Howdy, Stranger!

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


Short netcup root server review & some thoughts - 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.

Short netcup root server review & some thoughts

2»

Comments

  • datanoisedatanoise Member
    edited January 2019

    @jsg could you please share with us ping & traceroute for the american locations used in your speedtest?

    For the SSD vs SAS debate I did some testing (not on netcup) and in many cases providers will limit iops or the node will be busy limiting the difference with a dedicated HDD, but of course the result is often better than on a shared HDD. As netcup seem to use an SSD cache on their SAS nodes, the difference could be pretty low between both system for most workloads. As you said, if you organize your setup taking RAM into account (cache, DB index in RAM, redis DB for stuff that changes often with some optimization) a faster drive isn't necessarily needed.

    By the way, on many SSD VPS, CPU can be the bottleneck way before i/o. And there is no need for super fast i/o if you can only use two slow cores as (for example) your mysqld will use all the CPU and your drive will stay far from being used at its full capacity!

  • @desperand said:

    Wrong, always.

    SSDs especially in environments used to virtualize servers probably get much more customers crammed onto their nodes nowadays because it somewhat opens up the IO bottleneck. if done wrong you might see other ressource shortages instead then.

    so of course SAS might give more value with less customers on the same node or even the same performance as with ssd if hooked up and shared in a reasonable way. on top fs cache for servers can work so much different from your usual windows experience...

    comparing drives in virtualized environments to personal use cases on desktop PCs and calling it all wrong based on that is just narrow minded.

    Thanked by 2angstrom datanoise
  • eoleol Member

    Short answer:
    It depends.

    Thanked by 1Falzo
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    Here you go:

    US,DAL
    
    PING speedtest.dal05.softlayer.com (173.192.68.18): 56 data bytes
    64 bytes from 173.192.68.18: icmp_seq=0 ttl=53 time=125.013 ms
    64 bytes from 173.192.68.18: icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=125.138 ms
    64 bytes from 173.192.68.18: icmp_seq=2 ttl=53 time=125.024 ms
    
    traceroute to speedtest.dal05.softlayer.com (173.192.68.18), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
     1  194.55.x.x  0.340 ms  0.428 ms  0.256 ms
     2  bbr01.eq01.fra03.networklayer.com (80.81.194.244)  4.213 ms  4.430 ms  4.314 ms
     3  1e.10.35a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com (169.53.16.30)  5.336 ms
        22.10.35a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com (169.53.16.34)  5.334 ms  7.269 ms
     4  26.10.35a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com (169.53.16.38)  5.014 ms  5.081 ms *
     5  * * *
     6  ae1.cbs02.tl01.nyc01.networklayer.com (169.45.19.46)  83.040 ms  83.552 ms *
     7  * * *
     8  ae2.cbs02.dr01.dal04.networklayer.com (169.45.18.4)  127.434 ms *  127.219 ms
     9  * ae8.cbs02.eq01.dal03.networklayer.com (169.45.18.72)  123.874 ms *
    10  ae34.bbr01.eq01.dal03.networklayer.com (50.97.17.57)  122.982 ms  122.921 ms  123.117 ms
    11  ae6.dar02.dal05.networklayer.com (50.97.18.193)  125.593 ms  127.261 ms
        ae5.dar01.dal05.networklayer.com (173.192.18.215)  123.103 ms
    12  po2.fcr01.sr01.dal05.networklayer.com (173.192.118.133)  126.352 ms
        po1.fcr01.sr01.dal05.networklayer.com (173.192.118.131)  125.389 ms  186.180 ms
    13  speedtest.dal05.softlayer.com (173.192.68.18)  127.759 ms  125.805 ms  127.472 ms
    

        US,SJC
    
        PING speedtest.sjc01.softlayer.com (50.23.64.58): 56 data bytes
        64 bytes from 50.23.64.58: icmp_seq=0 ttl=52 time=154.814 ms
        64 bytes from 50.23.64.58: icmp_seq=1 ttl=52 time=154.730 ms
        64 bytes from 50.23.64.58: icmp_seq=2 ttl=52 time=154.749 ms
    
        traceroute to speedtest.sjc01.softlayer.com (50.23.64.58), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
         1  194.55.x.x  18.330 ms  0.421 ms  0.542 ms
         2  bbr01.eq01.fra03.networklayer.com (80.81.194.244)  4.237 ms  4.202 ms  4.223 ms
         3  1e.10.35a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com (169.53.16.30)  4.865 ms  4.911 ms  4.986 ms
         4  26.10.35a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com (169.53.16.38)  5.485 ms * *
         5  * * *
         6  * ae1.cbs02.tl01.nyc01.networklayer.com (169.45.19.46)  83.273 ms  83.050 ms
         7  ae0.cbs01.eq01.chi01.networklayer.com (50.97.17.48)  104.007 ms * *
         8  * ae7.cbs02.eq01.chi01.networklayer.com (50.97.17.27)  104.181 ms  103.775 ms
         9  ae0.cbs02.cs01.den01.networklayer.com (50.97.17.46)  128.268 ms *  128.369 ms
        10  ae1.cbs01.eq01.sjc02.networklayer.com (50.97.17.89)  152.016 ms *  153.904 ms
        11  ae23.bbr02.eq01.sjc02.networklayer.com (50.97.17.75)  150.039 ms
            ae23.bbr01.eq01.sjc02.networklayer.com (50.97.17.73)  153.716 ms  157.312 ms
        12  ae6.dar01.sjc01.networklayer.com (50.97.19.167)  152.043 ms  154.002 ms
            ae6.dar02.sjc01.networklayer.com (50.97.19.165)  152.038 ms
        13  po1.fcr01.sr01.sjc01.networklayer.com (50.23.118.131)  150.557 ms  152.935 ms
            po2.fcr01.sr01.sjc01.networklayer.com (50.23.118.133)  147.698 ms
        14  speedtest.sjc01.softlayer.com (50.23.64.58)  156.289 ms  154.357 ms  154.816 ms
    

