Howdy, Stranger!

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


HostHatch Chicago cpu upgraded AMD - Page 2
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

HostHatch Chicago cpu upgraded AMD

2

Comments

  • hotsnowhotsnow Member
    edited November 2021

    Seems the NVMe box in Chicago still have issues, network and IO are poor and unstable, and the internal network disappeared again, reconfigure network in the panel not working this time, always show an error "Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes."

  • me too.

    @hotsnow said:
    Seems the NVMe box in Chicago still have issues, network and IO are poor and unstable, and the internal network disappeared again, reconfigure network in the panel not working this time, always show an error "Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes."

  • @dahartigan said:

    @yoursunny said:

    @yoursunny said:
    I have HostHatch Chicago 250GB HDD plan.
    CPU is still Xeon E5-2680 v2.

    After today's network maintenance, IPv4 is broken (gateway not pingable from either the VPS or outside), IPv6 still works.

    IPv4 of my 250GB HDD plan is back online, after a 2-hour downtime, in addition to 40-minute downtime within the maintenance window.
    This did not affect my daily backup, so it's fine.

    My chicken still unhatched

    So do I :(

  • @hotsnow said:
    Seems the NVMe box in Chicago still have issues, network and IO are poor and unstable, and the internal network disappeared again, reconfigure network in the panel not working this time, always show an error "Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes."

    Me too. Now I temporarily use the public network connection. The speed is very, very slow

  • my two CHI storage boxes are fine

  • hosthatchhosthatch Member, Patron Provider, Top Host

    We're doing our best to get things up and running asap for the affected customers.

  • @yoursunny said:

    @yoursunny said:
    I have HostHatch Chicago 250GB HDD plan.
    CPU is still Xeon E5-2680 v2.

    After today's network maintenance, IPv4 is broken (gateway not pingable from either the VPS or outside), IPv6 still works.

    IPv4 of my 250GB HDD plan is back online, after a 2-hour downtime, in addition to 40-minute downtime within the maintenance window.
    This did not affect my daily backup, so it's fine.

    I am curious to know how you use this as backup since it has very limited CPU. My Amsterdam one has been idle since I got it. Ideally, I want to use nextcloud but I am afraid it will use more resources than permitted.

  • yoursunnyyoursunny Member, IPv6 Advocate

    @xetsys said:

    @yoursunny said:
    I have HostHatch Chicago 250GB HDD plan.

    I am curious to know how you use this as backup since it has very limited CPU. My Amsterdam one has been idle since I got it. Ideally, I want to use nextcloud but I am afraid it will use more resources than permitted.

    I created an unprivileged user account called rclone on this HDD server.
    Elsewhere, I can use rclone SFTP remote targeting this user account.

    Content in my Seafile file share is uploaded daily to this server, using a cron job on the machine hosting Seafile.
    This backup is encrypted via rclone crypt remote.
    I did a restore test shortly after initial setup.

    My family photos are uploaded daily, using a cron job on the OpenWRT router.
    Given the router has only 128MB RAM, I need to restrict memory demand with --buffer-size 1M --max-backlog 64 flags.
    This backup is not encrypted.
    I can verify by looking at the target folder.

    Thanked by 3xetsys vimalware ariq01
  • @yoursunny said:

    @xetsys said:

    @yoursunny said:
    I have HostHatch Chicago 250GB HDD plan.

    I am curious to know how you use this as backup since it has very limited CPU. My Amsterdam one has been idle since I got it. Ideally, I want to use nextcloud but I am afraid it will use more resources than permitted.

    I created an unprivileged user account called rclone on this HDD server.
    Elsewhere, I can use rclone SFTP remote targeting this user account.

    Content in my Seafile file share is uploaded daily to this server, using a cron job on the machine hosting Seafile.
    This backup is encrypted via rclone crypt remote.
    I did a restore test shortly after initial setup.

    My family photos are uploaded daily, using a cron job on the OpenWRT router.
    Given the router has only 128MB RAM, I need to restrict memory demand with --buffer-size 1M --max-backlog 64 flags.
    This backup is not encrypted.
    I can verify by looking at the target folder.

    May I ask why you choose SFTP rather than WebDav with https? I think WebDav may have better Concurrency.

  • deankdeank Member, Troll

    Benchmark junkies are the bane of humanity.

