Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Quick Links


Categories

In this Discussion

› › HostBrr | Two year anniversary deals | AMD EPYC Turin + Block Storage | Flash deals ! - Page 5
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.

HostBrr | Two year anniversary deals | AMD EPYC Turin + Block Storage | Flash deals !

12357…53

Comments

  • NET18NET18

    @labze said:

    @NET18 said:

    @PineappleM said:

    @NET18 said:

    @NHNHNH000 said:

    @NET18 said: poor server performance

    what? it's gb5 in your previous text not gb6

    Here are the GB5 benchmark results for the EPYC 9655 VPS from another provider

    Refund it back if you don’t like it.

    But what price do you pay for the other provider? Same/similar? Hosts can control CPU limits at the hypervisor level.

    Calling it poor performance is a large stretch, especially when most hosts here don’t even exceed 1000 on GB6.

    Dude, this ain't normal performance at all. The AES-XTS is performing like crap, which proves something's definitely wrong here. The disk read/write speeds are way off too. Maybe you're just used to those crappy low-performance servers

    I would suggest you request a refund. If there is a issue then let me know and I can look into it but it's not the attitude to come and call crap.

    You're seeing a few hundred difference score in only Geekbench 5 and you are acting like it's the worst service ever.

    I don't know why you also day the disks perform poorly. I can enable writeback caching for you and you'll see blazing speeds but then you just risk data corruption if your system unexpectedly crashes.

    I'm just a bit confused about its performance because the test results seem a bit off. I was hoping you, as the expert, could explain it to me. But you took it as me picking on you and gave me this whatever answer

    The test results show the 512K block read/write speeds on this hard drive are worse than expected, so I'm not happy with it

  • barbarosbarbaros Member

    @labze looking forward for your flashing ;)

    Thanked by 1caracal
  • beanman109beanman109 Member, Megathread Squad

    @NET18 said:

    @labze said:

    @NET18 said:

    @PineappleM said:

    @NET18 said:

    @NHNHNH000 said:

    @NET18 said: poor server performance

    what? it's gb5 in your previous text not gb6

    Here are the GB5 benchmark results for the EPYC 9655 VPS from another provider

    Refund it back if you don’t like it.

    But what price do you pay for the other provider? Same/similar? Hosts can control CPU limits at the hypervisor level.

    Calling it poor performance is a large stretch, especially when most hosts here don’t even exceed 1000 on GB6.

    Dude, this ain't normal performance at all. The AES-XTS is performing like crap, which proves something's definitely wrong here. The disk read/write speeds are way off too. Maybe you're just used to those crappy low-performance servers

    I would suggest you request a refund. If there is a issue then let me know and I can look into it but it's not the attitude to come and call crap.

    You're seeing a few hundred difference score in only Geekbench 5 and you are acting like it's the worst service ever.

    I don't know why you also day the disks perform poorly. I can enable writeback caching for you and you'll see blazing speeds but then you just risk data corruption if your system unexpectedly crashes.

    I'm just a bit confused about its performance because the test results seem a bit off. I was hoping you, as the expert, could explain it to me. But you took it as me picking on you and gave me this whatever answer

    The test results show the 512K block read/write speeds on this hard drive are worse than expected, so I'm not happy with it

    Your comments were typically statements like "Poor performance", "The AES-XTS is performing like crap" and "Maybe you're just used to those crappy low-performance servers" so I don't really fault Labze for the response he provided you with. I wouldn't call it picking on you - it's more giving you back the exact attitude you're giving him.

    You've been told by the host and multiple others if you're not happy refund it.

    Thanked by 16lukast__ sh97 labze NHNHNH000 barbaros PineappleM _MS_ hyperblast maverick Faxou42 cybertech Decicus Shade COLBYLICIOUS mandala BasToTheMax
  • barbarosbarbaros Member

    @NET18 said:

    @labze said:

    @NET18 said:

    @PineappleM said:

    @NET18 said:

    @NHNHNH000 said:

    @NET18 said: poor server performance

    what? it's gb5 in your previous text not gb6

    Here are the GB5 benchmark results for the EPYC 9655 VPS from another provider

    Refund it back if you don’t like it.

    But what price do you pay for the other provider? Same/similar? Hosts can control CPU limits at the hypervisor level.

    Calling it poor performance is a large stretch, especially when most hosts here don’t even exceed 1000 on GB6.

    Dude, this ain't normal performance at all. The AES-XTS is performing like crap, which proves something's definitely wrong here. The disk read/write speeds are way off too. Maybe you're just used to those crappy low-performance servers

    I would suggest you request a refund. If there is a issue then let me know and I can look into it but it's not the attitude to come and call crap.

    You're seeing a few hundred difference score in only Geekbench 5 and you are acting like it's the worst service ever.

    I don't know why you also day the disks perform poorly. I can enable writeback caching for you and you'll see blazing speeds but then you just risk data corruption if your system unexpectedly crashes.

    I'm just a bit confused about its performance because the test results seem a bit off. I was hoping you, as the expert, could explain it to me. But you took it as me picking on you and gave me this whatever answer

    The test results show the 512K block read/write speeds on this hard drive are worse than expected, so I'm not happy with it

    Does 512K block read/write speeds have impact on your use case and you get poor performance because of that? Or are you solely comparing the numbers on YABS.

    I mean probably some of the servers I have superb NVMe speeds and some has shitty SSDs speeds, but I don't even notice the difference as my use case doesn't align with it.

