Howdy, Stranger!

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


Black Friday 2021 - NVMe and Storage deals - Deploy in 16 global locations (APAC/EU/US) - Page 24
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.

Black Friday 2021 - NVMe and Storage deals - Deploy in 16 global locations (APAC/EU/US)

1212224262755

Comments

  • @FAT32 said:
    I have heard good things about HostHatch so I am here now

    they have proper support, migrated me to a working storage node when i had complaints about my service.

    Thanked by 1FAT32
  • @bsh said:

    @Mrali said:
    The # 706857 more than 2 weeks unresolved, please help me deal with it, thank you

    Geekbench 5 Benchmark Test:

    Test | Value
    |
    Single Core | 124
    Multi Core | 135

    On Intel node, and 25% CPU limit? I've not any VM on this plan, so I could not reach the specs.

    NO,It's
    2 CPU core (50% dedicated, burstable up to 200%)
    8 GB RAM
    40 GB RAID-10 NVMe
    5 TB bandwidth (1 TB in Hong Kong and Sydney)

  • FAT32FAT32 Administrator, Deal Compiler Extraordinaire

    @cybertech said:
    they have proper support, migrated me to a working storage node when i had complaints about my service.

    That sounds a lot better than V1rm@ch :)

    @hosthatch Am I too late to join HostHatch club?

    Thanked by 2cybertech the_doctor
  • cybertechcybertech Member
    edited December 2021

    @FAT32 said:

    @cybertech said:
    they have proper support, migrated me to a working storage node when i had complaints about my service.

    That sounds a lot better than V1rm@ch :)

    @hosthatch Am I too late to join HostHatch club?

    let's hope @hosthatch answers this call and make something great in collaboration for their next planned flash deals

    hashtag:orange-gang

    Thanked by 3FAT32 FrankZ bulbasaur
  • DPDP Administrator, The Domain Guy

    @FAT32 said:

    @cybertech said:
    they have proper support, migrated me to a working storage node when i had complaints about my service.

    That sounds a lot better than V1rm@ch :)

    @hosthatch Am I too late to join HostHatch club?

    No it's not too late.

    You could even be just in time ;)

    Thanked by 1FAT32
  • FAT32FAT32 Administrator, Deal Compiler Extraordinaire

    @hosthatch Please PM when you are free and we might be able to work something together... flash sale, easter eggs hunt, randomiser, thread decoration, anything :wink:

  • @FAT32 said:
    That sounds a lot better than V1rm@ch :)

    hosthatch Am I too late to join HostHatch club?

  • @FAT32 said:
    @hosthatch Please PM when you are free and we might be able to work something together... flash sale, easter eggs hunt, randomiser, thread decoration, anything :wink:

    I think next Easter will be after International Women's Day, then list of next events would be:

    • Merry Christmas
    • Happy New Year
    • International Women's Day
    • Easter
    • International Workers' Day
    • etc.
    Thanked by 1lentro
  • @bsh said:

    @FAT32 said:
    @hosthatch Please PM when you are free and we might be able to work something together... flash sale, easter eggs hunt, randomiser, thread decoration, anything :wink:

    I think next Easter will be after International Women's Day, then list of next events would be:

    • Merry Christmas
    • Happy New Year
    • International Women's Day
    • Easter
    • International Workers' Day
    • etc.

    Add to that - all of them
    Before Mid- year 2022

    Chinese New Year
    New year in abt 50 percent of India
    Memorial Day (US)
    Summer Solstice (?)
    Ramadan
    World is a beautiful place with so many holidays.
    M

    Thanked by 3bsh Daniel15 lentro
  • @Mrali said:
    The # 706857 more than 2 weeks unresolved, please help me deal with it, thank you

    Geekbench 5 Benchmark Test:

    Test | Value
    |
    Single Core | 124
    Multi Core | 135

    It can take months at HostHatch to solve the problem, the first 2 weeks they will just denial the problem