    Thanked by 2tetech ariq01
  • yoursunnyyoursunny Member, IPv6 Advocate

    @hfdem said:

    @yoursunny said:

    @xetsys said:

    @yoursunny said:
    I have HostHatch Chicago 250GB HDD plan.

    I am curious to know how you use this as backup since it has very limited CPU. My Amsterdam one has been idle since I got it. Ideally, I want to use nextcloud but I am afraid it will use more resources than permitted.

    I created an unprivileged user account called rclone on this HDD server.
    Elsewhere, I can use rclone SFTP remote targeting this user account.

    Content in my Seafile file share is uploaded daily to this server, using a cron job on the machine hosting Seafile.
    This backup is encrypted via rclone crypt remote.
    I did a restore test shortly after initial setup.

    My family photos are uploaded daily, using a cron job on the OpenWRT router.
    Given the router has only 128MB RAM, I need to restrict memory demand with --buffer-size 1M --max-backlog 64 flags.
    This backup is not encrypted.
    I can verify by looking at the target folder.

    May I ask why you choose SFTP rather than WebDav with https? I think WebDav may have better Concurrency.

    The backup runs every 24 hours.
    As long as it completes within 24 hours, before the next backup begins, it is a successful setup.

    SFTP is easy to setup and authenticates with a private key.
    WebDAV is more complicated (it requires TLS certificate) and authenticates with password (less secure).
    Simplicity wins over performance.

  • @yoursunny said:

    @hfdem said:

    @yoursunny said:

    @xetsys said:

    @yoursunny said:
    I have HostHatch Chicago 250GB HDD plan.

    I am curious to know how you use this as backup since it has very limited CPU. My Amsterdam one has been idle since I got it. Ideally, I want to use nextcloud but I am afraid it will use more resources than permitted.

    I created an unprivileged user account called rclone on this HDD server.
    Elsewhere, I can use rclone SFTP remote targeting this user account.

    Content in my Seafile file share is uploaded daily to this server, using a cron job on the machine hosting Seafile.
    This backup is encrypted via rclone crypt remote.
    I did a restore test shortly after initial setup.

    My family photos are uploaded daily, using a cron job on the OpenWRT router.
    Given the router has only 128MB RAM, I need to restrict memory demand with --buffer-size 1M --max-backlog 64 flags.
    This backup is not encrypted.
    I can verify by looking at the target folder.

    May I ask why you choose SFTP rather than WebDav with https? I think WebDav may have better Concurrency.

    The backup runs every 24 hours.
    As long as it completes within 24 hours, before the next backup begins, it is a successful setup.

    SFTP is easy to setup and authenticates with a private key.
    WebDAV is more complicated (it requires TLS certificate) and authenticates with password (less secure).
    Simplicity wins over performance.

    Thanks I understand.

  • @hosthatch said:
    We're doing our best to get things up and running asap for the affected customers.

    Dear Hosthatch team, my 2T hard drive server in Chicago has been disconnected for more than 24 hours, and still can't connect, I submitted a ticket in the backend a day ago, and no staff replied, but my friend have the same IP segment of the same configuration machine can connect normally, please ask your side of the network has not been repaired?
    The ticket number I sent is #####263066 If you can, please help solve it as soon as possible, I just renewed a year yesterday, and there are some services on the machine need to be restored as soon as possible, thank you!

  • Daniel15Daniel15 Member
    edited November 2021

    @xetsys said: I am curious to know how you use this as backup since it has very limited CPU

    I use Borgbackup on mine. Most of the work for Borgbackup is done on the client-side, so it's not too CPU-intensive on the server.

    @xetsys said: Ideally, I want to use nextcloud but I am afraid it will use more resources than permitted.

    I'm using Seafile, but I'm running Seafile on an NVMe VPS and mount the storage VPS via NFS. It works great! Seafile is very fast since its database is on a fast NVMe disk, while the actual large files are on the storage VPS.

    I wouldn't recommend SSHFS or Samba for Seafile as it relies on hard links (which Samba doesn't support, and SSHFS sometimes corrupts), but NFS and iSCSI both work well.

    Thanked by 2xetsys vimalware
  • the internal network in Chicago backed to normal now, but the Nvme IO still badly

  • @Daniel15 said:

    @xetsys said: I am curious to know how you use this as backup since it has very limited CPU

    I use Borgbackup on mine. Most of the work for Borgbackup is done on the client-side, so it's not too CPU-intensive on the server.