    IF You were complaining about HDD speeds, sure it make sense, else, you are just getting stuck on unnecessary things.

  • NET18NET18

    @beanman109 said:

    @NET18 said:

    @labze said:

    @NET18 said:

    @PineappleM said:

    @NET18 said:

    @NHNHNH000 said:

    @NET18 said: poor server performance

    what? it's gb5 in your previous text not gb6

    Here are the GB5 benchmark results for the EPYC 9655 VPS from another provider

    Refund it back if you don’t like it.

    But what price do you pay for the other provider? Same/similar? Hosts can control CPU limits at the hypervisor level.

    Calling it poor performance is a large stretch, especially when most hosts here don’t even exceed 1000 on GB6.

    Dude, this ain't normal performance at all. The AES-XTS is performing like crap, which proves something's definitely wrong here. The disk read/write speeds are way off too. Maybe you're just used to those crappy low-performance servers

    I would suggest you request a refund. If there is a issue then let me know and I can look into it but it's not the attitude to come and call crap.

    You're seeing a few hundred difference score in only Geekbench 5 and you are acting like it's the worst service ever.

    I don't know why you also day the disks perform poorly. I can enable writeback caching for you and you'll see blazing speeds but then you just risk data corruption if your system unexpectedly crashes.

    I'm just a bit confused about its performance because the test results seem a bit off. I was hoping you, as the expert, could explain it to me. But you took it as me picking on you and gave me this whatever answer

    The test results show the 512K block read/write speeds on this hard drive are worse than expected, so I'm not happy with it

    Your comments were typically statements like "Poor performance", "The AES-XTS is performing like crap" and "Maybe you're just used to those crappy low-performance servers" so I don't really fault Labze for the response he provided you with. I wouldn't call it picking on you - it's more giving you back the exact attitude you're giving him.

    You've been told by the host and multiple others if you're not happy refund it.

    English isn't my first language, I'm using ChatGPT to chat

    A refund should be the last resort—why go nuclear when there are better ways to fix the problem?

  • NET18NET18

    @barbaros said:

    @NET18 said:

    @labze said:

    @NET18 said:

    @PineappleM said:

    @NET18 said:

    @NHNHNH000 said:

    @NET18 said: poor server performance

    what? it's gb5 in your previous text not gb6

    Here are the GB5 benchmark results for the EPYC 9655 VPS from another provider

    Refund it back if you don’t like it.

    But what price do you pay for the other provider? Same/similar? Hosts can control CPU limits at the hypervisor level.

    Calling it poor performance is a large stretch, especially when most hosts here don’t even exceed 1000 on GB6.

    Dude, this ain't normal performance at all. The AES-XTS is performing like crap, which proves something's definitely wrong here. The disk read/write speeds are way off too. Maybe you're just used to those crappy low-performance servers

    I would suggest you request a refund. If there is a issue then let me know and I can look into it but it's not the attitude to come and call crap.

    You're seeing a few hundred difference score in only Geekbench 5 and you are acting like it's the worst service ever.

    I don't know why you also day the disks perform poorly. I can enable writeback caching for you and you'll see blazing speeds but then you just risk data corruption if your system unexpectedly crashes.

    I'm just a bit confused about its performance because the test results seem a bit off. I was hoping you, as the expert, could explain it to me. But you took it as me picking on you and gave me this whatever answer

    The test results show the 512K block read/write speeds on this hard drive are worse than expected, so I'm not happy with it

    Does 512K block read/write speeds have impact on your use case and you get poor performance because of that? Or are you solely comparing the numbers on YABS.

    I mean probably some of the servers I have superb NVMe speeds and some has shitty SSDs speeds, but I don't even notice the difference as my use case doesn't align with it.

    IF You were complaining about HDD speeds, sure it make sense, else, you are just getting stuck on unnecessary things.

    Maybe I'm overthinking it

  • hyperblasthyperblast Member
    edited April 18

    @maverick said:

    @NET18 said:

    @PineappleM said:

    @NET18 said:

    @NHNHNH000 said:

    @NET18 said: poor server performance

    what? it's gb5 in your previous text not gb6

    Here are the GB5 benchmark results for the EPYC 9655 VPS from another provider

    Refund it back if you don’t like it.

    But what price do you pay for the other provider? Same/similar? Hosts can control CPU limits at the hypervisor level.

    Calling it poor performance is a large stretch, especially when most hosts here don’t even exceed 1000 on GB6.

    Dude, this ain't normal performance at all. The AES-XTS is performing like crap, which proves something's definitely wrong here. The disk read/write speeds are way off too. Maybe you're just used to those crappy low-performance servers

    while you might be onto something, man... you're in full panic mode, just don't forget that you have 7 days to refund, don't take your life because you found a bug in GB or something like that :D

    Here, do this on both your turin's and show how crap this one is, i don't have 2 turins to compare, but you can:

    # openssl speed -evp aes-128-xts
[...]
type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes  16384 bytes
AES-128-XTS    1129156.79k  3811952.23k  7514381.48k 11155585.71k 13042322.09k 13371479.38k

    AMD EPYC 4344P 8-Core Processor

    type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes  16384 bytes                                                                                           
AES-128-XTS    1138864.98k  3933977.22k  8044527.05k 11867981.48k 13900215.64k 13954082.93k
    Thanked by 1maverick
  • barbarosbarbaros Member

    @NET18 said:

    @beanman109 said:

    @NET18 said:

    @labze said:

    @NET18 said:

    @PineappleM said:

    @NET18 said:

    @NHNHNH000 said:

    @NET18 said: poor server performance

    what? it's gb5 in your previous text not gb6

    Here are the GB5 benchmark results for the EPYC 9655 VPS from another provider

    Refund it back if you don’t like it.

