Howdy, Stranger!

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


Hetzner auctions vs Netcup Root-Server
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.

Hetzner auctions vs Netcup Root-Server

neikneik Member

Hi guys,

you can read on a regular basis people recommending Hetzner's dedis from the auction and I get the bright side of those servers as they are quite cheap (start at 23€) for their performance.

However, I just saw the latest Netcup Root-Server portfolio and there was the RS4000 G8 with 32GB Ram, 10 ded. cores and almost 1TB Hdd for 25€.

I am wondering now: Why should I go with the Hetzner server that offers way less cores (Ram and storage are identical usually) instead of the Netcup RS?
I would expect far better performance from the RS compared to the Hetzner server given that it is 10 vs. 4 cores.

I'm afraid I am missing something over here. You guys might enlighten me.

«1

Comments

  • YmpkerYmpker Member
    edited July 2018

    Hetzner has 100% of the port speed dedicated I think.

  • neikneik Member

    IIRC the bandwith is way more restricted over at Hetzner than Netcup (30 vs. 80TB). I would assume if someone really needs a dedicated 1Gbps port you push way more than 30TB a month.

  • YuraYura Member

    You are comparing VPS with Dedicated server.

    Thanked by 1Clouvider
  • ehabehab Member

    some cpu features like vmx is not available in netcup "u need to pay more". like what Yura said vps ≠ dedicated.

  • NeoonNeoon Community Contributor, Veteran

    Bullshit, Not a single provider, who sells Dedicated cores, sells you Dedicated cores.

    They sell you threads, of a CPU, but they call it cores.

    The difference between Threads is, that thanks to Hyper Threading, 2 Threads are using 1 Core. If someone would sell you dedicated cores, we would need to sell you actually 2 threads = 1 core.

    Misleading bullshit.

    That's not an issue, as long the machine is not under high load, if that's the case, you get kinda fucked, since 2 Thread will access the same core, so basically you performance goes down a lot.

    Hetzner cost you 21.85EUR for i7 with 9k benchmark + 32gig + 2x3TB Disks, that beats the shit out of the VPS.

    A VPS performance may differ from time to time, a dedicated gives you all resources 24/7, so you cannot compare these. One troll or abuser on the node and all your shit gets fucked up.

  • williewillie Member

    I've found in practice the 8-core Hetzner cloud server is faster than the 4-core i7-3770 by the amount you'd expect from treating the 8 cores as real cores and scaling the frequency. It ends up around 1.3x faster iirc. Yes they are actually vcores so the obvious inference is that the server hardware (at the time of my tests) had underutilized CPU and you could really go to town on them. Once there is more cpu contention of course performance will drop.

    I haven't tried the netcup rootservers but everyone says they're great. They are modern and have SSD and ECC memory. Overall though I mostly prefer being on baremetal hardware to be completely separated from other users.

    If I were getting a server of that type now, I'd probably get one of the Hetzner auction E3-1245v2 which costs a bit more than the i7's of similar speed, but have ECC.

    Thanked by 1ariq01
  • qtwrkqtwrk Member

    the only hard part for me is that , in server bidding , if you want SSD, these servers come with at least 40-ish euros ...

    so if you need more disk IO than CPU , netcup would be good place to go.

  • ZerpyZerpy Member

    @Neoon said:
    The difference between Threads is, that thanks to Hyper Threading, 2 Threads are using 1 Core. If someone would sell you dedicated cores, we would need to sell you actually 2 threads = 1 core.

    Could also be a provider would disable hyper-threading, and thus 1 core == 1 core.

    If you take haproxy as an example, it's actually recommended to disable hyper-threading on the CPU to get the most of out the CPU - 20 threads causes worse performance than 10 cores.

    So just because a CPU supports hyper-threading doesn't mean a provider actually uses it.

  • williewillie Member

    qtwrk said:

    the only hard part for me is that , in server bidding , if you want SSD, these servers come with at least 40-ish euros ...

    If you are going to keep it long enough to not mind the setup fee, you can get an EX-41 or EX-41S SSD for 34 euro in Finland. They are better than any of the cheap auction servers.

    https://www.hetzner.com/dedicated-rootserver/matrix-ex

  • vmp32kvmp32k Member

    One issue that I found weird is that Netcup is very selective about which CPU features they pass-through to their VMs, I had to beg support to enable AES-NI (which they did) but no-go for AVX. AES-NI is super important for me because I do full-disk encryption so that was nice of them. Compared to my €34/m Hetzner server performance is still lacking a lot though I pay a hell of a lot less for the netcup server.
    Pick something that fits your requirements.

