Howdy, Stranger!

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


ZgoCloud | AMD EPYC™ 7402P Now Available in Netherlands | Starting at $5 quarter - 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.

ZgoCloud | AMD EPYC™ 7402P Now Available in Netherlands | Starting at $5 quarter

2»

Comments

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    Update

    I indeed finally got my (2 Epyc vCores) VPS on day 3 but there is a nice 'but': Once I got it everything changed to quite positive. Their support still is more on the slow side (2 - 8 hours) but is very friendly and actually helpful. Hell, they even created a (non linux) template for me and relatively quickly too!

    The VPS is quite fast (well, an Epyc, duh) and not overloaded/overbooked and the disk seems to be 25+ MB/s and north of 6000 IOPs. And connectivity is quite OK, too, e.g. 800+ Mb/s to both DE, FRA and FR, PAR and almost 100 Mb/s to Mumbai!

    Considering the very low price this seems to be among the best deals I've made via LET so far.

    Preliminary verdict so far: Excellent - if you can live with slow (but good) support.

    I'll soon have a sufficiently large result set for a short review. What I've said here is based on a few runs only.

    Kudos, @zgocloud!

    Thanked by 1maverick
  • @jsg said:
    Update

    Kudos, @zgocloud!

    You need to specify in your work order that you want an immediate resolution or chargeback will be filled.

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    Benchmark / Review

    After doing almost 100 runs of benchmarking I can tell with satisfaction that my first (positive) impression was correct. This offer is a very good deal and amazing bang for the buck indeed.

    First basic info on my VPS (2 Epyc vCores, 3 GB memory, 30 GB SSD, 4TB traffic for a bit over $25 or a bit under €25 per year)

    Machine: amd64, Arch.: amd64, Model: AMD EPYC 7402P 24-Core Processor               
    OS, version: FreeBSD 13.2, Mem.: 2.990 GB
    CPU - Cores: 2, Family/Model/Stepping: 23/49/0
    Cache: 32K/32K L1d/L1i, 512K L2, 128M L3
    Std. Flags: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat
              pse36 cflsh mmx fxsr sse sse2 sse3 pclmulqdq ssse3 fma cx16 sse4_1
              sse4_2 popcnt aes xsave osxsave avx f16c rdrnd hypervisor
    Ext. Flags: syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt pdpe1gb rdtscp lm lahf_lm cmp_legacy svm
              cr8_legacy lzcnt sse4a misalignsse 3dnowprefetch osvw perfctr_core
    
    AES? Yes
    Nested Virt.? Yes
    HW RNG? Yes
    

    First a note @zgocloud: Uhm, that's the spec of the quarterly offer, I seem to remember though that I ordered and paid an annual one (the ca. $/€25 one). Maybe an error on my side maybe one on your side. Please kindly check and adapt.

    That however changes nothing in this review. That system is a very nice VPS at an incredible price! I particularly like their choice of a 24 core (rather than >=32 core) Epyc model, not only because fewer cores tend to mean higher performance per core but especially because it also means fewer VPS/users on the disks.
    I'm very satisfied and happy with what I've got.

    Now, on to the processor and memory performance

    ProcMem SC [MB/s]: avg 217.8 - min 88.0 (40.4 %), max 357.2 (164.0 %)
    ProcMem MA [MB/s]: avg 686.8 - min 597.6 (87.0 %), max 726.5 (105.8 %)
    ProcMem MB [MB/s]: avg 698.7 - min 597.0 (85.4 %), max 729.5 (104.4 %)
    ProcMem AES [MB/s]: avg 1111.2 - min 1021.5 (91.9 %), max 1172.3 (105.5 %)
    ProcMem RSA [kp/s]: avg 98.4 - min 88.0 (89.4 %), max 106.2 (107.9 %)
    

    Yay I like it with one minor caveat, the single core performance which indicates that there either are a bit too many users per core (well, actually HWT) or that I have one or more neighbours who uses more than his/their fair share. But then, again, we're talking about an Epyc VPS costing in the range of mere 2 bucks a month so I'll certainly not complain about ZgoCloud! Also, the multithreading performance is really nice. Also note the quite low spread in multithreading tasks. Again only the single core performance has a high spread.