    But what price do you pay for the other provider? Same/similar? Hosts can control CPU limits at the hypervisor level.

    Calling it poor performance is a large stretch, especially when most hosts here don’t even exceed 1000 on GB6.

    Dude, this ain't normal performance at all. The AES-XTS is performing like crap, which proves something's definitely wrong here. The disk read/write speeds are way off too. Maybe you're just used to those crappy low-performance servers

    I would suggest you request a refund. If there is a issue then let me know and I can look into it but it's not the attitude to come and call crap.

    You're seeing a few hundred difference score in only Geekbench 5 and you are acting like it's the worst service ever.

    I don't know why you also day the disks perform poorly. I can enable writeback caching for you and you'll see blazing speeds but then you just risk data corruption if your system unexpectedly crashes.

    I'm just a bit confused about its performance because the test results seem a bit off. I was hoping you, as the expert, could explain it to me. But you took it as me picking on you and gave me this whatever answer

    The test results show the 512K block read/write speeds on this hard drive are worse than expected, so I'm not happy with it

    Your comments were typically statements like "Poor performance", "The AES-XTS is performing like crap" and "Maybe you're just used to those crappy low-performance servers" so I don't really fault Labze for the response he provided you with. I wouldn't call it picking on you - it's more giving you back the exact attitude you're giving him.

    You've been told by the host and multiple others if you're not happy refund it.

    English isn't my first language, I'm using ChatGPT to chat

    A refund should be the last resort—why go nuclear when there are better ways to fix the problem?

    What do you want him to do? Just refine settings on the node you are on just because 1 customer is unhappy with it based on YABS result?

    Most provider would offer refund (or ignore) cases like this to not deal with the headache. That's what @labze is doing, which is a kind gesture I would say.

    @NET18 said:

    @barbaros said:

    @NET18 said:

    @labze said:

    @NET18 said:

    @PineappleM said:

    @NET18 said:

    @NHNHNH000 said:

    @NET18 said: poor server performance

    what? it's gb5 in your previous text not gb6

    Here are the GB5 benchmark results for the EPYC 9655 VPS from another provider

    Refund it back if you don’t like it.

    But what price do you pay for the other provider? Same/similar? Hosts can control CPU limits at the hypervisor level.

    Calling it poor performance is a large stretch, especially when most hosts here don’t even exceed 1000 on GB6.

    Dude, this ain't normal performance at all. The AES-XTS is performing like crap, which proves something's definitely wrong here. The disk read/write speeds are way off too. Maybe you're just used to those crappy low-performance servers

    I would suggest you request a refund. If there is a issue then let me know and I can look into it but it's not the attitude to come and call crap.

    You're seeing a few hundred difference score in only Geekbench 5 and you are acting like it's the worst service ever.

    I don't know why you also day the disks perform poorly. I can enable writeback caching for you and you'll see blazing speeds but then you just risk data corruption if your system unexpectedly crashes.

    I'm just a bit confused about its performance because the test results seem a bit off. I was hoping you, as the expert, could explain it to me. But you took it as me picking on you and gave me this whatever answer

    The test results show the 512K block read/write speeds on this hard drive are worse than expected, so I'm not happy with it

    Does 512K block read/write speeds have impact on your use case and you get poor performance because of that? Or are you solely comparing the numbers on YABS.

    I mean probably some of the servers I have superb NVMe speeds and some has shitty SSDs speeds, but I don't even notice the difference as my use case doesn't align with it.

    IF You were complaining about HDD speeds, sure it make sense, else, you are just getting stuck on unnecessary things.

    Maybe I'm overthinking it

    You are...

    Thanked by 2lukast__ Blembim
  • beanman109beanman109 Member, Megathread Squad

    @NET18 said:

    @beanman109 said:

    @NET18 said:

    @labze said:

    @NET18 said:

    @PineappleM said:

    @NET18 said:

    @NHNHNH000 said:

    @NET18 said: poor server performance

    what? it's gb5 in your previous text not gb6

    Here are the GB5 benchmark results for the EPYC 9655 VPS from another provider

    Refund it back if you don’t like it.

    But what price do you pay for the other provider? Same/similar? Hosts can control CPU limits at the hypervisor level.

    Calling it poor performance is a large stretch, especially when most hosts here don’t even exceed 1000 on GB6.

    Dude, this ain't normal performance at all. The AES-XTS is performing like crap, which proves something's definitely wrong here. The disk read/write speeds are way off too. Maybe you're just used to those crappy low-performance servers

    I would suggest you request a refund. If there is a issue then let me know and I can look into it but it's not the attitude to come and call crap.

    You're seeing a few hundred difference score in only Geekbench 5 and you are acting like it's the worst service ever.

    I don't know why you also day the disks perform poorly. I can enable writeback caching for you and you'll see blazing speeds but then you just risk data corruption if your system unexpectedly crashes.

    I'm just a bit confused about its performance because the test results seem a bit off. I was hoping you, as the expert, could explain it to me. But you took it as me picking on you and gave me this whatever answer

    The test results show the 512K block read/write speeds on this hard drive are worse than expected, so I'm not happy with it

    Your comments were typically statements like "Poor performance", "The AES-XTS is performing like crap" and "Maybe you're just used to those crappy low-performance servers" so I don't really fault Labze for the response he provided you with. I wouldn't call it picking on you - it's more giving you back the exact attitude you're giving him.