    @xetsys said: Ideally, I want to use nextcloud but I am afraid it will use more resources than permitted.

    I'm using Seafile, but I'm running Seafile on an NVMe VPS and mount the storage VPS via NFS. It works great! Seafile is very fast since its database is on a fast NVMe disk, while the actual large files are on the storage VPS.

    I wouldn't recommend SSHFS or Samba for Seafile as it relies on hard links (which Samba doesn't support, and SSHFS sometimes corrupts), but NFS and iSCSI both work well.

    I did the same as you, Nvme's machine is now working fine after maintenance, but unfortunately my 2T machine is now unreachable, resulting in many of my services not working properly @hosthatch

  • @hotsnow said:
    the internal network in Chicago backed to normal now, but the Nvme IO still badly

    Hopefully lessons learned for the other locations.

  • ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     OS           : Debian GNU/Linux 10 (64 Bit)
     Virt/Kernel  : KVM / 4.19.0-18-amd64
     CPU Model    : AMD EPYC 7502 32-Core Processor
     CPU Cores    : 2 @ 2495.312 MHz x86_64 512 KB Cache
     CPU Flags    : AES-NI Enabled & VM-x/AMD-V Disabled
     Load Average : 0.01, 0.19, 0.17
     Total Space  : 39G (8.5G ~23% used)
     Total RAM    : 7978 MB (869 MB + 2755 MB Buff in use)
     Total SWAP   : 1023 MB (0 MB in use)
     Uptime       : 2 days 16:43
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     ASN & ISP    : AS63473, HostHatch
     Organization : HostHatch LLC
     Location     : Chicago, United States / US
     Region       : Illinois
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
     ## Geekbench v4 CPU Benchmark:
    
      Single Core : 4289  (VERY GOOD)
       Multi Core : 7149
    
     ## IO Test
    
     CPU Speed:
        bzip2     : 109 MB/s
       sha256     : 190 MB/s
       md5sum     : 506 MB/s
    
     RAM Speed:
       Avg. write : 2696.5 MB/s
       Avg. read  : 8567.5 MB/s
    
     Disk Speed:
       1st run    : 390 MB/s
       2nd run    : 302 MB/s
       3rd run    : 511 MB/s
       -----------------------
       Average    : 401.0 MB/s
    
     ## USA Speedtest.net
    
     Location                        Upload           Download         Ping   
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Nearby                          1225.33 Mbit/s   2135.69 Mbit/s   5.477 ms
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     USA, New York (Optimum)         140.72 Mbit/s    406.98 Mbit/s    21.159 ms
     USA, Boston (Starry, Inc.)      147.96 Mbit/s    254.89 Mbit/s    22.142 ms
     USA, Washington, DC (Sprint)    202.28 Mbit/s    499.82 Mbit/s    17.318 ms
     USA, Charlotte, NC (Windstream) 48.64 Mbit/s     948.74 Mbit/s    22.875 ms
     USA, Miami (Sprint)             137.32 Mbit/s    332.88 Mbit/s    29.030 ms
     USA, Nashville (Sprint)         249.52 Mbit/s    712.49 Mbit/s    14.701 ms
     USA, Indianapolis (Metronet)    639.43 Mbit/s    1336.81 Mbit/s    5.272 ms
     USA, Cleveland (CenturyLink)    269.12 Mbit/s    1211.36 Mbit/s   12.786 ms
     USA, Chicago (Windstream)       1099.12 Mbit/s   2146.33 Mbit/s    2.149 ms
     USA, St. Louis (Elite Fiber)    343.25 Mbit/s    843.68 Mbit/s     8.629 ms
     USA, Minneapolis (US Internet)  310.93 Mbit/s    1372.50 Mbit/s   12.261 ms
     USA, Kansas City (UPNfiber)     242.99 Mbit/s    618.38 Mbit/s    13.543 ms
     USA, Oklahoma City (OneNet)     152.39 Mbit/s    886.77 Mbit/s    23.428 ms
     USA, Dallas (Windstream)        176.28 Mbit/s    1040.45 Mbit/s   25.012 ms
     USA, San Antonio, TX (Sprint)   189.01 Mbit/s    698.92 Mbit/s    21.996 ms
     USA, Albuquerque (Plateau Tel)  100.27 Mbit/s    245.41 Mbit/s    38.672 ms
     USA, Phoenix (Cox)              86.45 Mbit/s     404.24 Mbit/s    59.911 ms
     USA, Salt Lake City (UTOPIA)    97.58 Mbit/s     351.72 Mbit/s    34.076 ms
     USA, Helena, MT (The Fusion)    111.64 Mbit/s    583.56 Mbit/s    29.540 ms
     USA, Las Vegas (LV.Net)         25.26 Mbit/s     324.89 Mbit/s    49.819 ms
     USA, Seattle (Bluespan)         62.36 Mbit/s     246.50 Mbit/s    57.849 ms
     USA, San Francisco (Wiline)     74.41 Mbit/s     130.15 Mbit/s    51.557 ms
     USA, Los Angeles (Windstream)   98.93 Mbit/s     207.64 Mbit/s    39.699 ms
     USA, Anchorage (Alaska Com)     53.80 Mbit/s     149.55 Mbit/s    75.590 ms
     USA, Honolulu (Hawaiian Telcom) 20.71 Mbit/s     81.20 Mbit/s     98.142 ms
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
     Finished in : 14 min 9 sec
     Timestamp   : 2021-11-18 01:20:28 GMT
     Saved in    : /root/speedtest.log
    
