Howdy, Stranger!

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


What are your feelings on Host CPU throttling when you're using less than 25% of the core? - Page 4
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.

What are your feelings on Host CPU throttling when you're using less than 25% of the core?

124»

Comments

  • Reminds me of Hostodo and my 1gb ram VPS that never exceded 32mb. And support that either deleted or closed all tickets when I provided proof of issues.

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran
    edited December 2017

    @FAT32 said:

    FAT32 said: I agree, or else the number of cores is just for marketing and for multi-threaded program only

    Shared resource available for burst =/= "just marketing."

    I recall that argument, that's true because I haven't had any projects that run CPU consistently yet, it is just a lot of peak (where 15min average is still below the limits because the code usually run for only a fraction of second)

    That's all most people need tbh, just some room to burst. Let's be honest, most people are out there running a Wordpress blog. The upper end of their CPU exists for when their caching plugin purges cache right before Google starts crawling the blog :P

    Pretty safe bet for that person that not everyone on the node experiences that same event at once. That's why you can reduce cost by taking on a very reasonable and consistently safe risk.

  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran

    jarland said: Their prices are high enough and their distribution effective enough that they actually can allow everyone on a single node to sustain 74% of a CPU core indefinitely.

    They have to violate their TOS in an extreme scenario. That extreme scenario won't occur but maybe once a year I'm sure, but it technically COULD, and probably will to someone at some time. That makes the number dishonest.

    I've had a huge increase in people trying to signup with me to mine coins and such. The amount of people that have tried to buy 50+ 128MB plans to mine is shocking.

    Francisco

    Thanked by 2jar Cam
  • WSSWSS Member
    edited December 2017

    @jarland said:

    WSS said: I follow the "don't be a dick" methodology, and I have no use for fake coinage.

    Me too, that's why I'm suggesting that the resolution to such a topic is to not host with shitty providers, not to attempt to coerce other providers into stating and enforcing limits to compensate for bad experiences with bad providers. A good provider should be able to let you do whatever you want 99.999% of the time because they've balanced their servers reasonably and significantly reduced the risk that enough people on one node are going to simultaneously power on their laser.

    Sure, but where do we set the bar? That's all I'm trying to ask here- obviously I'm not really happy with how this has turned out with this provider, and will be unlikely to use them in the future- but how am I in the wrong here by wanting to know exactly what constitutes my fault in this?

    WSS said: For what it's worth, @Veesp actually have these numerics in their SLA

    You see that as admirable, I see it as artificially limiting where likely not needed in actual real world situation, and also possibly a lie. If you're going to state it in policy then everyone should be able to sustain that. If everyone on a node sustains 74% of a CPU core indefinitely, they have placed in their policy that they will not take action against them. That means one of these things is true:

    1. Their prices are high enough and their distribution effective enough that they actually can allow everyone on a single node to sustain 74% of a CPU core indefinitely.

    Again, I think you're seeing this as an exposed host CPU, rather than a vCPU. As CC knows, you can easily split a single 2.4Ghz E3 thread into 4 vCPUs and oversell far beyond that.

    This is why you should just choose providers that have real system administrators at the helm. Like @Francisco.

    If I wanted to and could afford to pay for a managed, dedicated service, well, I would. I don't need that- It's supposed to be my job to manage my hardware and virtualized setup, too. I'm here for the cheap shit expecting that I can manage the majority of issues myself. :)

    Shared resource available for burst =/= "just marketing." You need flexibility in your servers, so there's flex room for everyone. Not guaranteed room to sustain 100% resource usage at all times. It's the very very safe bet that not everyone needs to bang against the flexible wall at the same time. It reduces costs. It was the whole point of the VPS industry to begin with. The entire industry and it's purpose is now a failure or "just marketing?"

    ..and where are we now at 100% resource utilization- even virtualized resource utilization? Again, by my metrics only, I had a load of 0.25 in this instance, and it got killed. Maybe we need to stop discussing numbers, because we have a rather wide berth beyond what I use as an example, and yours. :)

    @Francisco said:
    I've had a huge increase in people trying to signup with me to mine coins and such. The amount of people that have tried to buy 50+ 128MB plans to mine is shocking.