    You've been told by the host and multiple others if you're not happy refund it.

    English isn't my first language, I'm using ChatGPT to chat

    A refund should be the last resort—why go nuclear when there are better ways to fix the problem?

    Work order first next time before you start calling things crap 👍

    Thanked by 2lukast__ Blembim
  • SmigitSmigit Member

    Grats on the milestone!

  • gigazilgigazil Member

    now I highly suggest provider repeating with three pages of NO REFUND ON FLASH DEALS before actually posting it

    Thanked by 1PineappleM
  • _MS__MS_ Member

    Thanked by 14beanman109 PineappleM lukast__ dsbnoob loay Blembim sh97 Faxou42 cybertech Decicus vastness4594 nagasaki_castella Shade BasToTheMax
  • barbarosbarbaros Member
    edited April 18

    @maverick said:

    @NET18 said:

    @PineappleM said:

    @NET18 said:

    @NHNHNH000 said:

    @NET18 said: poor server performance

    what? it's gb5 in your previous text not gb6

    Here are the GB5 benchmark results for the EPYC 9655 VPS from another provider

    Refund it back if you don’t like it.

    But what price do you pay for the other provider? Same/similar? Hosts can control CPU limits at the hypervisor level.

    Calling it poor performance is a large stretch, especially when most hosts here don’t even exceed 1000 on GB6.

    Dude, this ain't normal performance at all. The AES-XTS is performing like crap, which proves something's definitely wrong here. The disk read/write speeds are way off too. Maybe you're just used to those crappy low-performance servers

    while you might be onto something, man... you're in full panic mode, just don't forget that you have 7 days to refund, don't take your life because you found a bug in GB or something like that :D

    Here, do this on both your turin's and show how crap this one is, i don't have 2 turins to compare, but you can:

    # openssl speed -evp aes-128-xts
[...]
type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes  16384 bytes
AES-128-XTS    1129156.79k  3811952.23k  7514381.48k 11155585.71k 13042322.09k 13371479.38k

    From Turin from another provider (3 core AMD EPYC 9655)

    type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes  16384 bytes
AES-128-XTS    1206917.75k  3967885.85k  7565387.61k 11079769.43k 12758062.42k 13081133.06k

    I see minimal difference.

    Thanked by 3Blembim maverick BasToTheMax
  • labzelabze Member, Patron Provider

    If you have network issues then please try and restart from the VPS Dashboard. If it persists open a ticket.

    One of the packages was created with the wrong IPv4 config.

    Thanked by 7barbaros Blembim beanman109 _MS_ Decicus COLBYLICIOUS BasToTheMax
  • NET18NET18

    @barbaros said:

    @maverick said:

    @NET18 said:

    @PineappleM said:

    @NET18 said:

    @NHNHNH000 said:

    @NET18 said: poor server performance

    what? it's gb5 in your previous text not gb6

    Here are the GB5 benchmark results for the EPYC 9655 VPS from another provider

    Refund it back if you don’t like it.

    But what price do you pay for the other provider? Same/similar? Hosts can control CPU limits at the hypervisor level.

    Calling it poor performance is a large stretch, especially when most hosts here don’t even exceed 1000 on GB6.

    Dude, this ain't normal performance at all. The AES-XTS is performing like crap, which proves something's definitely wrong here. The disk read/write speeds are way off too. Maybe you're just used to those crappy low-performance servers

    while you might be onto something, man... you're in full panic mode, just don't forget that you have 7 days to refund, don't take your life because you found a bug in GB or something like that :D

    Here, do this on both your turin's and show how crap this one is, i don't have 2 turins to compare, but you can:

    # openssl speed -evp aes-128-xts
[...]
type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes  16384 bytes
AES-128-XTS    1129156.79k  3811952.23k  7514381.48k 11155585.71k 13042322.09k 13371479.38k

    From Turin from another provider

    type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes 16384 bytes
    AES-128-XTS 1206917.75k 3967885.85k 7565387.61k 11079769.43k 12758062.42k 13081133.06k

    I see minimal difference.

    openssl speed -evp aes-256-xts
Doing aes-256-xts for 3s on 16 size blocks: 145135003 aes-256-xts's in 2.99s
Doing aes-256-xts for 3s on 64 size blocks: 136405113 aes-256-xts's in 3.00s
Doing aes-256-xts for 3s on 256 size blocks: 67636358 aes-256-xts's in 3.00s
Doing aes-256-xts for 3s on 1024 size blocks: 23589811 aes-256-xts's in 3.00s
Doing aes-256-xts for 3s on 8192 size blocks: 3288939 aes-256-xts's in 3.00s
Doing aes-256-xts for 3s on 16384 size blocks: 1676869 aes-256-xts's in 3.00s
OpenSSL 1.1.1w  11 Sep 2023
built on: Sun Nov  3 04:59:56 2024 UTC
options:bn(64,64) rc4(8x,int) des(int) aes(partial) blowfish(ptr) 
compiler: gcc -fPIC -pthread -m64 -Wa,--noexecstack -Wall -Wa,--noexecstack -g -O2 -ffile-prefix-map=/build/reproducible-path/openssl-1.1.1w=. -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat -Werror=format-security -DOPENSSL_USE_NODELETE -DL_ENDIAN -DOPENSSL_PIC -DOPENSSL_CPUID_OBJ -DOPENSSL_IA32_SSE2 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT5 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_GF2m -DSHA1_ASM -DSHA256_ASM -DSHA512_ASM -DKECCAK1600_ASM -DRC4_ASM -DMD5_ASM -DAESNI_ASM -DVPAES_ASM -DGHASH_ASM -DECP_NISTZ256_ASM -DX25519_ASM -DPOLY1305_ASM -DNDEBUG -Wdate-time -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.
type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes  16384 bytes
aes-256-xts     776642.16k  2909975.74k  5771635.88k  8051988.82k  8980996.10k  9157940.57k
  • hyperblasthyperblast Member
    edited April 18

