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.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Contabo introducing VPS with NVMe drives
Contabo introduced NVME VPS.
Can anyone make YABS benchmark test on the new disk? Is any limit on I/O same as normal SSD VPSs?
Comments
finally keeping up with the times. likely EPYC based
IOPS was the only one downside of contabo. Now they are almost perfect. DDoS mitigation and network quality remains an open issue.
Network quality in Germany works great for me
how about an oversold CPU with high steel time? they are far from perfect
CPU wasn't an issue for me. They have very strange network with weird packet loss instances almost daily.
Looks nice, might give them a try again. Remember having a few network blips before, so will be interesting to see what's changed.
Also, just noticed while browsing their site, down the bottom of https://contabo.com/en/vps/ ( @jsg )
Pity, its only for new purchased VPS, old VPS systems are still on SSD.
Btw servers with nvme has x4 less space.
Pretty cool! For anyone wondering, you can still pick SSD or NVMe. The SSD will be 200 GB and NVMe will be 50 GB. Looks like you can upgrade to a 100 GB NVMe for $2 extra a month. This is for the basic plan.
Looks like you can upgrade to the next plan up and switch to a NVMe drive that way. So if you want NVMe you'll either have to cancel and reorder, or upgrade, either way you'll be spending extra. In my usage the SSDs have been plenty fast enough after they unlocked my disk speed, I don't have any need to upgrade.
Watch out for upgrades - if you have servers pre-2021 you (most probably) have pre-VAT prices and new orders comes with "extra" VAT, so more expensive. Not really gonna upgrade my 5€ VPS to 11€ VPS because NVMe
Contabo fixing worst problem? I hope they raised IO limit to at least 8k. 1.3k from SSD offer is just bad. If they managed to do it then I will prob give them second(third tbh) chance.
This is really a big step towards quality performance. But would definitely like to hear feedback about these NVMe drives in the long run...
I/O: Hey CPU bro, you there?
That's based on an actual statement from me to them during internal communication. I gave my permission to quote that.
The benchmark and review that I wanted to post shortly after their new product line going public actually is with those new Contabo / @contabo_m NVMe VPSs.
Ultra short TL;DR: Yes, those drives are insanely fast. Everything else is the usual (Epyc processor, fast memory, connectivity as known, somewhat better than during my last benchmarks, but then it's known that Contabo's network team is always trying to improve connectivity when and where possible.
For the full review of all their locations please be a bit patient; We (the LET team and I) are working on finding a way to get the benchmark and review posted ...
That's normal. Considering that NVMe is much more expensive than SSDs, at least the fast good quality ones, most providers give you much less NVMe space than SSD space (for the same price).
Frankly, although I'm impressed by their NVMes and like them a lot, I think that most use cases needing lots of space can easily can get away with SSD.
New York Nvme:
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
Yet-Another-Bench-Script
v2021-06-05
https://github.com/masonr/yet-another-bench-script
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
Wed 18 Aug 2021 10:33:59 PM -03
Basic System Information:
Processor : AMD EPYC 7282 16-Core Processor
CPU cores : 6 @ 2794.748 MHz
AES-NI : ✔ Enabled
VM-x/AMD-V : ❌ Disabled
RAM : 15.6 GiB
Swap : 2.0 GiB
Disk : 97.9 GiB
fio Disk Speed Tests (Mixed R/W 50/50):
iperf3 Network Speed Tests (IPv4):
Provider | Location (Link) | Send Speed | Recv Speed
| | |
Clouvider | London, UK (10G) | 370 Mbits/sec | 384 Mbits/sec
Online.net | Paris, FR (10G) | 368 Mbits/sec | 384 Mbits/sec
WorldStream | The Netherlands (10G) | 362 Mbits/sec | 383 Mbits/sec
Biznet | Jakarta, Indonesia (1G) | 281 Mbits/sec | 96.5 Mbits/sec
Clouvider | NYC, NY, US (10G) | 381 Mbits/sec | 396 Mbits/sec
Velocity Online | Tallahassee, FL, US (10G) | 372 Mbits/sec | 392 Mbits/sec
Clouvider | Los Angeles, CA, US (10G) | 367 Mbits/sec | 384 Mbits/sec
Iveloz Telecom | Sao Paulo, BR (2G) | 356 Mbits/sec | 368 Mbits/sec
Geekbench 5 Benchmark Test:
Test | Value
|
Single Core | 945
Multi Core | 4963
Full Test | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/9390697
@dnnr
Sorry but that "benchmark" is quite wrong. The disks are much faster on 4K and 64K reads and writes and the hypervisor flag is available.