    So, on to the SSD

    --- Disk 4 KB - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 4.11 - min 4.01 (97.5%), max 4.23 (102.9%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 3.97 - min 3.88 (97.8%), max 4.10 (103.4%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 12.53 - min 12.30 (98.2%), max 12.86 (102.7%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 11.19 - min 10.98 (98.1%), max 11.47 (102.5%)
    --- Disk 4 KB - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 4.04 - min 3.93 (97.2%), max 4.14 (102.4%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 3.94 - min 3.83 (97.1%), max 4.05 (102.7%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 12.48 - min 12.26 (98.2%), max 12.93 (103.6%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 11.13 - min 10.88 (97.8%), max 11.40 (102.5%)
    
    --- Disk 64 KB - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 36.89 - min 32.13 (87.1%), max 38.13 (103.4%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 39.71 - min 38.77 (97.6%), max 40.53 (102.1%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 1862.36 - min 1744.16 (93.7%), max 1947.75 (104.6%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 157.20 - min 152.70 (97.1%), max 164.23 (104.5%)
    --- Disk 64 KB - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 7.83 - min 7.23 (92.3%), max 9.24 (118.0%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 4.55 - min 4.14 (91.0%), max 5.95 (130.8%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 1859.44 - min 1797.17 (96.7%), max 1964.65 (105.7%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 157.15 - min 152.52 (97.1%), max 167.29 (106.5%)
    
    --- Disk 1 MB - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 59.40 - min 46.08 (77.6%), max 64.42 (108.4%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 101.83 - min 95.02 (93.3%), max 111.45 (109.4%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2562.80 - min 2468.41 (96.3%), max 2653.99 (103.6%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 600.23 - min 586.34 (97.7%), max 616.61 (102.7%)
    --- Disk 1 MB - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 24.49 - min 22.01 (89.9%), max 27.24 (111.2%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 24.23 - min 22.74 (93.9%), max 28.49 (117.6%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2566.42 - min 2442.10 (95.2%), max 2702.42 (105.3%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 601.44 - min 581.80 (96.7%), max 623.55 (103.7%)
    --- Disk IOps (Sync/Direct) ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 27.42 - min 26.20 (95.6%), max 29.19 (106.5%)
    IOps             : avg 7019.36 - min 6707.45 (95.6%), max 7472.86 (106.5%)
    

    Uhm, that NVMe territory but the offer speaks of 'SSD'! What a very pleasant surprise! I've seen plenty NVMes that are significantly slower than those SSDs. Yay! Also note the quite tight spread over all tests and runs! Me impressed.

    Finally, the network, ordered by continent, first Europe

    NO OSL ftp.uninett.no [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 379.0 - min 284.8 (75.1%), max 420.6 (111.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 27.5 - min 26.2 (95.3%), max 35.2 (128.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 38.1 - min 26.4 (69.2%), max 56.0 (146.9%)
    
    UK LON lon.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 458.3 - min 116.8 (25.5%), max 831.1 (181.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 7.4 - min 7.3 (98.5%), max 8.5 (114.7%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 7.6 - min 7.3 (95.8%), max 8.5 (111.5%)
    
    NL AMS mirror.nl.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 245.7 - min 31.3 (12.7%), max 879.0 (357.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 1.6 - min 1.5 (93.7%), max 3.6 (224.9%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 17.9 - min 1.6 (8.9%), max 207.9 (1159.5%)
    
    DE FRA fra.lg.core-backbone.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 798.4 - min 718.9 (90.0%), max 827.1 (103.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 8.4 - min 8.2 (97.3%), max 11.6 (137.6%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 9.9 - min 8.2 (83.2%), max 16.0 (162.4%)
    