    @labze said:
    If you have network issues then please try and restart from the VPS Dashboard. If it persists open a ticket.

    One of the packages was created with the wrong IPv4 config.

    @labze / philip can you please do this modififactions one the node?

    -> https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/4393248/#Comment_4393248

    then you would also benefit from the improvements when running windows on the machine.

  • NET18NET18

    @barbaros said:

    @maverick said:

    @NET18 said:

    @PineappleM said:

    @NET18 said:

    @NHNHNH000 said:

    @NET18 said: poor server performance

    what? it's gb5 in your previous text not gb6

    Here are the GB5 benchmark results for the EPYC 9655 VPS from another provider

    Refund it back if you don’t like it.

    But what price do you pay for the other provider? Same/similar? Hosts can control CPU limits at the hypervisor level.

    Calling it poor performance is a large stretch, especially when most hosts here don’t even exceed 1000 on GB6.

    Dude, this ain't normal performance at all. The AES-XTS is performing like crap, which proves something's definitely wrong here. The disk read/write speeds are way off too. Maybe you're just used to those crappy low-performance servers

    while you might be onto something, man... you're in full panic mode, just don't forget that you have 7 days to refund, don't take your life because you found a bug in GB or something like that :D

    Here, do this on both your turin's and show how crap this one is, i don't have 2 turins to compare, but you can:

    # openssl speed -evp aes-128-xts
[...]
type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes  16384 bytes
AES-128-XTS    1129156.79k  3811952.23k  7514381.48k 11155585.71k 13042322.09k 13371479.38k

    From Turin from another provider (3 core AMD EPYC 9655)

    type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes  16384 bytes
AES-128-XTS    1206917.75k  3967885.85k  7565387.61k 11079769.43k 12758062.42k 13081133.06k

    I see minimal difference.

    I'm not sure why the AES-XTS performance was worse in the GB5 benchmark
    https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/23482852

  • beanman109beanman109 Member, Megathread Squad

    @barbaros said:

    @maverick said:

    @NET18 said:

    @PineappleM said:

    @NET18 said:

    @NHNHNH000 said:

    @NET18 said: poor server performance

    what? it's gb5 in your previous text not gb6

    Here are the GB5 benchmark results for the EPYC 9655 VPS from another provider

    Refund it back if you don’t like it.

    But what price do you pay for the other provider? Same/similar? Hosts can control CPU limits at the hypervisor level.

    Calling it poor performance is a large stretch, especially when most hosts here don’t even exceed 1000 on GB6.

    Dude, this ain't normal performance at all. The AES-XTS is performing like crap, which proves something's definitely wrong here. The disk read/write speeds are way off too. Maybe you're just used to those crappy low-performance servers

    while you might be onto something, man... you're in full panic mode, just don't forget that you have 7 days to refund, don't take your life because you found a bug in GB or something like that :D

    Here, do this on both your turin's and show how crap this one is, i don't have 2 turins to compare, but you can:

    # openssl speed -evp aes-128-xts
[...]
type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes  16384 bytes
AES-128-XTS    1129156.79k  3811952.23k  7514381.48k 11155585.71k 13042322.09k 13371479.38k

    From Turin from another provider (3 core AMD EPYC 9655)

    type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes  16384 bytes
AES-128-XTS    1206917.75k  3967885.85k  7565387.61k 11079769.43k 12758062.42k 13081133.06k

    I see minimal difference.

    u like my intel platinum 8160 @ 2ghz ?

    type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes  16384 bytes
AES-128-XTS     192370.77k   720906.83k  1900262.01k  3184907.82k  4048213.33k  4141313.29k
    Thanked by 3barbaros Blembim maverick
  • hyperblasthyperblast Member 
    type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes  16384 bytes
AES-128-XTS    1233189.02k  4105958.38k  8229124.62k 12377303.38k 14329913.34k 14595206.94k

    linveo AMD Ryzen 9 9950X

    Thanked by 2PineappleM maverick
  • beanman109beanman109 Member, Megathread Squad

    @labze said:
    If you have network issues then please try and restart from the VPS Dashboard. If it persists open a ticket.

    One of the packages was created with the wrong IPv4 config.

    i have FOMO of flash deal issues

    Thanked by 2barbaros Blembim
  • barbarosbarbaros Member
    edited April 18

    @NET18 said:

    @barbaros said:

    @maverick said:

    @NET18 said:

    @PineappleM said:

    @NET18 said:

    @NHNHNH000 said:

    @NET18 said: poor server performance

    what? it's gb5 in your previous text not gb6

    Here are the GB5 benchmark results for the EPYC 9655 VPS from another provider

    Refund it back if you don’t like it.

    But what price do you pay for the other provider? Same/similar? Hosts can control CPU limits at the hypervisor level.