    Francisco

    Ugh. Well, we haven't explicitly banned that like we have shoes. Yet. Is it time for yet another "don't do this" that needs to be explicitly stated, when both miners and shoes should fall under "Don't be a dick"?

  • @WSS said:

    @AuroraZ said:
    Slackware enough said.

    Because of you and @Angstrom, I burned a Slack CD to do some HD testing on the one desktop that's partially running now (Doesn't like that PC2-6400 RAM you sent, but is happy with the 512MB of PC2-5300 I had). The installer and tools are exactly the same as it was in 1996. Hell, it wanted to install LILO!

    I was going to wish you welcome (back) to Slackware, but I guess no such luck. :-(

    The installer has changed in small ways since 1996 (e.g., ext4 is now the default file system, floppies are no longer supported), but yes, it's basically the same design. This said, it works!

    What's wrong with lilo? It works and is much simpler than grub2 (though grub2 is more powerful/flexible). But just to point out that grub2 is included in the A (base) series since 14.1 for those who want/need it. The only catch is that the installer doesn't offer a choice between lilo and grub2, so you have to configure grub2 after the first reboot.

    Thanked by 1uptime
  • FAT32FAT32 Administrator, Deal Compiler Extraordinaire
    edited December 2017

    @Francisco said:
    I've had a huge increase in people trying to signup with me to mine coins and such. The amount of people that have tried to buy 50+ 128MB plans to mine is shocking.
    Francisco

    That reminds me of someone who bought 15 Kimsufi dedi during the last flash deal, and people who tried to grab cheap server from Hetzner auction.

    Mining has spoilt GPU market, and now even server market? smh

  • Since this thread is hopelessly derailed into what we define sexnumbers as, anyhow..

    @angstrom said:
    The installer has changed in small ways since 1996 (e.g., ext4 is now the default file system, floppies are no longer supported), but yes, it's basically the same design. This said, it works!

    I'm a bit surprised to find that UMSDOS isn't still an option for a filesystem.

    @angstrom said:
    What's wrong with lilo? It works and is much simpler than grub2 (though grub2 is more powerful/flexible). But just to point out that grub2 is included in the A (base) series since 14.1 for those who want/need it. The only catch is that the installer doesn't offer a choice between lilo and grub2, so you have to configure grub2 after the first reboot.

    The way it actually works. The way you have to rewrite it so it knows where to find the kernel every update, lack of filesystem support/etc. I'm not a huge fan of grub, but LILO is pretty funky to rely on in the last decade of EFI and many not-0x80-emulated disks.

  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran

    @FAT32 said:

    @Francisco said:
    I've had a huge increase in people trying to signup with me to mine coins and such. The amount of people that have tried to buy 50+ 128MB plans to mine is shocking.
    Francisco

    That reminds me of someone who bought 15 Kimsufi dedi during the last flash deal, and people who tried to grab cheap server from Hetzner auction.

    Mining has spoilt GPU market, and now even server market? smh

    Monero is the common one but there seems to be a growing push in the shitcoin market to make CPU based currencies and to make them GPU/ASIC resistant.

    Still, If you have 100 (good) cores running full blast, you'd pull $500 -$600/month for a $200/month investment. If it was allowed.

    Francisco

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran

    WSS said: Sure, but where do we set the bar? That's all I'm trying to ask here- obviously I'm not really happy with how this has turned out with this provider, and will be unlikely to use them in the future- but how am I in the wrong here by wanting to know exactly what constitutes my fault in this?

    If you're not being a dick, experiencing a bug that creates significant unintended strain on the server, or under attack due to a public facing service on your server, the provider should be at fault. I like this better than numbers because it really gets to the core of what the VPS was for and how the risk is managed when done right. It takes the responsibility off of the customer, which is what stated resource guidelines do (pass all responsibility to customer), and forces the host to actual be a host.

    You (provider) manage the risk by assuming that legitimate usage, where not being a dick (coin mining on shared resource, eating up 100% of resource until you decide you're done, is being a dick), never equals out to a problem. You assist that by making your hardware, pricing, and resource allocations unattractive to someone who wants to be a dick (might as well just say "mine coins" at this point).