    FR PAR ipv4.paris.testdebit.info [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 802.4 - min 767.9 (95.7%), max 820.5 (102.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 11.0 - min 10.9 (98.9%), max 11.7 (106.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 11.4 - min 11.1 (97.4%), max 12.7 (111.5%)
    
    IT MIL speedtest.mil01.softlayer.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 354.6 - min 275.9 (77.8%), max 406.5 (114.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 26.5 - min 26.3 (99.3%), max 27.1 (102.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 26.8 - min 26.4 (98.5%), max 27.7 (103.3%)
    
    RO BUC mirrors.m247.ro [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 257.0 - min 215.2 (83.7%), max 281.6 (109.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 33.9 - min 33.8 (99.7%), max 33.9 (100.0%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 39.3 - min 33.9 (86.3%), max 57.2 (145.6%)
    
    GR UNK speedtest.ftp.otenet.gr [F: 6]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 173.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 275.0 (158.2%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 26.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 45.0 (168.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 32.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 88.3 (274.9%)
    
    RU MOS speedtest.hostkey.ru [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 239.1 - min 210.2 (87.9%), max 269.3 (112.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 45.5 - min 45.1 (99.2%), max 51.4 (113.0%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 59.4 - min 45.3 (76.2%), max 86.1 (144.8%)
    
    --- Asia / Oceania ---
    
    IQ UNK mirror.earthlink.iq [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 125.5 - min 113.9 (90.8%), max 141.2 (112.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 92.3 - min 92.2 (99.9%), max 92.5 (100.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 104.9 - min 92.2 (87.9%), max 174.2 (166.1%)
    
    IN MUM mirrors.piconets.webwerks.in [F: 15]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 72.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 94.4 (130.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 124.7 - min 123.9 (99.4%), max 127.3 (102.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 128.6 - min 124.0 (96.4%), max 164.5 (127.9%)
    
    SG SGP mirror.aktkn.sg [F: 85]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 0.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 20.4 (8600.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 251.6 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 268.3 (106.6%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 251.6 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 268.3 (106.6%)
    
    CN HK mirrors.xtom.hk [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 60.3 - min 57.6 (95.5%), max 62.0 (102.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 179.2 - min 179.1 (99.9%), max 179.3 (100.0%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 216.7 - min 179.5 (82.8%), max 259.4 (119.7%)
    
    JP TOK speedtest.tokyo2.linode.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 42.9 - min 25.8 (60.3%), max 46.2 (107.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 255.2 - min 252.1 (98.8%), max 257.4 (100.9%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 255.9 - min 252.1 (98.5%), max 261.6 (102.2%)
    
    AU MEL speedtest.c1.mel1.dediserve.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 32.5 - min 24.6 (75.8%), max 36.5 (112.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 291.6 - min 290.9 (99.8%), max 301.1 (103.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 299.7 - min 291.1 (97.1%), max 317.0 (105.8%)
    
    --- Africa ---
    
    NG LAG mirror.web4africa.ng [F: 3]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 27.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 49.1 (181.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 106.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 135.5 (127.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 324.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 1245.3 (384.0%)
    
    KE UNK centos.mirror.liquidtelecom.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 67.1 - min 45.4 (67.6%), max 79.6 (118.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 156.3 - min 156.2 (99.9%), max 156.4 (100.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 173.8 - min 156.2 (89.8%), max 202.7 (116.6%)
    
    --- Americas ---
    
    BR SAO speedtest.sao01.softlayer.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 47.4 - min 33.4 (70.5%), max 50.8 (107.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 198.4 - min 194.0 (97.8%), max 205.4 (103.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 201.5 - min 194.0 (96.3%), max 217.9 (108.1%)
    
    US NYC mirror.clarkson.edu [F: 36]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 23.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 99.5 (419.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 85.6 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 96.9 (113.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 90.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 262.4 (289.8%)
    