@jsg I did it again and nothing change. The results are not different.
Then there is a problem with that script.
@jsg I can try nench :
nench.sh v2019.07.20 -- https://git.io/nench.sh
benchmark timestamp: 2021-08-19 02:17:50 UTC
Processor: AMD EPYC 7282 16-Core Processor
CPU cores: 6
Frequency: 2794.748 MHz
RAM: 15Gi
Swap: 2.0Gi
Kernel: Linux 5.4.0-81-generic x86_64
Disks:
sda 100G SSD
CPU: SHA256-hashing 500 MB
2.768 seconds
CPU: bzip2-compressing 500 MB
4.913 seconds
CPU: AES-encrypting 500 MB
1.078 seconds
ioping: seek rate
min/avg/max/mdev = 25.0 us / 36.9 us / 2.71 ms / 25.4 us
ioping: sequential read speed
generated 42.4 k requests in 5.00 s, 10.4 GiB, 8.49 k iops, 2.07 GiB/s
dd: sequential write speed
1st run: 801.09 MiB/s
2nd run: 1525.88 MiB/s
3rd run: 1525.88 MiB/s
average: 1284.28 MiB/s
IPv4 speedtests
your IPv4: 144.126.148.xxxx
No IPv6 connectivity detected
I'm quite a fan of their St Louis location. I dismissed them for a long time as unsustainable but they aren't the first to go from unsustainable to "well damn, actually pretty good."
4k read and write is 1:1 the same in that benchmark. It doesnt mean there's problem with yabs, it means that there's IOPS limit just like with SSD line. All customers with SSD have 1.3k IOPS. All. Completly zero variance, because its hard limit and it just wont go above that.
Your opinion about NVMe line is based on VPS they made for you right? Sooo... maybe they just didnt limit your IOPS as youre reviewer? ... You will post positive review and attract customers then.
Blaming whole yabs for results that are worse than you expected? Bruh. Its not your company and they always did it (IOPS limit), so why it is supposed to be different now? They said to you that they wont do it or what? If there is big difference between what you AS REVIEWER got and what customer got then investigate it instead of blaming whole benchmark wtf
Thats enough to see something fishy. Even flags are different?
I don't know about all flags because that script (unlike my software) shows only AES and hypervisor - but hypervisor is wrong, yes.
As for the rest, well possible, but I don't think that Contabo f*cked me. For one I have never found them to cheat me even the slightest, they played with open cards. Also: Do you really think that a cheating provider would respond to my request to really hammer their NVMes really hard by saying "Sure, yes, here you go, 5 more testing VMs for you on the same node"? I don't think so.
I don't know about "they always did" (maybe they did, maybe not, me not know); I'm relying on hard data, plus, frankly, it seems that Contabo wants my reviews mainly for internal purposes and not to help selling via LET. Example: I contacted them and told them that my review will be published with a delay due to my difficulties with CF. I didn't even receive an answer yet (while normally they react quickly). Honestly I think they do not even care much about my review here, they mainly (or even only) care about what I find out and about an open honest and concrete data based feedback.
Am I a fan of Contabo? Well, yes and no. With my personal need profile in mind my interest in having VMs with them is limited. I'm A NexusBytes / @seriesn fan for a reason: their offers perfectly match my needs. "But their NVMe are somewhat slower than Contabo's!" - me not care, NexusBytes' NVMes are damn fast enough for me.
But otoh yes, I like Contabo a lot because they are damn serious about wanting good feedback and my experience as a tester with them is great and our conversations are almost shockingly open and frank. It sometimes feels as if they wanted me to break a test VM. It feels a bit like "If jsg approves of a new product it's a go because it's stable and performance numbers are backed up by professionally gathered and cold data". Who could complain about such an attitude?
As for the other benchmark scripts I don't care and I'm in no way against their authors, so I usually don't comment a lot on them although I know about some weaknesses even from the authors themselves. But when I happen to come across results of a VPS I just benchmarked myself and I see obvious flaws or even errors I say so clearly.
Hi friends, a question beyond this topic... Anyone know Contabo got supporting tickets? Or only can reach them via [email protected] ?? I bought their VPS SSD and figuring how to raise a support ticket...
AFAIK they don't have a ticket system (yet) in their panel. Support is via email and IIRC via phone.
I'm curious about how much response time(ping) is between Contabo and Hetzner.
Give me (PM) a Hetzner VPS (or dedi) IP and I'll quickly find out for you ...
fsn.icmp.hetzner.com
nbg.icmp.hetzner.com
hel.icmp.hetzner.com
Thank you!