    Thanked by 1Mrali
  • @SpeedTest said:

    @Mrali said:
    The # 706857 more than 2 weeks unresolved, please help me deal with it, thank you

    Geekbench 5 Benchmark Test:

    Test | Value
    |
    Single Core | 124
    Multi Core | 135

    It can take months at HostHatch to solve the problem, the first 2 weeks they will just denial the problem

    So i come here to post a request for help, and hope to attract the attention of the @hosthatch

  • @vyas11 said:
    World is a beautiful place with so many holidays

    So just one provider could not give offers all year, we need a round-robin daemon for picking one of providers up, then matching them to holidays :)

  • hotsnowhotsnow Veteran
    edited December 2021

    @hosthatch

    could you please help check the ticket #551409? already two weeks, still not resolved and even only two useless reply in these two weeks, I don't know why your response on ticket so slow recently, thanks. :s :s :s

    The IO of Nvme VPS in Chicago, does anyone know why the 512k/1m Block test so slow?

  • ezethezeth Member, Patron Provider
    edited December 2021

    How is that slow? It's literally just capacity just like how 10 Gbps isn't any faster Than 100 Mbps if you're only using 100 Mbps..

    Thanked by 1Falzo
  • @FAT32 said: thread decoration

  • @hotsnow said: The IO of Nvme VPS in Chicago, does anyone know why the 512k/1m Block test so slow?

    Thanked by 1ehab
  • @ezeth said:
    How is that slow? It's literally just capacity just like how 10 Gbps isn't any faster Than 100 Mbps if you're only using 100 Mbps..

    It is actually slow. I have older Intel NVme with Hosthatch, and it is greater than 1Gbps for 1m block.

  • Daniel15Daniel15 Veteran
    edited December 2021

    Not sure if HostHatch do this, but their system might be throttling you if you do benchmarks very often. Frequent benchmarking can affect the performance of other VPSes on the same node, as benchmarks intentionally stress the system as much as possible.

    Thanked by 2skorous tux
  • it is simple. it is a virtual SHARED server. if you want raw NVMe performance all for yourself get a f*cking dedicated server. these numbers are perfectly fine for a service I assume your are paying peanuts for, no reason for any complaint rather get your expectations straight ;-) ;-)

  • @Falzo said:
    it is simple. it is a virtual SHARED server. if you want raw NVMe performance all for yourself get a f*cking dedicated server. these numbers are perfectly fine for a service I assume your are paying peanuts for, no reason for any complaint rather get your expectations straight ;-) ;-)

    Really? Do you think this is normal?

    2 CPU core (50% dedicated, burstable up to 200%)

    8 GB RAM

    40 GB RAID-10 NVMe

    5 TB bandwidth (1 TB in Hong Kong and Sydney)

    $30 per year

    # ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #
    # Yet-Another-Bench-Script #
    # v2021-10-09 #
    # https://github.com/masonr/yet-another-bench-script #
    # ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #
    
    Sun Nov 28 13:41:02 CST 2021
    
    Basic System Information:
    ---------------------------------
    Processor : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2690 v2 @ 3.00GHz
    CPU cores : 2 @ 2999.994 MHz
    AES-NI : Enabled
    VM-x/AMD-V : Disabled
    RAM : 7.8 GiB
    Swap : 1024.0 MiB
    Disk : 38.4 GiB
    
    fio Disk Speed Tests (Mixed R/W 50/50):
    ---------------------------------
    Block Size | 4k (IOPS) | 64k (IOPS)
    ------ | --- ---- | ---- ----
    Read | 7.62 MB/s (1.9k) | 57.35 MB/s (896)
    Write | 7.65 MB/s (1.9k) | 57.92 MB/s (905)
    Total | 15.28 MB/s (3.8k) | 115.28 MB/s (1.8k)
    | |
    Block Size | 512k (IOPS) | 1m (IOPS)
    ------ | --- ---- | ---- ----
    Read | 103.53 MB/s (202) | 96.53 MB/s (94)
    Write | 109.03 MB/s (212) | 102.96 MB/s (100)
    Total | 212.56 MB/s (414) | 199.49 MB/s (194)
    
