tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231029506849175182.post7229413765062727096..comments2024-01-15T10:50:10.397-05:00Comments on Daniel Sokolowski's Blog: OVH Free Dedicated Server BenchmarkingDaniel Sokolowskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05471808657414965616noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231029506849175182.post-51746769424922778782015-07-22T01:48:40.024-04:002015-07-22T01:48:40.024-04:00Valuable Information here!
I am fully impressed wi...Valuable Information here!<br />I am fully impressed with this article.This blog is great source of information which is very useful for<br /><a href="http://www.bluebellpeople.com/dedicated-servers" rel="nofollow">Dedicated Server</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231029506849175182.post-38865133327745417832013-10-01T00:10:14.613-04:002013-10-01T00:10:14.613-04:00Anand - did you get a slower result with 'dd i...Anand - did you get a slower result with 'dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=3k oflag=dsync' ? Daniel Sokolowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471808657414965616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231029506849175182.post-21052802040182363902013-08-25T14:53:46.575-04:002013-08-25T14:53:46.575-04:00As a newbie to benchmarking, it is itching me to q...As a newbie to benchmarking, it is itching me to question that what is the difference between their<br />dd bs=1M count=128 if=/dev/zero of=test conv=fdatasync<br />vs yours<br />dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=3k oflag=dsync && rm test<br /><br />I even tried<br />dd bs=1M count=10240 if=/dev/zero of=test conv=fdatasync<br />And the results were:<br />10240+0 records in<br />10240+0 records out<br />10737418240 bytes (11 GB) copied, 61.1248 s, 176 MB/s<br /><br />Anandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02219399709297726113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231029506849175182.post-21475392013315703322013-08-18T10:25:23.385-04:002013-08-18T10:25:23.385-04:00root@dozer:/# dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/test bs=64k ...root@dozer:/# dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/test bs=64k count=16k > /dev/null;<br />16384+0 records in<br />16384+0 records out<br />1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 0.398304 s, 2.7 GB/sAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16368298292407608607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231029506849175182.post-86305162003938444042013-08-18T10:17:46.332-04:002013-08-18T10:17:46.332-04:00root@dozer:/# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count...root@dozer:/# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=3k oflag=dsync && rm test<br />3072+0 records in<br />3072+0 records out<br />201326592 bytes (201 MB) copied, 2.81044 s, 71.6 MB/s<br />root@dozer:/#<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16368298292407608607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231029506849175182.post-32629592401313387332013-08-18T10:16:20.732-04:002013-08-18T10:16:20.732-04:00 Device Boot Start End Blocks ... Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System<br />/dev/sdb1 * 4096 203716607 101856256 fd Linux RAID autodetect<br />/dev/sdb2 203716608 234434559 15358976 82 Linux swap / Solaris<br />root@dozer:~# screen<br />root@dozer:/# cat /proc/cpuinfo| grep MHz<br />cpu MHz : 1600.000<br />cpu MHz : 1600.000<br />cpu MHz : 1600.000<br />cpu MHz : 1600.000<br />cpu MHz : 1600.000<br />cpu MHz : 1600.000<br />cpu MHz : 1600.000<br />cpu MHz : 1600.000<br />root@dozer:/# sudo hdparm -Tt /dev/sda<br /><br />/dev/sda:<br /> Timing cached reads: 28216 MB in 2.00 seconds = 14122.65 MB/sec<br /> Timing buffered disk reads: 772 MB in 3.00 seconds = 257.29 MB/sec<br />root@dozer:/#<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16368298292407608607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231029506849175182.post-43334553968041634542013-05-07T04:27:52.718-04:002013-05-07T04:27:52.718-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.tanu sharmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16836664756960662581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231029506849175182.post-47369077050442201142013-01-01T01:47:47.853-05:002013-01-01T01:47:47.853-05:00Try with: dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/test bs=64k coun...Try with: dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/test bs=64k count=16k > /dev/null;Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03675128095629317440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231029506849175182.post-62838187420089781972013-01-01T01:45:02.051-05:002013-01-01T01:45:02.051-05:00It's because it's 64k, even a SATA3 SSD gi...It's because it's 64k, even a SATA3 SSD give little over 50MB/sUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03675128095629317440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231029506849175182.post-66317180818165439922012-12-18T14:49:22.798-05:002012-12-18T14:49:22.798-05:00SATA2 direct attached should never be that low...i...SATA2 direct attached should never be that low...it's like...what gives?