    US,WDC
    
    PING speedtest.wdc01.softlayer.com (208.43.102.250): 56 data bytes
    64 bytes from 208.43.102.250: icmp_seq=0 ttl=55 time=90.204 ms
    64 bytes from 208.43.102.250: icmp_seq=1 ttl=55 time=90.111 ms
    64 bytes from 208.43.102.250: icmp_seq=2 ttl=55 time=90.050 ms
    
    traceroute to speedtest.wdc01.softlayer.com (208.43.102.250), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
     1  194.55.x.x  43.239 ms  0.579 ms  0.485 ms
     2  bbr01.eq01.fra03.networklayer.com (80.81.194.244)  4.296 ms  4.271 ms  4.614 ms
     3  1e.10.35a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com (169.53.16.30)  7.546 ms  5.069 ms  5.287 ms
     4  * 30.10.35a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com (169.53.16.48)  13.881 ms  11.268 ms
     5  ae3.cbs02.eq01.wdc02.networklayer.com (50.97.17.242)  88.069 ms  90.477 ms  87.647 ms
     6  ae30.bbr01.eq01.wdc02.networklayer.com (50.97.17.149)  87.334 ms  88.267 ms
        ae30.bbr02.eq01.wdc02.networklayer.com (50.97.17.151)  88.172 ms
     7  ae0.dar02.wdc01.networklayer.com (173.192.18.203)  88.405 ms  90.168 ms  89.843 ms
     8  po2.fcr01.sr01.wdc01.networklayer.com (208.43.118.138)  88.527 ms
        po1.fcr01.sr01.wdc01.networklayer.com (208.43.118.134)  88.890 ms  88.109 ms
     9  speedtest.wdc01.softlayer.com (208.43.102.250)  88.844 ms  89.798 ms  90.010 ms
    

    BR,SAO
    
    PING speedtest.sao01.softlayer.com (169.57.128.148): 56 data bytes
    64 bytes from 169.57.128.148: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=194.230 ms
    64 bytes from 169.57.128.148: icmp_seq=1 ttl=51 time=194.055 ms
    64 bytes from 169.57.128.148: icmp_seq=2 ttl=51 time=194.305 ms
    
    traceroute to speedtest.sao01.softlayer.com (169.57.128.148), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
     1  194.55.x.x  48.824 ms  5.624 ms  3.867 ms
     2  bbr01.eq01.fra03.networklayer.com (80.81.194.244)  4.157 ms  5.275 ms  5.799 ms
     3  22.10.35a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com (169.53.16.34)  5.351 ms  5.440 ms  5.558 ms
     4  2a.10.35a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com (169.53.16.42)  5.094 ms  7.740 ms
        26.10.35a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com (169.53.16.38)  5.235 ms
     5  * * *
     6  * * *
     7  ae9.bbr02.tl01.nyc01.networklayer.com (50.97.17.45)  82.899 ms  83.209 ms  83.165 ms
     8  ae0.bbr02.eq01.sao02.networklayer.com (50.97.19.220)  191.772 ms  191.167 ms  195.841 ms
     9  ae6.dar01.sao01.networklayer.com (50.97.19.211)  200.619 ms
        ae6.dar02.sao01.networklayer.com (50.97.19.213)  198.540 ms
        ae6.dar01.sao01.networklayer.com (50.97.19.211)  203.434 ms
    10  po2.fcr01a.sao01.networklayer.com (169.57.138.133)  204.090 ms
        po1.fcr01a.sao01.networklayer.com (169.57.138.131)  192.832 ms
        po2.fcr01b.sao01.networklayer.com (169.57.138.137)  193.267 ms
    11  speedtest.sao01.softlayer.com (169.57.128.148)  194.573 ms  196.892 ms  197.208 ms
    

    Also note the about 4 ms to FRA.

    Thanked by 1datanoise
  • Falzo said: SSDs especially in environments used to virtualize servers probably get much more customers crammed onto their nodes nowadays because it somewhat opens up the IO bottleneck. if done wrong you might see other ressource shortages instead then.

    Exactly. In a shared environment you are more likely to hit quickly a bottleneck, be it i/o or something else. SSD doesn't mean that storage is gonna be fast as hell. Just that it's less likely that i/o will be the bottleneck, or if it is, that it's not going to happen as fast as it would have with a spinning disk. And that's where netcup seems pretty good, their "root" nodes look well balanced, maybe thanks to the "dedicated threads".

    jsg said: Here you go:

    Thanks!

Sign In or Register to comment.