    iperf3 Network Speed Tests (IPv4):
    ---------------------------------
    Provider | Location (Link) | Send Speed | Recv Speed
    | | |
    Clouvider | London, UK (10G) | 274 Mbits/sec | 262 Mbits/sec
    Online.net | Paris, FR (10G) | 267 Mbits/sec | 322 Mbits/sec
    WorldStream | The Netherlands (10G) | busy | busy
    WebHorizon | Singapore (1G) | busy | busy
    Clouvider | NYC, NY, US (10G) | 246 Mbits/sec | 278 Mbits/sec
    Velocity Online | Tallahassee, FL, US (10G) | 197 Mbits/sec | 289 Mbits/sec
    Clouvider | Los Angeles, CA, US (10G) | 81.8 Mbits/sec | 301 Mbits/sec
    Iveloz Telecom | Sao Paulo, BR (2G) | busy | 151 Mbits/sec
    
    Geekbench 5 Benchmark Test:
    ---------------------------------
    Test | Value
    |
    Single Core | 124
    Multi Core | 135
    Full Test | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/11282838
    
    Thanked by 1lainn
  • @Mrali said:

    @Falzo said:
    it is simple. it is a virtual SHARED server. if you want raw NVMe performance all for yourself get a f*cking dedicated server. these numbers are perfectly fine for a service I assume your are paying peanuts for, no reason for any complaint rather get your expectations straight ;-) ;-)

    Really? Do you think this is normal?

    2 CPU core (50% dedicated, burstable up to 200%)

    8 GB RAM

    40 GB RAID-10 NVMe

    5 TB bandwidth (1 TB in Hong Kong and Sydney)

    $30 per year

    # ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #
    # Yet-Another-Bench-Script #
    # v2021-10-09 #
    # https://github.com/masonr/yet-another-bench-script #
    # ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #
    
    Sun Nov 28 13:41:02 CST 2021
    
    Basic System Information:
    ---------------------------------
    Processor : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2690 v2 @ 3.00GHz
    CPU cores : 2 @ 2999.994 MHz
    AES-NI : Enabled
    VM-x/AMD-V : Disabled
    RAM : 7.8 GiB
    Swap : 1024.0 MiB
    Disk : 38.4 GiB
    
    fio Disk Speed Tests (Mixed R/W 50/50):
    ---------------------------------
    Block Size | 4k (IOPS) | 64k (IOPS)
    ------ | --- ---- | ---- ----
    Read | 7.62 MB/s (1.9k) | 57.35 MB/s (896)
    Write | 7.65 MB/s (1.9k) | 57.92 MB/s (905)
    Total | 15.28 MB/s (3.8k) | 115.28 MB/s (1.8k)
    | |
    Block Size | 512k (IOPS) | 1m (IOPS)
    ------ | --- ---- | ---- ----
    Read | 103.53 MB/s (202) | 96.53 MB/s (94)
    Write | 109.03 MB/s (212) | 102.96 MB/s (100)
    Total | 212.56 MB/s (414) | 199.49 MB/s (194)
    
    iperf3 Network Speed Tests (IPv4):
    ---------------------------------
    Provider | Location (Link) | Send Speed | Recv Speed
    | | |
    Clouvider | London, UK (10G) | 274 Mbits/sec | 262 Mbits/sec
    Online.net | Paris, FR (10G) | 267 Mbits/sec | 322 Mbits/sec
    WorldStream | The Netherlands (10G) | busy | busy
    WebHorizon | Singapore (1G) | busy | busy
    Clouvider | NYC, NY, US (10G) | 246 Mbits/sec | 278 Mbits/sec
    Velocity Online | Tallahassee, FL, US (10G) | 197 Mbits/sec | 289 Mbits/sec
    Clouvider | Los Angeles, CA, US (10G) | 81.8 Mbits/sec | 301 Mbits/sec
    Iveloz Telecom | Sao Paulo, BR (2G) | busy | 151 Mbits/sec
    
