Howdy, Stranger!

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


Interserver 6$ Storage VPS Review
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

Interserver 6$ Storage VPS Review

FrankRuanFrankRuan Member
edited August 6 in Reviews

I bought that just yesterday (in my timezone, I mean Aug.3), for 3$ actually because of that 50% coupon code.
It's actually pretty nice.
Here's the bench.sh

Here's the YABS, which everyone loves.

# ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #
#              Yet-Another-Bench-Script              #
#                     v2022-06-11                    #
# https://github.com/masonr/yet-another-bench-script #
# ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #

Wed Aug  3 17:29:29 UTC 2022

Basic System Information:
---------------------------------
Uptime     : 0 days, 7 hours, 39 minutes
Processor  : Intel Core Processor (Broadwell, IBRS)
CPU cores  : 1 @ 2397.222 MHz
AES-NI     : ✔ Enabled
VM-x/AMD-V : ✔ Enabled
RAM        : 1.9 GiB
Swap       : 1003.0 MiB
Disk       : 984.2 GiB
Distro     : Ubuntu 20.04.4 LTS
Kernel     : 5.4.0-96-generic

fio Disk Speed Tests (Mixed R/W 50/50):
---------------------------------
Block Size | 4k            (IOPS) | 64k           (IOPS)
  ------   | ---            ----  | ----           ----
Read       | 99.93 MB/s   (24.9k) | 1.00 GB/s    (15.7k)
Write      | 100.19 MB/s  (25.0k) | 1.01 GB/s    (15.8k)
Total      | 200.12 MB/s  (50.0k) | 2.02 GB/s    (31.5k)
           |                      |
Block Size | 512k          (IOPS) | 1m            (IOPS)
  ------   | ---            ----  | ----           ----
Read       | 2.84 GB/s     (5.5k) | 3.43 GB/s     (3.3k)
Write      | 2.99 GB/s     (5.8k) | 3.66 GB/s     (3.5k)
Total      | 5.84 GB/s    (11.4k) | 7.10 GB/s     (6.9k)

iperf3 Network Speed Tests (IPv4):
---------------------------------
Provider        | Location (Link)           | Send Speed      | Recv Speed
                |                           |                 |
Clouvider       | London, UK (10G)          | 449 Mbits/sec   | 2.57 Gbits/sec
Online.net      | Paris, FR (10G)           | busy            | 2.59 Gbits/sec
Hybula          | The Netherlands (40G)     | 672 Mbits/sec   | 2.40 Gbits/sec
Uztelecom       | Tashkent, UZ (10G)        | 904 Mbits/sec   | 882 Mbits/sec
Clouvider       | NYC, NY, US (10G)         | 3.64 Gbits/sec  | 5.43 Gbits/sec
Clouvider       | Dallas, TX, US (10G)      | busy            | 4.42 Gbits/sec
Clouvider       | Los Angeles, CA, US (10G) | 423 Mbits/sec   | 102 Mbits/sec

iperf3 Network Speed Tests (IPv6):
---------------------------------
Provider        | Location (Link)           | Send Speed      | Recv Speed
                |                           |                 |
Clouvider       | London, UK (10G)          | 1.25 Gbits/sec  | 2.64 Gbits/sec
Online.net      | Paris, FR (10G)           | busy            | 219 Mbits/sec
Hybula          | The Netherlands (40G)     | 1.05 Gbits/sec  | 2.43 Gbits/sec
Uztelecom       | Tashkent, UZ (10G)        | 1.13 Gbits/sec  | 955 Mbits/sec
Clouvider       | NYC, NY, US (10G)         | 6.68 Gbits/sec  | 5.89 Gbits/sec
Clouvider       | Dallas, TX, US (10G)      | 1.08 Gbits/sec  | 4.50 Gbits/sec
Clouvider       | Los Angeles, CA, US (10G) | 1.21 Gbits/sec  | 2.62 Gbits/sec

Geekbench 5 Benchmark Test:
---------------------------------
Test            | Value
                |
Single Core     | 707
Multi Core      | 704
Full Test       | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/16411553

Overall it's excellent. And I've never seen any HDDs that can run multi GB/s, so I would assume that this is some SATA SSDs or Many Many Many HDDs in a single RAID.

My aff: https://www.interserver.net/r/838364
pls buy through my aff, appreciate. OR https://www.interserver.net directly

My original blog post: https://frank-ruan.com/2022/08/04/interserver-6-monthly-storage-vps-benchmark-best-bang-for-the-buck-you-would-ever-see/

Thanked by 2Logano JerryHou

Comments

  • Oh, their IPv6 is kinda broken...