     Share results:
     - https://www.speedtest.net/result/12345026560.png
     - https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/16415554
     - https://clbin.com/58jMj
    
  • Anyone else noticed that the Ubuntu 18.04 template is broken on the storage? I reinstalled on one of my 2T boxes, but it only came with 2G of space.

  • FrankZFrankZ Member
    edited November 2021

    @Ouji said: Anyone else noticed that the Ubuntu 18.04 template is broken on the storage? I reinstalled on one of my 2T boxes, but it only came with 2G of space.

    You just need to expand the partition.


    I was so happy with my 8GB Chicago NVMe on Nov 11th


    https://i.postimg.cc/4dh6p7tJ/Host-Hatch-Chicago-2021-11-11.png

    Today:

    https://i.postimg.cc/pT8jmNbr/Host-Hatch-Chicago-2021-11-17.png

    Now I need to decide tonight if I should renew it. (I have account credit)
    @hosthatch if I cancel and it improves can I remove the cancellation before the expiration date of Dec 2nd?

    EDIT: I am going to have faith that it will get resolved.

  • My chicken has hatched!

    # cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep name
    model name      : AMD EPYC 7551P 32-Core Processor
    
  • @Daniel15 said:
    I wouldn't recommend SSHFS or Samba for Seafile as it relies on hard links (which Samba doesn't support, and SSHFS sometimes corrupts), but NFS and iSCSI both work well.

    Have you looked at MacSec for the private link?

    Only getting like 300Mbps using NFS over wireguard and Resilio.

  • Daniel15Daniel15 Member
    edited November 2021

    @TimboJones said:

    @Daniel15 said:
    I wouldn't recommend SSHFS or Samba for Seafile as it relies on hard links (which Samba doesn't support, and SSHFS sometimes corrupts), but NFS and iSCSI both work well.

    Have you looked at MacSec for the private link?

    Only getting like 300Mbps using NFS over wireguard and Resilio.

    I've never heard of MacSec before! Something new to explore. I'm not sure how well KVM would handle a custom layer 2 protocol (if it even supports it), but there's no harm in trying it out. Might be worth trying IPSec too.

    Were you testing the transfer speed on these newer EPYC processors, or the older Xeons that HostHatch normally use? With any sort of encryption, you very quickly hit speed limitations in the legacy Xeons, even with a hardware-accelerated cipher like GCM-AES-128. The newer Xeons and EPYCs are noticeably faster.

    You can run this:

    openssl speed -evp aes-128-gcm
    

    And it'll give you the raw speed of that encryption algorithm, which is the max you're going to reach over any encrypted connection that uses it.

