10 with some decent RAID card to run 160 VMs.
    Since you also want to be able to use 60 % of a core at I think you should go with those Dual Xeon E5s with 10 x 2 = 20 cores/40 threads. But still those 40 threads won't be enough if you plan to use 60% of a core in each VPS 24/7.

    It seems that you are looking at OVH for servers, if that is true then they do offer configurations like the one I posted above but you will have at least 3x compared to the specs you mentioned in your original post. For example MG-128 with Dual E5-2650v3 (20c/40t) & 4 x 800 GB SSD costs 472 $ a month & I wouldn't go with anything less powerful if I were in your shoes.

    Thanked by 1Nic_20TBSSD
Sign In or Register to comment.