    US WDC mirror.wdc2.us.leaseweb.net [F: 1]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 103.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 132.0 (127.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 87.1 - min 86.9 (99.8%), max 88.2 (101.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 115.3 - min 86.9 (75.3%), max 282.6 (245.0%)
    
    US DAL mirror.lstn.net [F: 6]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 85.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 101.8 (119.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 113.9 - min 112.3 (98.6%), max 122.1 (107.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 159.4 - min 112.9 (70.8%), max 358.9 (225.1%)
    
    US LAX la.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 40]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 38.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 76.8 (201.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 151.6 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 161.2 (106.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 151.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 161.2 (106.3%)
    
    S SJC speedtest.sjc01.softlayer.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 62.3 - min 46.2 (74.1%), max 66.7 (107.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 154.3 - min 153.7 (99.6%), max 155.3 (100.7%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 157.2 - min 153.7 (97.7%), max 180.1 (114.5%)
    

    First note the max speeds within Europe; all major targets 800+ Mb/s and a couple even on average. Nice, indeed. Even otenet.gr which I basically have as an "evil trap" in my targets list (because many hosters fail on it) achieves not crappy performance and has less then 10% of testing attempts fail (normally 65% and higher failure rate). And even the somewhat remote Russia/Moscow target achieves a decent result.

    The asian targets show decent results, too and even down under is kind of halfway acceptably reachable (my apologies with the Singapore target; maybe it's an unlucky one for ZgoClouds routing or maybe it's just in a wheelchair currently. It's a bit sad but I've yet to find reliable a stable targets and China (mainland) is a real pita ...)

    But there's good news too: Both Afrika target did work and show halfway decent results. I know, I know, 25 and even 65 Mb/s normally is nothing to write home about but, hey, for Afrika that's quite decent.

    But North America has no excuse; there's plenty fibers across the ocean and I guess, or at least hope, in their grounds as well. But hell, no, what I see is a not at all uncommon lottery. Washington for example shows very decent results incl. nice ping times. NYC however looks, pardon my French, shitty - and no that's not simply a bad target choice on my part; after all that's a university and I have seen quite nice results with them, but alas, not this time.
    Similarly, LAX usually tends to show halfway decent results while San Jose tends to show crappy ones. Oh well, this times is just the other way around.

    I'll end on a positive note: Sao Paolo shows a good result (well, for South America). Hey it's better than NYC and LAX albeit naturally with a higher ping time.

    Summary:

    I hardly can shout loud enough how pleased I am with that VPS. Processor and memory on par with (or better) than many intel Scalable and significantly better crypto performance too, which is important as nowadays ("httpS everywhere!") even Joe and his dog's website use TLS as if their life depended on it.

    The disk performance - remember, we're talking about a ca. 2 bucks a month thingy! - deserves a love poem but I won't even try, for your and my benefit *g

    The network might be a weak point for some; for others it may be OK. For me it definitely is (a) because I'm pretty much only interested in Europe, and (b) I've seen plenty similar or even worse but for more than double the price ...

    The only clear weakness I see is their slooooow support response time. But that can be forgiven for the very low price and once they do respond they give you a reasonable, actually helpful, and friendly answer. But still, my advice to them would be to find one more support guy as soon as their revenue allows for that.

    All in all clearly highly recommended, especially for Europe centric users.

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    Update - and a really nice one.

    Today I opened a ticket re. the inconsisteny between my order, the offer here, and what was delivered.

    Very positive note 1: the response came quickly, and I mean really quickly, as in "half an hour or so". On a weekend, well noted.

    Very positive note 2: (a) I'm partly guilty myself because I stupidly forgot to enter the code given in their offer/OP, and (b) @zgocloud fully and quickly corrected the situation and did even more than I had asked for (they even (credit) refunded the difference between normal price and price with LET code although I had not asked for that).

    What a nice provider. Kudos.

  • It should have plan 1 month

Sign In or Register to comment.