    Having said all that... WireGuard uses ChaCha20-Poly1305 which isn't even hardware-accelerated, and I get 1.6 Gbps via WireGuard over HostHatch's internal network in Los Angeles:

    [email protected]:~$ iperf3 -c la04.vpn.d.sb
    Connecting to host la04.vpn.d.sb, port 5201
    [  5] local 10.123.1.45 port 60132 connected to 10.123.1.46 port 5201
    [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate         Retr  Cwnd
    [  5]   0.00-1.00   sec   183 MBytes  1.53 Gbits/sec    1   1.07 MBytes
    [  5]   1.00-2.00   sec   175 MBytes  1.47 Gbits/sec    0   1005 KBytes
    [  5]   2.00-3.00   sec   186 MBytes  1.56 Gbits/sec    0    970 KBytes
    [  5]   3.00-4.00   sec   175 MBytes  1.47 Gbits/sec    7    485 KBytes
    [  5]   4.00-5.00   sec   186 MBytes  1.56 Gbits/sec    0   1.08 MBytes
    [  5]   5.00-6.00   sec   181 MBytes  1.52 Gbits/sec    0   1005 KBytes
    [  5]   6.00-7.00   sec   181 MBytes  1.52 Gbits/sec    0    779 KBytes
    [  5]   7.00-8.00   sec   184 MBytes  1.54 Gbits/sec    0    918 KBytes
    [  5]   8.00-9.00   sec   182 MBytes  1.53 Gbits/sec    0   1.03 MBytes
    [  5]   9.00-10.00  sec   191 MBytes  1.60 Gbits/sec    0   1.07 MBytes
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate         Retr
    [  5]   0.00-10.00  sec  1.78 GBytes  1.53 Gbits/sec    8             sender
    [  5]   0.00-10.00  sec  1.78 GBytes  1.53 Gbits/sec                  receiver
    

    I get around 5 Gbps when unencrypted.

    If you're using HostHatch's internal network, make sure you enable jumbo frames (on the internal network only) by setting the MTU to 9000, eg:

     auto eth1
     iface eth1 inet static
       address 10.xxx.xxx.xxx
       netmask 255.0.0.0
       mtu 9000
    

    I think I was only getting around 200 Mbps without jumbo frames.

    WireGuard will automatically adjust its MTU based on the underlying network adapter's MTU.

  • AlwaysSkintAlwaysSkint Member
    edited November 2021

    @dahartigan said: My chicken has hatched!

    "Promotional Package HDD 1TB"
    cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep name
    model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2680 v2 @ 2.80GHz

    :'(

  • Oh, I forgot to mention (and it's too late to edit my earlier comment) that I usually hit IO limits before network or CPU limits on the HostHatch storage VPSes. Disk IO can be slow at times, with high iowait - Noisy neighbours maybe? Last time I ticketed that, they said that they didn't see any iowait on their end. Having said that, I really like HostHatch because the storage VPS is really good value for money, and it's definitely better than what I expected for the price. tbh I'm not sure how they can offer what they do for the price they do.

  • Patiently waiting for ams upgrade. Not sure sg would be upgraded since it was launched recently.

  • @dosai said:
    Patiently waiting for ams upgrade. Not sure sg would be upgraded since it was launched recently.

    The recent EPYCness of HostHatch is preventing me from cancelling my idle AMS NVMe server. It would be impossible to get a 40G EPYC deal in AMS from such a reputed provider. Singapore is still good with the current CPUs for the time being. Also, they offer more BW than many other providers there.

    @hosthatch Would the dedicated CPU usage allotment values (such as 12.5%, 25%, etc.) on various previously sold plans/deals change with the ongoing upgrade to EPYCs?

    Thanked by 1Unixfy
  • MS said:

    @dosai said:
    Patiently waiting for ams upgrade. Not sure sg would be upgraded since it was launched recently.

    The recent EPYCness of HostHatch is preventing me from cancelling my idle AMS NVMe server. It would be impossible to get a 40G EPYC deal in AMS from such a reputed provider. Singapore is still good with the current CPUs for the time being. Also, they offer more BW than many other providers there.

    @hosthatch Would the dedicated CPU usage allotment values (such as 12.5%, 25%, etc.) on various previously sold plans/deals change with the ongoing upgrade to EPYCs?

    Yep, totally agree. I'm very happy with my storage and NVMe servers from HH.

  • When is Stockholm's turn?

  • @RedSox said:
    When is Stockholm's turn?

    haven't received any notifications yet, and guess need to wait for a couple of months.

Sign In or Register to comment.