  • williewillie Member

    Hetzner Cloud enables AVX if that matters. FDE on a virtual server of any sort sounds dubious. If you're serious about that, use a dedi.

  • angstromangstrom Moderator

    @vmp32k said: One issue that I found weird is that Netcup is very selective about which CPU features they pass-through to their VMs, I had to beg support to enable AES-NI (which they did) but no-go for AVX. AES-NI is super important for me because I do full-disk encryption so that was nice of them.

    Do you have a Root-Server or a vServer at netcup? I've had a Root-Server since April, and both AES and AVX were enabled from the beginning -- I didn't need to ask.

    I also have a vServer: AES is enabled (I didn't need to ask) but not AVX.

    I think that netcup's practices have evolved over time, but it sounds to me like you have a vServer and not a Root-Server.

    vmp32k said: Compared to my €34/m Hetzner server performance is still lacking a lot though I pay a hell of a lot less for the netcup server.

    Pick something that fits your requirements.

    Indeed.

  • NeoonNeoon Community Contributor, Veteran

    @Zerpy said:

    @Neoon said:
    The difference between Threads is, that thanks to Hyper Threading, 2 Threads are using 1 Core. If someone would sell you dedicated cores, we would need to sell you actually 2 threads = 1 core.

    Could also be a provider would disable hyper-threading, and thus 1 core == 1 core.

    If you take haproxy as an example, it's actually recommended to disable hyper-threading on the CPU to get the most of out the CPU - 20 threads causes worse performance than 10 cores.

    So just because a CPU supports hyper-threading doesn't mean a provider actually uses it.

    I talked with them, they know that they actually just sell threads.
    Dr.Server sold also that stuff, but he sold dedicated threads as he wrote that into the offers.
    Which was correct.

  • @Neoon said:
    Bullshit, Not a single provider, who sells Dedicated cores, sells you Dedicated cores.

    They sell you threads, of a CPU, but they call it cores.

    The difference between Threads is, that thanks to Hyper Threading, 2 Threads are using 1 Core. If someone would sell you dedicated cores, we would need to sell you actually 2 threads = 1 core.

    That's not entirely correct. A thread actually represents a logical processor core, therefore the term is not used fallaciously, merely it is a question of definition. Usually, you're aware of what you're buying and you can easily determine whether you're getting a physical core or a logical core.

    In terms of performance, hyper-threading theoretically doubles performance, as one logical core has it's own pipeline and it's own instruction set, however, certain cases can clearly deficit the performance on hyper-threading, that being data dependencies or cache misses.

    If you're buying a virtual machine with a dedicated CPU core, they're high likely speaking of what you call threads, however, that does not mean that performance per-se is degraded to a level you notice. (otherwise it wouldn't be sold as such).

    @Zerpy said:
    If you take haproxy as an example, it's actually recommended to disable hyper-threading on the CPU to get the most of out the CPU - 20 threads causes worse performance than 10 cores.

    Source? I've worked with a fair amount of haproxy installations for load-balancing, usually a bunch of machines in front of a cluster of workers, which have set an explicit affinity for the CPU map to threads, with one thread left out for other processes running on the LB's.

  • GulfGulf Member

    Haven't used netcup, but hetzner has very poor overall connectivity, longest pings.

  • mkshmksh Member

    @florianb said:
    In terms of performance, hyper-threading theoretically doubles performance

    Maybe that's true in theory but practically it's nothing like that. Running your CPU intensive computation with a number threads equal to the number of logical cores is not going to get you a 100% gain vs running with threads equal to the number of physical cores. In some cases you might even degrade the overall performance.

    Thanked by 1Zerpy
  • @mksh said:

    @florianb said:
    In terms of performance, hyper-threading theoretically doubles performance

    Maybe that's true in theory but practically it's nothing like that. Running your CPU intensive computation with a number threads equal to the number of logical cores is not going to get you a 100% gain vs running with threads equal to the number of physical cores. In some cases you might even degrade the overall performance.

    That is correct. I also conceded that in the next sentence.

  • ZerpyZerpy Member

    @florianb said:
    Source? I've worked with a fair amount of haproxy installations for load-balancing, usually a bunch of machines in front of a cluster of workers, which have set an explicit affinity for the CPU map to threads, with one thread left out for other processes running on the LB's.