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13465907921542991845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231029506849175182.post-81363048643882493682012-12-18T09:29:27.664-05:002012-12-18T09:29:27.664-05:00Out of interest I tried this on my London based Li...Out of interest I tried this on my London based Linode 512, (although I don't full know what this benchmark is doing):<br /><br />201326592 bytes (201 MB) copied, 2.97645 s, 67.6 MB/s<br /><br />@Damir - what datacenter are you using? You seem to be getting much poorer performance.polskasoshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00833746967232504301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231029506849175182.post-2277222917099822632012-12-14T16:39:19.088-05:002012-12-14T16:39:19.088-05:00That is interesting, I would still think that over...That is interesting, I would still think that overall your dedi is much faster then Linode because you have the benefit of huge CACHE. The `dd` test is very simple and one would do better by using something like: Phoronix Test Suite<br /><br />On a side note you may want to request a node migration to a less busy cluster: http://danielsokolowski.blogspot.ca/2012/07/linode-is-truly-great-hosting-company.html. Daniel Sokolowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471808657414965616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231029506849175182.post-43212064025189825082012-12-14T15:59:36.408-05:002012-12-14T15:59:36.408-05:00Interesting. I tried the same disk benchmark (dd i...Interesting. I tried the same disk benchmark (dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=3k oflag=dsync && rm test) on my Linode 1024 and my Hetzner 4S (http://www.hetzner.de/hosting/produkte_rootserver/ex4s) accounts.<br /><br />Linode 1024:<br />201326592 bytes (201 MB) copied, 12.9245 s, 15.6 MB/s<br /><br />Hetzner 4S:<br />201326592 bytes (201 MB) copied, 188.649 s, 1.1 MB/s<br /><br />Ouch. Currently plenty of RAM and 3TB space is much more important to me than disk speed, but 1.1 MB/s is a crap. I expected more from Hetzner. That said, a tar cjf of a few hundred MB file was 12x faster on Hetzner.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05981415555162146868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231029506849175182.post-16174443573436998782012-09-06T16:57:03.005-04:002012-09-06T16:57:03.005-04:00The honeymoon is over and my free server is being ...The honeymoon is over and my free server is being converted to a dedicated paid plan starting at $79/month; at that price I strongly feel there are better servers out there without the IO Concerns. <br /><br />In a few months when my Linode is up for a review and I feel adventurous I might try these guys: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdigicube.fr%2F&act=url - be warned though and heed the saying 'You get what you pay for' :)Daniel Sokolowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471808657414965616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231029506849175182.post-32451452452157801652012-08-06T15:38:09.366-04:002012-08-06T15:38:09.366-04:00The response given was regarding a VPS instance an...The response given was regarding a VPS instance and direct answer was avoided. I responded with a clarified question but yet to have received a response - it has been 6 days. I feel I can safely say that OVH direct hosting is crippled by IO operations; perhaps the storage is somehow on a distributed system.<br /><br />-- email thread edited to remove names --<br />Hi <br /><br />Thanks for the response, Yes that of course make sense for a VPS but in comparison this is still subpar compared to 5 other VPS I have tested where lowest was 7.7MB/s, and what about the dedicated server test:<br /><br />root@ns4000035:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=3k oflag=dsync && rm test<br />3072+0 records in<br />3072+0 records out<br />201326592 bytes (201 MB) copied, 103.268 s, 1.9 MB/s<br /><br />http://danielsokolowski.blogspot.ca/2012/07/ovh-free-dedicated-server-benchmarking.html - for complete info.<br /><br />Thanks Guys!<br /><br />On 01/08/2012 16:25, support@ovh.ca wrote:<br />> Hi,<br />><br />> I understand your concern about write speed on the vKS. As the vKS implementation is completed using multi-layer technology of virtualisation, the test you made would probably be the slowest mode, as the write cache is basically unused at all. I suggest you complete the test using this command instead : "dd bs=1M count=128 if=/dev/zero of=test conv=fdatasync"<br />><br />> Reference : http://romanrm.ru/en/dd-benchmark<br />><br />> Thanks,<br />><br />> , OVH.com<br />><br />><br />>> The same issue exists on vks23786.ip-176-31-165.eu:<br />>><br />>> root@vks23786:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=3k oflag=dsync && rm test<br />>> ^C1228+0 records in<br />>> 1228+0 records out<br />>> 80478208 bytes (80 MB) copied, 45.288 s, 1.8 MB/s<br />>><br />>> root@vks23786:~#Daniel Sokolowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471808657414965616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3231029506849175182.post-82276203642907186542012-08-01T11:00:28.027-04:002012-08-01T11:00:28.027-04:00I have sent a support ticket regarding the low IO ...I have sent a support ticket regarding the low IO rate and will update when I receive a response.Daniel Sokolowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471808657414965616noreply@blogger.com