    Calling it poor performance is a large stretch, especially when most hosts here don’t even exceed 1000 on GB6.

    Dude, this ain't normal performance at all. The AES-XTS is performing like crap, which proves something's definitely wrong here. The disk read/write speeds are way off too. Maybe you're just used to those crappy low-performance servers

    while you might be onto something, man... you're in full panic mode, just don't forget that you have 7 days to refund, don't take your life because you found a bug in GB or something like that :D

    Here, do this on both your turin's and show how crap this one is, i don't have 2 turins to compare, but you can:

    # openssl speed -evp aes-128-xts
[...]
type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes  16384 bytes
AES-128-XTS    1129156.79k  3811952.23k  7514381.48k 11155585.71k 13042322.09k 13371479.38k

    From Turin from another provider

    type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes 16384 bytes
    AES-128-XTS 1206917.75k 3967885.85k 7565387.61k 11079769.43k 12758062.42k 13081133.06k

    I see minimal difference.

    openssl speed -evp aes-256-xts
Doing aes-256-xts for 3s on 16 size blocks: 145135003 aes-256-xts's in 2.99s
Doing aes-256-xts for 3s on 64 size blocks: 136405113 aes-256-xts's in 3.00s
Doing aes-256-xts for 3s on 256 size blocks: 67636358 aes-256-xts's in 3.00s
Doing aes-256-xts for 3s on 1024 size blocks: 23589811 aes-256-xts's in 3.00s
Doing aes-256-xts for 3s on 8192 size blocks: 3288939 aes-256-xts's in 3.00s
Doing aes-256-xts for 3s on 16384 size blocks: 1676869 aes-256-xts's in 3.00s
OpenSSL 1.1.1w  11 Sep 2023
built on: Sun Nov  3 04:59:56 2024 UTC
options:bn(64,64) rc4(8x,int) des(int) aes(partial) blowfish(ptr) 
compiler: gcc -fPIC -pthread -m64 -Wa,--noexecstack -Wall -Wa,--noexecstack -g -O2 -ffile-prefix-map=/build/reproducible-path/openssl-1.1.1w=. -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat -Werror=format-security -DOPENSSL_USE_NODELETE -DL_ENDIAN -DOPENSSL_PIC -DOPENSSL_CPUID_OBJ -DOPENSSL_IA32_SSE2 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT5 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_GF2m -DSHA1_ASM -DSHA256_ASM -DSHA512_ASM -DKECCAK1600_ASM -DRC4_ASM -DMD5_ASM -DAESNI_ASM -DVPAES_ASM -DGHASH_ASM -DECP_NISTZ256_ASM -DX25519_ASM -DPOLY1305_ASM -DNDEBUG -Wdate-time -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.
type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes  16384 bytes
aes-256-xts     776642.16k  2909975.74k  5771635.88k  8051988.82k  8980996.10k  9157940.57k

    My results are for 128, you provided 256 results, but I did the same command as yours:

    type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes  16384 bytes
AES-256-XTS     921719.53k  3002550.34k  5883356.07k  8038167.21k  9026463.42k  9117876.22k

    Edit: To add, if you believe you will do this much IO intensive operation to notice latency on VPS, I believe it's not for you at the first step. Any provider would kick you out if you use disk IO constantly overtime.

    Thanked by 2loay PineappleM
  • beanman109beanman109 Member, Megathread Squad

    Thanked by 3plumberg Blembim NHNHNH000
  • barbarosbarbaros Member

    @beanman109 said:

    @labze said:
    If you have network issues then please try and restart from the VPS Dashboard. If it persists open a ticket.

    One of the packages was created with the wrong IPv4 config.

    i have FOMO of flash deal issues

    Best I can offer is FUMO, sorry.

    Thanked by 4plumberg Blembim lukast__ beanman109
  • plumbergplumberg Veteran, Megathread Squad

    Thanked by 3barbaros Blembim beanman109
  • barbarosbarbaros Member

    @beanman109 said:

    @barbaros said:

    @maverick said:

    @NET18 said:

    @PineappleM said:

    @NET18 said:

    @NHNHNH000 said:

    @NET18 said: poor server performance

    what? it's gb5 in your previous text not gb6

    Here are the GB5 benchmark results for the EPYC 9655 VPS from another provider

    Refund it back if you don’t like it.

    But what price do you pay for the other provider? Same/similar? Hosts can control CPU limits at the hypervisor level.

    Calling it poor performance is a large stretch, especially when most hosts here don’t even exceed 1000 on GB6.

    Dude, this ain't normal performance at all. The AES-XTS is performing like crap, which proves something's definitely wrong here. The disk read/write speeds are way off too. Maybe you're just used to those crappy low-performance servers

    while you might be onto something, man... you're in full panic mode, just don't forget that you have 7 days to refund, don't take your life because you found a bug in GB or something like that :D

    Here, do this on both your turin's and show how crap this one is, i don't have 2 turins to compare, but you can:

    # openssl speed -evp aes-128-xts
[...]
type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes  16384 bytes
AES-128-XTS    1129156.79k  3811952.23k  7514381.48k 11155585.71k 13042322.09k 13371479.38k

    From Turin from another provider (3 core AMD EPYC 9655)

    type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes  16384 bytes
AES-128-XTS    1206917.75k  3967885.85k  7565387.61k 11079769.43k 12758062.42k 13081133.06k

    I see minimal difference.

    u like my intel platinum 8160 @ 2ghz ?

    type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes 16384 bytes
    AES-128-XTS 192370.77k 720906.83k 1900262.01k 3184907.82k 4048213.33k 4141313.29k

    Don't kill that Pentium. Like @Saragoldfarb killed her RPI while YABSing.