    Geekbench 5 Benchmark Test:
    ---------------------------------
    Test | Value
    |
    Single Core | 124
    Multi Core | 135
    Full Test | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/11282838
    

    can you show output from

    top
  • @Mrali
    The benchmarks could be of normal HDD, and not of a NVMe. There is definitely something wrong here.

    @Falzo
    I see that you took side of the provider speaking as their representative. May be you should consider viewpoints of users too instead of opposing on problems faced by users.

    Thanked by 3Mrali TODO foitin
  • hosthatchhosthatch Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran

    Users who regularly go far above their limits (ie use all of their burstable resources, nearly all the time) get limited.

    We also do not give any priority to ticket #s posted here, I am sorry.

  • @hosthatch
    I don't have any abuse. You can check the system to confirm this.
    I applied a ticket, but there has been no answer for half a month, I can't do anything.
    so I have no way but to contact you here,I hope you can handle it for me, thank you.

  • ezethezeth Member, Patron Provider
    edited December 2021

    @MrWonder said:
    @Mrali
    The benchmarks could be of normal HDD, and not of a NVMe. There is definitely something wrong here.

    @Falzo
    I see that you took side of the provider speaking as their representative. May be you should consider viewpoints of users too instead of opposing on problems faced by users.

    1.9k IOPS is compared to HDD? are you crazy? Generally a HDD will have an IOPS range of 55-180

    these specs are perfectly fine. You won't notice a real world difference.

    I put 100 MB/s 1k IOPS limit on my VMs

    If you don't want it transfer it to me. I'll gladly take it

  • MrWonderMrWonder Member
    edited December 2021

    @ezeth
    I do not see IOPS but the final and effective output because that is what determines speed at which data is finally served.

    A good NVMe 4 would have 1-3 GB/s with 40-50k IOPS @ 64k in the area of a virtual server with shared resources. If not, I would consider it slow. Many providers give this for a budget VPS prices. Others impose throttling.

    I did not say that HDD will have xx IOPS. I saw that the read timing 57.35 MB/s @ 64k in the YABS benchmarks above is less. It does not matter if it is HDD/SDD/NVMe. In this case, the VPS will be slow and one cannot experience any difference of NVMe.

    One could have a spinning drive @10.000 rotations but if the head could read only 1MB/s, then it is much slower than a hard drive spinning @5.000 with the head that could read 10MB/s. It is not IOPS that gives the final effect of speed but the final output of reading the data.

    I am not the owner of the VPS in question. I just saw spontaneously here that there is one user, who has problems and have come here to discuss with the community. Then I found it a bit unfair that he gets answers to simply add to his frustrations.

    But if you wanna a transfer of the aforesaid VPS, I do not know who owns it. I am sure the owner may want to get rid of it. I found that the company may want to charge a transfer fee of $10, though.

    Thanked by 1Mrali
  • @ezeth said:

    @MrWonder said:
    @Mrali
    The benchmarks could be of normal HDD, and not of a NVMe. There is definitely something wrong here.

    @Falzo
    I see that you took side of the provider speaking as their representative. May be you should consider viewpoints of users too instead of opposing on problems faced by users.

    1.9k IOPS is compared to HDD? are you crazy? Generally a HDD will have an IOPS range of 55-180

    these specs are perfectly fine. You won't notice a real world difference.

    I put 100 MB/s 1k IOPS limit on my VMs

    If you don't want it transfer it to me. I'll gladly take it

    If you are willing to pay an extra $10, you can get it.