    Simply experience making haproxy scale to roughly 18 gigabit in/out at same time (18 gigabit from upstream towards consumers) per box and at the same time having to do SSL termination.

    With E5-2640v4 CPUs we would get better performance out of the box with HT disabled compared to HT enabled.

    We'd use 4x10g NICs, assign RX/TX queues to individual cores for each NIC and pinning haproxy to specific cores as well.

    hyper-threading doesn't double your performance, you'd get maximum 1.7-1.8x out of it in certain workloads - and you'll still end up with a lot of interrupts for that to happen, which isn't exactly amazing in a setup doing hundreds of thousands of connections.

    maybe when haproxy has better thread support (it's still super slow compared to using nproc) - since it will allow better utilization of local CPU cache for threads running on threads (threadception?), sharing much of the work done by haproxy processes currently.

    Still something that has to be tested when the level of performance for haproxy threads become somewhat similar to running individual processes.

    Thanked by 1FHR
  • vmp32kvmp32k Member
    edited July 2018

    angstrom said: Do you have a Root-Server or a vServer at netcup?

    Netcup: VPS 1000 G7SEa1 - huh i guess its technically a vps but it's KVM, not sure where the difference is to the RS series.
    Hetzner: Dedicated Xeon E3-1245 V2

  • angstromangstrom Moderator

    @vmp32k said: angstrom said: Do you have a Root-Server or a vServer at netcup?

    Netcup: VPS 1000 G7SEa1 - huh i guess its technically a vps but it's KVM, not sure where the difference is to the RS series.

    That's a vServer.

    Both vServers and Root-Servers are KVM. The main practical difference is that Root-Servers have dedicated cores (i.e., threads).

    I think that it used to be the case that AES wasn't enabled by default on vServers, but netcup changed this policy at some point over the past year.

  • YuraYura Member

    @Gulf said:
    Haven't used netcup, but hetzner has very poor overall connectivity, longest pings.

    @All,

    I'm not a customer of Hetzner but have been giving them more than side glances recently. Is Hetzner connectivity that bad? What's everyone's experience with it, within Europe and to the States?

    Thanked by 1Gulf
  • GulfGulf Member

    @Yura said:
    I'm not a customer of Hetzner but have been giving them more than side glances recently.

    They are fixing their network, but slowly. At least, it took a half year till they fixed incorrect routes to the Middle East (via London).

    Thanked by 1Yura
  • GulfGulf Member
    edited July 2018

    @Yura said:
    Hetzner connectivity

    Example.

    Go here http://lg.emix.net.ae/lg/

    Enter hetzner.de and select Pings, you will see pings around 136 ms

    Enter clouvider.co.uk, and you will see 120 ms


    Despite the close geographical location, Hetzner has highest pings.

    Try out OVH IP in Germany (DE1) 54.37.202.200, you will see the same 120 ms

    Thanked by 1vimalware
  • mkshmksh Member

    @Yura said:

    @Gulf said:
    Haven't used netcup, but hetzner has very poor overall connectivity, longest pings.

    @All,

    I'm not a customer of Hetzner but have been giving them more than side glances recently. Is Hetzner connectivity that bad? What's everyone's experience with it, within Europe and to the States?

    Certainly not the best but also not the worst. In europe they are fine at least. You might see a couple more ms latency here or there but nothing huge. Outside of europe it's a bit hit and miss i guess. On one hand there is @willie who seems to experience a not exactly great connection but then i've seen people in the US and canada with stable < 120ms latency. Not sure about bandwidth but the occational 20-30MB download didn't result in any complaints. @Gulf has a nice example there and if you care about +/-16ms to places like .ae is up to you.

    Thanked by 1Yura
  • GulfGulf Member
    edited July 2018

    @mksh said:

    According to the traceroute, bandwidth goes the Germany through the Amsterdam. Therefore we see these +20ms (to the NL and back).

    Previously it was London, now amsix.

    Probably arabs have misconfigured their network, but other provders like ovh.de, @clouvider do not suffer from this issue.