    Thanked by 2plumberg Saragoldfarb
  • NHNHNH000NHNHNH000 Member

    im sorry
    but in which case you guys use aes-xts

    Thanked by 4Blembim beanman109 barbaros PineappleM
  • NET18NET18

    @barbaros said:

    @NET18 said:

    @barbaros said:

    @maverick said:

    @NET18 said:

    @PineappleM said:

    @NET18 said:

    @NHNHNH000 said:

    @NET18 said: poor server performance

    what? it's gb5 in your previous text not gb6

    Here are the GB5 benchmark results for the EPYC 9655 VPS from another provider

    Refund it back if you don’t like it.

    But what price do you pay for the other provider? Same/similar? Hosts can control CPU limits at the hypervisor level.

    Calling it poor performance is a large stretch, especially when most hosts here don’t even exceed 1000 on GB6.

    Dude, this ain't normal performance at all. The AES-XTS is performing like crap, which proves something's definitely wrong here. The disk read/write speeds are way off too. Maybe you're just used to those crappy low-performance servers

    while you might be onto something, man... you're in full panic mode, just don't forget that you have 7 days to refund, don't take your life because you found a bug in GB or something like that :D

    Here, do this on both your turin's and show how crap this one is, i don't have 2 turins to compare, but you can:

    # openssl speed -evp aes-128-xts
[...]
type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes  16384 bytes
AES-128-XTS    1129156.79k  3811952.23k  7514381.48k 11155585.71k 13042322.09k 13371479.38k

    From Turin from another provider

    type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes 16384 bytes
    AES-128-XTS 1206917.75k 3967885.85k 7565387.61k 11079769.43k 12758062.42k 13081133.06k

    I see minimal difference.

    openssl speed -evp aes-256-xts
Doing aes-256-xts for 3s on 16 size blocks: 145135003 aes-256-xts's in 2.99s
Doing aes-256-xts for 3s on 64 size blocks: 136405113 aes-256-xts's in 3.00s
Doing aes-256-xts for 3s on 256 size blocks: 67636358 aes-256-xts's in 3.00s
Doing aes-256-xts for 3s on 1024 size blocks: 23589811 aes-256-xts's in 3.00s
Doing aes-256-xts for 3s on 8192 size blocks: 3288939 aes-256-xts's in 3.00s
Doing aes-256-xts for 3s on 16384 size blocks: 1676869 aes-256-xts's in 3.00s
OpenSSL 1.1.1w  11 Sep 2023
built on: Sun Nov  3 04:59:56 2024 UTC
options:bn(64,64) rc4(8x,int) des(int) aes(partial) blowfish(ptr) 
compiler: gcc -fPIC -pthread -m64 -Wa,--noexecstack -Wall -Wa,--noexecstack -g -O2 -ffile-prefix-map=/build/reproducible-path/openssl-1.1.1w=. -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat -Werror=format-security -DOPENSSL_USE_NODELETE -DL_ENDIAN -DOPENSSL_PIC -DOPENSSL_CPUID_OBJ -DOPENSSL_IA32_SSE2 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT5 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_GF2m -DSHA1_ASM -DSHA256_ASM -DSHA512_ASM -DKECCAK1600_ASM -DRC4_ASM -DMD5_ASM -DAESNI_ASM -DVPAES_ASM -DGHASH_ASM -DECP_NISTZ256_ASM -DX25519_ASM -DPOLY1305_ASM -DNDEBUG -Wdate-time -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.
type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes  16384 bytes
aes-256-xts     776642.16k  2909975.74k  5771635.88k  8051988.82k  8980996.10k  9157940.57k

    My results are for 128, you provided 256 results, but I did the same command as yours:

    type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes  16384 bytes
AES-256-XTS     921719.53k  3002550.34k  5883356.07k  8038167.21k  9026463.42k  9117876.22k

    Edit: To add, if you believe you will do this much IO intensive operation to notice latency on VPS, I believe it's not for you at the first step. Any provider would kick you out if you use disk IO constantly overtime.

    I'm not sure why the AES-XTS results were poor in the GB5 test. But judging from your test data, the server nodes seem to be working fine. can keep using them

  • barbarosbarbaros Member

    @NHNHNH000 said:
    im sorry
    but in which case you guys use aes-xts

    For benchmarking obviously, duh.

    Thanked by 4NHNHNH000 Blembim lukast__ maverick
  • beanman109beanman109 Member, Megathread Squad

    @barbaros said:

    @beanman109 said:

    @barbaros said:

    @maverick said:

    @NET18 said:

    @PineappleM said:

    @NET18 said:

    @NHNHNH000 said:

    @NET18 said: poor server performance

    what? it's gb5 in your previous text not gb6

    Here are the GB5 benchmark results for the EPYC 9655 VPS from another provider

    Refund it back if you don’t like it.

    But what price do you pay for the other provider? Same/similar? Hosts can control CPU limits at the hypervisor level.

    Calling it poor performance is a large stretch, especially when most hosts here don’t even exceed 1000 on GB6.