  • @FrankRuan said:

    “They say that it is “HDD”, but actually… HOLY $H!T…”

    If they are running a mostly HDD SAN with SSD for caching, that could cause your performance tests to give results that are not representative long-term¹, the writes going to write-back SSD cache and the reads after coming from there also. It would be worth doing read tests on data that has been present and untouched for some time, at a later date when it is less likely to be in that sort of cache, to see what the performance is then².


    [1] This is not a deliberate trick on their part, or a flaw in the benchmark overall, just the benchmark not being well suited to testing that sort of IO arrangement.

    [2] Though note that as it is sold as a HDD based storage space optimised service, I'd not feel hard done to if the performance dropped off as I expect it will.

    Thanked by 2Erisa foitin
  • TekoTeko Member

    https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/137719/lowendtalk-community-rules

    Affiliate link(s) must be clearly marked as an affiliate link with a non-affiliate link provided, in the same size.

  • vyas11vyas11 Member

    @FrankRuan is that a customized theme on WP? I can see elements of Neve. Looking nice!

  • AXYZEAXYZE Member

    @FrankRuan said:
    And I've never seen any HDDs that can run multi GB/s, so I would assume that this is some SATA SSDs or Many Many Many HDDs in a single RAID.

    Its a RAM caching. I have even higher speeds on my HDD-only server because of that.

    Its good for you because recent files are in memory and good for provider as he can make cheaper server (perf of hdds can be somewhat slower and customers wont notice), but this is clearly not performance of HDD or RAID.

    It can also be NVMe cache, but that still isnt HDD nor SATA SSD. :)

    Thanked by 3nick_ foitin ariq01
  • drizbodrizbo Member

    Im using similar package with them and only have good things to say about provider. Never needed a ticket or anything and performance is good

  • @AXYZE said:

    @FrankRuan said:
    And I've never seen any HDDs that can run multi GB/s, so I would assume that this is some SATA SSDs or Many Many Many HDDs in a single RAID.

    Its a RAM caching. I have even higher speeds on my HDD-only server because of that.

    Its good for you because recent files are in memory and good for provider as he can make cheaper server (perf of hdds can be somewhat slower and customers wont notice), but this is clearly not performance of HDD or RAID.

    It can also be NVMe cache, but that still isnt HDD nor SATA SSD. :)

    i thought this is a hdd with ssd cached too,
    can we take advantage from this good IO for example to make storage vps as webserver? i mean for simple blog?
    (i'm aware that a vm with pure ssd still fits better)

  • foitinfoitin Member

    @MeAtExampleDotCom said:

    If they are running a mostly HDD SAN with SSD for caching, that could cause your performance tests to give results that are not representative long-term¹, the writes going to write-back SSD cache and the reads after coming from there also. It would be worth doing read tests on data that has been present and untouched for some time, at a later date when it is less likely to be in that sort of cache, to see what the performance is then².


    [1] This is not a deliberate trick on their part, or a flaw in the benchmark overall, just the benchmark not being well suited to testing that sort of IO arrangement.

    [2] Though note that as it is sold as a HDD based storage space optimised service, I'd not feel hard done to if the performance dropped off as I expect it will.

    Any good way to do IOPS benchmarking bypassing the ssd cache?

  • @vyas11 said:
    @FrankRuan is that a customized theme on WP? I can see elements of Neve. Looking nice!

    Yes, I'm using Neve.

  • @Teko said:
    https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/137719/lowendtalk-community-rules

    Affiliate link(s) must be clearly marked as an affiliate link with a non-affiliate link provided, in the same size.

    There's literally no non-aff links. They are not WHMCS, if you want to bypass my affiliate, then just visit interserver.net

  • jcolidelesjcolideles Member
    edited August 6

    @FrankRuan said:

    @Teko said:
    https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/137719/lowendtalk-community-rules

    Affiliate link(s) must be clearly marked as an affiliate link with a non-affiliate link provided, in the same size.

    There's literally no non-aff links. They are not WHMCS, if you want to bypass my affiliate, then just visit interserver.net

    You can just simply add

    Non-aff: https://www.interserver.net/

    Affiliate link(s) must be clearly marked as an affiliate link with a non-affiliate link provided, in the same size. Affiliate links are a privilege for helpful, contributing community members. If you signed up just to spam, expect a ban. If your only posts are affiliate links, expect a ban. This includes posting links to your blog that only contains affiliate links, URL shorteners, etc.