  • @Mrali said:
    Really? Do you think this is normal?

    fio Disk Speed Tests (Mixed R/W 50/50):

    Block Size 4k (IOPS) 64k (IOPS)
    Read 7.62 MB/s (1.9k) 57.35 MB/s (896)
    Write 7.65 MB/s (1.9k) 57.92 MB/s (905)
    Total 15.28 MB/s (3.8k) 115.28 MB/s (1.8k)
    Block Size 512k (IOPS) 1m (IOPS)
    ------ --- ---- ---- ----
    Read 103.53 MB/s (202) 96.53 MB/s (94)
    Write 109.03 MB/s (212) 102.96 MB/s (100)
    Total 212.56 MB/s (414) 199.49 MB/s (194)

    Hi, here's mine :smile:

    fio Disk Speed Tests (Mixed R/W 50/50):
    ---------------------------------
    Block Size | 4k            (IOPS) | 64k           (IOPS)
      ------   | ---            ----  | ----           ----
    Read       | 57.36 MB/s   (14.3k) | 733.91 MB/s  (11.4k)
    Write      | 57.46 MB/s   (14.3k) | 737.77 MB/s  (11.5k)
    Total      | 114.83 MB/s  (28.7k) | 1.47 GB/s    (22.9k)
               |                      |
    Block Size | 512k          (IOPS) | 1m            (IOPS)
      ------   | ---            ----  | ----           ----
    Read       | 1.08 GB/s     (2.1k) | 1.43 GB/s     (1.3k)
    Write      | 1.14 GB/s     (2.2k) | 1.52 GB/s     (1.4k)
    Total      | 2.23 GB/s     (4.3k) | 2.95 GB/s     (2.8k)
    

    Yes it's HK hosthatch..
    Hosthatch prem isn't it? :love:

    Thanked by 1lainn
  • @ariq01 said:

    @Mrali said:
    Really? Do you think this is normal?

    fio Disk Speed Tests (Mixed R/W 50/50):

    Block Size 4k (IOPS) 64k (IOPS)
    Read 7.62 MB/s (1.9k) 57.35 MB/s (896)
    Write 7.65 MB/s (1.9k) 57.92 MB/s (905)
    Total 15.28 MB/s (3.8k) 115.28 MB/s (1.8k)
    Block Size 512k (IOPS) 1m (IOPS)
    ------ --- ---- ---- ----
    Read 103.53 MB/s (202) 96.53 MB/s (94)
    Write 109.03 MB/s (212) 102.96 MB/s (100)
    Total 212.56 MB/s (414) 199.49 MB/s (194)

    Hi, here's mine :smile:

    fio Disk Speed Tests (Mixed R/W 50/50):
    ---------------------------------
    Block Size | 4k            (IOPS) | 64k           (IOPS)
      ------   | ---            ----  | ----           ----
    Read       | 57.36 MB/s   (14.3k) | 733.91 MB/s  (11.4k)
    Write      | 57.46 MB/s   (14.3k) | 737.77 MB/s  (11.5k)
    Total      | 114.83 MB/s  (28.7k) | 1.47 GB/s    (22.9k)
               |                      |
    Block Size | 512k          (IOPS) | 1m            (IOPS)
      ------   | ---            ----  | ----           ----
    Read       | 1.08 GB/s     (2.1k) | 1.43 GB/s     (1.3k)
    Write      | 1.14 GB/s     (2.2k) | 1.52 GB/s     (1.4k)
    Total      | 2.23 GB/s     (4.3k) | 2.95 GB/s     (2.8k)
    

    Yes it's HK hosthatch..
    Hosthatch prem isn't it? :love:

    Your is perfect

  • I feel running a benchmark and the numbers coming from it are indicative of the system at that moment...
    And its possible that there are some abusers which are messing up and the host can take corrective action...

    The real concern would be if you are able to really see degraded performance on your hosted application and somehow can attribute to the slowness (disk network or anything else)

    I am sure there are ways to identify if the slow numbers are really a problem...

    Any I right?

This discussion has been closed.