    Really strange.

    traceroute to hetzner.de (213.133.107.227), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets

    1 195.229.3.209 (195.229.3.209) 6.437 ms 6.438 ms 6.431 ms

    2 195.229.2.243 (195.229.2.243) 112.850 ms 195.229.2.123 (195.229.2.123) 109.072 ms 195.229.31.179 (195.229.31.179) 121.901 ms

    3 amsix-gw.hetzner.de (80.249.209.55) 155.752 ms 149.885 ms 155.750 ms

    4 core4.fra.hetzner.com (213.239.252.45) 146.946 ms core1.fra.hetzner.com (213.239.203.157) 193.080 ms 193.055 ms

  • williewillie Member
    edited July 2018

    I consistently get decent latency but not so good cross-Atlantic speed from Hetzner. My multi-GB transfers typically run 3-4 MB/sec to the US or Canada, but often 50+ MB/s or even the full 100MB/s (1 gbit port basically maxed out) in Europe.

    Thanked by 1Yura
  • mkshmksh Member
    edited July 2018

    @Gulf said:

    @mksh said:

    According to the traceroute, bandwidth goes the Germany through the Amsterdam. Therefore we see these +20ms (to the NL and back).

    >

    Previously it was London, now amsix.

    Probably arabs have misconfigured their network, but other provders like ovh.de, @clouvider do not suffer from this issue.

    Really strange.

    traceroute to hetzner.de (213.133.107.227), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets

    1 195.229.3.209 (195.229.3.209) 6.437 ms 6.438 ms 6.431 ms

    2 195.229.2.243 (195.229.2.243) 112.850 ms 195.229.2.123 (195.229.2.123) 109.072 ms 195.229.31.179 (195.229.31.179) 121.901 ms

    3 amsix-gw.hetzner.de (80.249.209.55) 155.752 ms 149.885 ms 155.750 ms

    4 core4.fra.hetzner.com (213.239.252.45) 146.946 ms core1.fra.hetzner.com (213.239.203.157) 193.080 ms 193.055 ms

    >

    Where is it going back? Seems the network you are tracing from simply peers at AMSIX and Hetzner uses that route? At least geographically this makes sense as Amsterdam is closer to Germany than London. My guess is that this is simply cheaper for them though.

  • GulfGulf Member
    edited July 2018

    @mksh said:

    For example,

    OVH Route: Dubai -> Roubaix, France -> Frankfurt = 120 ms

    Hetzner: Dubai -> Amsterdam -> Frankfurt -> Nuremberg = 140 ms

    Looks like it goes through Germany to the Netherlands, then returns back to Germany.

  • mkshmksh Member
    edited July 2018

    @Gulf said:

    @mksh said:

    For example,

    OVH Route: Dubai -> Roubaix, France -> Frankfurt = 120 ms

    Hetzner: Dubai -> Amsterdam -> Frankfurt -> Nuremberg = 140 ms

    Looks like it goes through Germany to the Netherlands, then returns back to Germany.

    Maybe but who knows how the Emirates network gets it's traffic to Amsterdam. All we (and Hetzner) know/see is that they peer there. If we were to assume the shortest possible connection it would likely pass through Belgium. Not arguing that the route is suboptimal (given the traffic highly likely comes via france even if the Emirates Network peers in Amsterdam) but as i said at least geographically Amsterdam isn't to bad and who knows if Hetzner even has a chance to peer with them in France. Roubaix doesn't exactly seem like an IX.

    Thanked by 1vimalware
  • zkyezzkyez Member

    @Gulf said:

    @mksh said:

    According to the traceroute, bandwidth goes the Germany through the Amsterdam. Therefore we see these +20ms (to the NL and back).

    Previously it was London, now amsix.

    Probably arabs have misconfigured their network, but other provders like ovh.de, @clouvider do not suffer from this issue.

    Really strange.

    traceroute to hetzner.de (213.133.107.227), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets

    1 195.229.3.209 (195.229.3.209) 6.437 ms 6.438 ms 6.431 ms

    2 195.229.2.243 (195.229.2.243) 112.850 ms 195.229.2.123 (195.229.2.123) 109.072 ms 195.229.31.179 (195.229.31.179) 121.901 ms

    3 amsix-gw.hetzner.de (80.249.209.55) 155.752 ms 149.885 ms 155.750 ms

    4 core4.fra.hetzner.com (213.239.252.45) 146.946 ms core1.fra.hetzner.com (213.239.203.157) 193.080 ms 193.055 ms

    If you think that's bad check the current routing to scaleway. It goes through Singapore while a few days ago it went through Marseilles. Same provider, Etisalat.

Sign In or Register to comment.