Howdy, Stranger!

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


Community Review: PixelsHost Basic OpenVZ Plan - Page 2
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.

Community Review: PixelsHost Basic OpenVZ Plan

2»

Comments

  • Paul_TPaul_T Member

    I've done it directly from the node as I removed the VPS I used for testing;

    [root@us1 ioping-0.6]# ./ioping -c 10 .
    4096 bytes from . (ext4 /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol02): request=1 time=13.9 ms
    4096 bytes from . (ext4 /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol02): request=2 time=4.6 ms
    4096 bytes from . (ext4 /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol02): request=3 time=4.8 ms
    4096 bytes from . (ext4 /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol02): request=4 time=10.0 ms
    4096 bytes from . (ext4 /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol02): request=5 time=6.7 ms
    4096 bytes from . (ext4 /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol02): request=6 time=4.1 ms
    4096 bytes from . (ext4 /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol02): request=7 time=5.1 ms
    4096 bytes from . (ext4 /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol02): request=8 time=6.7 ms
    4096 bytes from . (ext4 /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol02): request=9 time=4.1 ms
    4096 bytes from . (ext4 /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol02): request=10 time=0.3 ms

    --- . (ext4 /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol02) ioping statistics ---
    10 requests completed in 9061.2 ms, 166 iops, 0.6 mb/s
    min/avg/max/mdev = 0.3/6.0/13.9/3.5 ms
    [root@us1 ioping-0.6]#

    Still not great but minecraft is a bit of a killer at times, seems about consistant with his results really...

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran

    Much better, definitely acceptable results.

    Thanked by 2Paul_T HalfEatenPie
  • netomxnetomx Moderator, Veteran

    Talking abut MC servers, anyone uses a C server with auth login feature?

  • Paul_TPaul_T Member
    edited July 2012

    @jarland What I'm concerned about is why are we getting such differing results without me actually doing anything at all to the node? OS issues with the OS he chose to test with? Mine where run using CentOS 6 x64, he used Debian 6 x86... Can't see why though..

  • eastoncheastonch Member
    edited July 2012

    Only one way to find out,
    vzctl enter VPS_ID
    dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync; rm test
    output....
    exit

    Maybe a broken file system? Dont know if that would affect it; try apt-get upgrade / update

  • @Paul_T said: If the reviewer doesn't mind, I'd like permission to access his VPS so I can investigate the performance difference closer.

    Go for it I don't mind. Sorry about the late response!

  • @eastonch said: apt-get upgrade / update

    That's the first thing I do on every VPS I get. Safe to say, that's also what I did before starting the test (making sure it was the most up-to-date there). Sorry I guess I forgot to mention that

  • Update:
    Ioping has improved.

    
    root@LET-test:~/ioping-0.6# ./ioping -c 10 .
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/1032): request=1 time=12.1 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/1032): request=2 time=31.8 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/1032): request=3 time=0.5 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/1032): request=4 time=0.4 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/1032): request=5 time=0.3 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/1032): request=6 time=0.4 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/1032): request=7 time=0.3 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/1032): request=8 time=0.3 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/1032): request=9 time=0.3 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/1032): request=10 time=0.4 ms
    
    --- . (simfs /vz/private/1032) ioping statistics ---
    10 requests completed in 9048.2 ms, 214 iops, 0.8 mb/s
    min/avg/max/mdev = 0.3/4.7/31.8/9.7 ms
    
    
  • Paul_TPaul_T Member

    I can't help but wonder if someone was just super heavily loading the box right at the time you ran your tests or something, I'm going to have a look at the graphs.

    I'm very confused by all this, because all I did from the node was repeat your tests (that concerned me) and install smartmontools so I could check the drive model etc and health status, It's a cheetah 15,000rpm sas drive and is showing up fine, so no way should've had such bad results with only 7VPS's on it.

    Thanks for letting me poke around, I'll have a look later, performance needs to be consistant or it won't be much use.

  • @Paul_T take your time and just let me know if there's anything I can do.

    It could have been bad timing just all around honestly, but I did redo the CacheFly test on my VPS and got similar results. If your internal monitoring systems says everything is ok then I honestly don't know. Could be the settings on the VZ?

  • Paul_TPaul_T Member

    The connection speed is a possability as I do have traffic shaping enabled on that particular machine, being the older generation of boxes it's only 100mbit, not gigabit like the ones we get now, so from fear of network contention I enabled that before using it for getting the site up and running etc.

    I wonder if that's interfering.

  • Could be a possibility. It does seem to have a limit at around 700 KB/s

Sign In or Register to comment.