    Then there's the node management side of it. This is what I always called "context based administration" at Catalyst. With OpenVZ it is/was always known that the processes show in "top" on the node. If the node is hurting and on top is apache, I would be working to give it what it needs. If the node is hurting and "minerd" is on top, someone is getting canned. Context is so much more important than equally distributed numbers. If, as a provider, you're balancing things in such a way that someone can't use the service for an intended function then you're failing.

    Thanked by 1WSS
  • @WSS said: I'm a bit surprised to find that UMSDOS isn't still an option for a filesystem.

    The first and last time I tried UMSDOS was in 2002 (if I remember well)! I recall that it was a bit slow as a file system. Plus it had a number of restrictions. Couldn't compete with ext2 at all.

    WSS said: @angstrom said: What's wrong with lilo? It works and is much simpler than grub2 (though grub2 is more powerful/flexible). But just to point out that grub2 is included in the A (base) series since 14.1 for those who want/need it. The only catch is that the installer doesn't offer a choice between lilo and grub2, so you have to configure grub2 after the first reboot.

    The way it actually works. The way you have to rewrite it so it knows where to find the kernel every update, lack of filesystem support/etc. I'm not a huge fan of grub, but LILO is pretty funky to rely on in the last decade of EFI and many not-0x80-emulated disks.

    I suspect that there are plans to move to grub, which is why it's in the A series. But for simple, legacy-like setups, lilo works fine. If there's an kernel update in Slackware, the installer offers to reinstall lilo at the end of the update, so you don't have to remember to do so yourself.

  • FAT32FAT32 Administrator, Deal Compiler Extraordinaire

    @Francisco said:
    Monero is the common one but there seems to be a growing push in the shitcoin market to make CPU based currencies and to make them GPU/ASIC resistant.

    Still, If you have 100 (good) cores running full blast, you'd pull $500 -$600/month for a $200/month investment. If it was allowed.

    Francisco

    I am not against cryptocurrency actually, in fact the idea is great. The only problem is people who are so desperate to get money, which defeat the actual purpose of "mining". Some don't even know how it works, just download some binaries and run it.

    Off-topic: I will try BuyVM one day, I had known it since 2011 and remember the good old days where I always refresh doesbuyvmhavestock because the smallest package is always oos (especially the one with Windows is cheap) haha, nice to see it being healthy and respectable until today

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran

    FAT32 said: Off-topic: I will try BuyVM one day, I had known it since 2011 and remember the good old days where I always refresh doesbuyvmhavestock because the smallest package is always oos (especially the one with Windows is cheap) haha, nice to see it being healthy and respectable until today

    Just click this and tell me you can hold out longer than today: https://buyvm.net/kvm-dedicated-server-slices

    ;)

  • @jarland said:
    Then there's the node management side of it. This is what I always called "context based administration" at Catalyst. With OpenVZ it is/was always known that the processes show in "top" on the node. If the node is hurting and on top is apache, I would be working to give it what it needs. If the node is hurting and "minerd" is on top, someone is getting canned. Context is so much more important than equally distributed numbers. If, as a provider, you're balancing things in such a way that someone can't use the service for an intended function then you're failing.

    There needs to be a clause for legal castration for miners on shared resources. Using rusty, dull scissors.

    Thanked by 1jar
  • netpioneernetpioneer Member
    edited December 2017

    @FAT32 said:
    One question, how does cloud system like AWS, GCE, Azure or Aliyun handle CPU stealing so well without crashing the processes?

    AWS' Burstable Performance (XEN) Instances use the well-known CPU Credit Balance:

    AWS EC2 has 2 different type of instances: Fixed Performance Instances and Burstable Performance Instances. Fixed Performance Instances provides a consistent CPU performance whereas Burstable Performance Instances provide a baseline CPU performance under normal workload. But when the workload increases Burstable Performance Instances have the ability to burst, i.e. increase the CPU performance.

    CPU Credit regulates the amount CPU burst of an instance. You can spend this CPU Credit to increase the CPU performance during the Burst period. A CPU Credit provides the performance of a full CPU core for one minute. Suppose you are operating the instance at 100% of CPU performance for 5 minutes, you will spend 5(i.e. 5x1.0) CPU Credit. Similarly if you run an instance at 50% CPU performance for 5 minutes you will spend 2.5(i.e. 5x0.5) CPU Credits.