    Dude, this ain't normal performance at all. The AES-XTS is performing like crap, which proves something's definitely wrong here. The disk read/write speeds are way off too. Maybe you're just used to those crappy low-performance servers

    while you might be onto something, man... you're in full panic mode, just don't forget that you have 7 days to refund, don't take your life because you found a bug in GB or something like that :D

    Here, do this on both your turin's and show how crap this one is, i don't have 2 turins to compare, but you can:

    # openssl speed -evp aes-128-xts
[...]
type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes  16384 bytes
AES-128-XTS    1129156.79k  3811952.23k  7514381.48k 11155585.71k 13042322.09k 13371479.38k

    From Turin from another provider (3 core AMD EPYC 9655)

    type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes  16384 bytes
AES-128-XTS    1206917.75k  3967885.85k  7565387.61k 11079769.43k 12758062.42k 13081133.06k

    I see minimal difference.

    u like my intel platinum 8160 @ 2ghz ?

    type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes 16384 bytes
    AES-128-XTS 192370.77k 720906.83k 1900262.01k 3184907.82k 4048213.33k 4141313.29k

    Don't kill that Pentium. Like @Saragoldfarb killed her RPI while YABSing.

    good idea i have an rpi2 as an NTP server, decided to let to fry

    type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes  16384 bytes
AES-128-XTS       5698.63k     9273.37k    21241.43k    24152.41k    25157.63k    25225.90k
    Thanked by 3barbaros lukast__ Blembim
  • barbarosbarbaros Member

    @NET18 said:

    @barbaros said:

    @NET18 said:

    @barbaros said:

    @maverick said:

    @NET18 said:

    @PineappleM said:

    @NET18 said:

    @NHNHNH000 said:

    @NET18 said: poor server performance

    what? it's gb5 in your previous text not gb6

    Here are the GB5 benchmark results for the EPYC 9655 VPS from another provider

    Refund it back if you don’t like it.

    But what price do you pay for the other provider? Same/similar? Hosts can control CPU limits at the hypervisor level.

    Calling it poor performance is a large stretch, especially when most hosts here don’t even exceed 1000 on GB6.

    Dude, this ain't normal performance at all. The AES-XTS is performing like crap, which proves something's definitely wrong here. The disk read/write speeds are way off too. Maybe you're just used to those crappy low-performance servers

    while you might be onto something, man... you're in full panic mode, just don't forget that you have 7 days to refund, don't take your life because you found a bug in GB or something like that :D

    Here, do this on both your turin's and show how crap this one is, i don't have 2 turins to compare, but you can:

    # openssl speed -evp aes-128-xts
[...]
type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes  16384 bytes
AES-128-XTS    1129156.79k  3811952.23k  7514381.48k 11155585.71k 13042322.09k 13371479.38k

    From Turin from another provider

    type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes 16384 bytes
    AES-128-XTS 1206917.75k 3967885.85k 7565387.61k 11079769.43k 12758062.42k 13081133.06k

    I see minimal difference.

    openssl speed -evp aes-256-xts
Doing aes-256-xts for 3s on 16 size blocks: 145135003 aes-256-xts's in 2.99s
Doing aes-256-xts for 3s on 64 size blocks: 136405113 aes-256-xts's in 3.00s
Doing aes-256-xts for 3s on 256 size blocks: 67636358 aes-256-xts's in 3.00s
Doing aes-256-xts for 3s on 1024 size blocks: 23589811 aes-256-xts's in 3.00s
Doing aes-256-xts for 3s on 8192 size blocks: 3288939 aes-256-xts's in 3.00s
Doing aes-256-xts for 3s on 16384 size blocks: 1676869 aes-256-xts's in 3.00s
OpenSSL 1.1.1w  11 Sep 2023
built on: Sun Nov  3 04:59:56 2024 UTC
options:bn(64,64) rc4(8x,int) des(int) aes(partial) blowfish(ptr) 
compiler: gcc -fPIC -pthread -m64 -Wa,--noexecstack -Wall -Wa,--noexecstack -g -O2 -ffile-prefix-map=/build/reproducible-path/openssl-1.1.1w=. -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat -Werror=format-security -DOPENSSL_USE_NODELETE -DL_ENDIAN -DOPENSSL_PIC -DOPENSSL_CPUID_OBJ -DOPENSSL_IA32_SSE2 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT5 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_GF2m -DSHA1_ASM -DSHA256_ASM -DSHA512_ASM -DKECCAK1600_ASM -DRC4_ASM -DMD5_ASM -DAESNI_ASM -DVPAES_ASM -DGHASH_ASM -DECP_NISTZ256_ASM -DX25519_ASM -DPOLY1305_ASM -DNDEBUG -Wdate-time -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.
type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes  16384 bytes
aes-256-xts     776642.16k  2909975.74k  5771635.88k  8051988.82k  8980996.10k  9157940.57k

    My results are for 128, you provided 256 results, but I did the same command as yours:

    type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes  16384 bytes
AES-256-XTS     921719.53k  3002550.34k  5883356.07k  8038167.21k  9026463.42k  9117876.22k

    Edit: To add, if you believe you will do this much IO intensive operation to notice latency on VPS, I believe it's not for you at the first step. Any provider would kick you out if you use disk IO constantly overtime.

    I'm not sure why the AES-XTS results were poor in the GB5 test. But judging from your test data, the server nodes seem to be working fine. can keep using them

    I believe it would be fair if you apologize from @labze. You practically shit on his servers on his sales thread.

    Thanked by 4lukast__ beanman109 PineappleM Blembim
Sign In or Register to comment.