    Thanked by 1permatahost
  • @jcolideles said:

    @FrankRuan said:

    @Teko said:
    https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/137719/lowendtalk-community-rules

    Affiliate link(s) must be clearly marked as an affiliate link with a non-affiliate link provided, in the same size.

    There's literally no non-aff links. They are not WHMCS, if you want to bypass my affiliate, then just visit interserver.net

    You can just simply add

    Non-aff: https://www.interserver.net/

    Affiliate link(s) must be clearly marked as an affiliate link with a non-affiliate link provided, in the same size. Affiliate links are a privilege for helpful, contributing community members. If you signed up just to spam, expect a ban. If your only posts are affiliate links, expect a ban. This includes posting links to your blog that only contains affiliate links, URL shorteners, etc.

    Okay, I see.
    But how on earth can I change that...

  • AXYZEAXYZE Member

    @FrankRuan said:

    @jcolideles said:

    @FrankRuan said:

    @Teko said:
    https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/137719/lowendtalk-community-rules

    Affiliate link(s) must be clearly marked as an affiliate link with a non-affiliate link provided, in the same size.

    There's literally no non-aff links. They are not WHMCS, if you want to bypass my affiliate, then just visit interserver.net

    You can just simply add

    Non-aff: https://www.interserver.net/

    Affiliate link(s) must be clearly marked as an affiliate link with a non-affiliate link provided, in the same size. Affiliate links are a privilege for helpful, contributing community members. If you signed up just to spam, expect a ban. If your only posts are affiliate links, expect a ban. This includes posting links to your blog that only contains affiliate links, URL shorteners, etc.

    Okay, I see.
    But how on earth can I change that...

    @Arkas (moderator) can likely fix that for you :smile: just remember in future to add non-aff link too

  • ArkasArkas Member

    Looks like it's fixed @FrankRuan ?

  • Not reading the rules and fishing for affiliate credits from @interservermike - at least give the guy a mild warning :wink:

  • drizbodrizbo Member

    What a crime.

  • ArkasArkas Member

    @Pilotseye said: Not reading the rules and fishing for affiliate credits from @interservermike - at least give the guy a mild warning :wink:

    Just mild? :smile:

  • @Arkas said:

    @Pilotseye said: Not reading the rules and fishing for affiliate credits from @interservermike - at least give the guy a mild warning :wink:

    Just mild? :smile:

    Or you swing the ban hammer :sunglasses:

  • @Arkas said:
    Looks like it's fixed @FrankRuan ?

    Oh thanks, I promise that I'll never do that again.

  • ArkasArkas Member

    @FrankRuan said: Oh thanks, I promise that I'll never do that again.

    Don't worry about it man :smile:

  • ralfralf Member
    edited August 6

    I vote for @yoursunny to join the mod team because then the punishment would be at least making a push up video.

    Thanked by 4yoursunny i4P1 _MS_ Abd
  • Thanks for the quick review. Plan to order one... :)

  • @foitin said:
    Any good way to do IOPS benchmarking bypassing the ssd cache?

    Not in a VPS. Likely not on a dedicated box if using non-local storage. The cache is probably transparent to anything you can control so you can't turn it off or ask for your IO to bypass it.

    With local storage there are OS options that can affect direct writes to final storage, but even with that it might not skip an SSD cache as that is non-volatile so considered final storage (they would skip a RAM based cache, or wait for it to flush to physical).

    You can test bulk stream performance by writing something huge enough that the cache will start writing through instead of filling itself at the expense of other cached data - you'll see a performance drop at that point and after that you are measuring the next level more directly. For reading you can wait until all your data has been pushed from cache then it'll all come from the next level for the test, but you have no failproof way to know when the right time to test is.

    Thanked by 1foitin
  • @MeAtExampleDotCom said:

    @foitin said:
    Any good way to do IOPS benchmarking bypassing the ssd cache?

    Not in a VPS. Likely not on a dedicated box if using non-local storage. The cache is probably transparent to anything you can control so you can't turn it off or ask for your IO to bypass it.

    With local storage there are OS options that can affect direct writes to final storage, but even with that it might not skip an SSD cache as that is non-volatile so considered final storage (they would skip a RAM based cache, or wait for it to flush to physical).

    You can test bulk stream performance by writing something huge enough that the cache will start writing through instead of filling itself at the expense of other cached data - you'll see a performance drop at that point and after that you are measuring the next level more directly. For reading you can wait until all your data has been pushed from cache then it'll all come from the next level for the test, but you have no failproof way to know when the right time to test is.

    Yes, I've used tar to pack a bunch of files up, it's like about 100MB/s, still acceptable imo.

Sign In or Register to comment.