    >

    When your instance uses fewer CPU resources than its base performance level allows (such as when it is idle), the unused CPU credits (or the difference between what was earned and what was spent) are stored in the credit balance for up to 24 hours, building CPU credits for bursting.

    CPU Credit Balance is simply the amount of CPU Credit available in your account at any moment. If you are out of CPU Credit(i.e. CPU Credit Balance turns into 0) your instance will work on baseline performance.

    When you create an instance you will get an initial CPU Credit.

    Read more on CPU Credits here: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/t2-credits-baseline-concepts.html

    In my experience, AWS and some XEN VPS providers sell very low baseline performance VMs but supersize the initial CPU Credit, giving users a "feel good" first impression. For users running just a couple of tests and benchmarks after the deployment the VPS looks fine but the actual performance may be shocking for extended usage.

    Thanked by 1WSS
  • @netpioneer said:
    In my experience, AWS and some XEN VPS providers sell very low baseline performance VMs but supersize the initial CPU Credit, giving users a "feel good" first impression. For users running just a couple of tests and benchmarks after the deployment the VPS looks fine but the actual performance may be shocking for extended usage.

    *Ahem*

    FUCK BEZOS!

  • KVM Babay!

  • FlamesRunnerFlamesRunner Member
    edited December 2017

    @WSS

    Most shitty OVZ providers that limit CPU define it as 20% of a thread sustained. Which, IMO, is worthy of:

    #DICKS

  • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Member, Patron Provider

    WSS said: It's closer to sustained around 18%

    WSS said: Again, I was under the impression that I was paying for a multi-vCore, milti-GB VPS with the idea that I'd be able to actually use at least a portion of that.

    You can, and honestly, in the real world, no one will care about 18% but if you are using a sustained amount that is not what you are paying for (probably)

  • WSSWSS Member
    edited December 2017

    @AnthonySmith said:

    WSS said: It's closer to sustained around 18%

    WSS said: Again, I was under the impression that I was paying for a multi-vCore, milti-GB VPS with the idea that I'd be able to actually use at least a portion of that.

    You can, and honestly, in the real world, no one will care about 18% but if you are using a sustained amount that is not what you are paying for (probably)

    That's when it's bloody running tho..

    @AnthonySmith

    while (process) {
       loadavg(~0.18);
    }
    
  • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Member, Patron Provider

    WSS said: That's when it's bloody running tho..

    well if that's only an hour or so then I would call you an ideal customer. :)

  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran

    @jarland said:

    FAT32 said: Off-topic: I will try BuyVM one day, I had known it since 2011 and remember the good old days where I always refresh doesbuyvmhavestock because the smallest package is always oos (especially the one with Windows is cheap) haha, nice to see it being healthy and respectable until today

    Just click this and tell me you can hold out longer than today: https://buyvm.net/kvm-dedicated-server-slices

    ;)

    I told you to wait for the Slabs to be available before you starting your shilling run.

    JEEZ.

    Francisco

    Thanked by 1jar
  • gleert said: You get what you pay for.... If you want dedicated resources buy a slice....

    Basically most (if not all) threads end up being a marketing thread for @francisco

  • This thread is confusing... Is the supposed 'limit':

    0.25 loadavg (sustained).

    OR

    0.25 CPU usage (sustained).

    There is a big difference. Figure it out.

    And that's all I have to say about that.

  • MikePTMikePT Moderator, Patron Provider, Veteran

    @ez2uk said:

    gleert said: You get what you pay for.... If you want dedicated resources buy a slice....

    Basically most (if not all) threads end up being a marketing thread for @francisco

    He deserves all the shilling we do for him.

    Thanked by 1kkrajk
  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran

    @ez2uk said:

    gleert said: You get what you pay for.... If you want dedicated resources buy a slice....

    Basically most (if not all) threads end up being a marketing thread for @francisco

    I mean, if you want to be on the payroll just let me know.

    Francisco

    Thanked by 2MikePT kkrajk
  • @sleddog said:
    And that's all I have to say about that.

    Thanks for dropping by.

  • WSS said: while (process) { loadavg(~0.18); }

    I'd be pissed too.

Sign In or Register to comment.