All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
HostBrr benchmark (incl. SQL) and review
A (short) while ago I got myself one of the @labze / HostBrr "ECO Memory-Optimized" promo VPS, in my case a 2 vCores, 8 GB mem. one.
And of course I benchmarked it. Here's the results, incl. my SQL benchmark and a review, based on about 150 runs.
First as usual sysinfo, processor and memory
Version 2.5.0a, (c) 2018+ jsg (->lowendtalk.com)
Machine: amd64, Arch.: amd64, Model: AMD EPYC 7452 32-Core Processor >!
OS, version: FreeBSD 14.1, Mem.: 7.989 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
InNested Virt.? Yes
HW RNG? Yes
So, a decent and relatively current processor with AES, and HW random support (as well as nested virtualization, which I don't care about at all). Nice so far! And to be honest I didn't wait for the Turin because a cheap VPS is a cheap VPS and I do not even expect VDS like performance.
ProcMem SC [MB/s]: avg 181.6 - min 68.7 (37.8 %), max 311.1 (171.3 %)
ProcMem MA [MB/s]: avg 521.7 - min 454.1 (87.0 %), max 596.4 (114.3 %)
ProcMem MB [MB/s]: avg 529.9 - min 482.5 (91.1 %), max 587.8 (110.9 %)
ProcMem AES [MB/s]: avg 1033.7 - min 932.8 (90.2 %), max 1097.7 (106.2 %)
ProcMem RSA [kp/s]: avg 78.7 - min 68.7 (87.4 %), max 90.8 (115.4 %)
Hmm, not really great to be honest, but then a dual vCore Epyc VPS with 8 GB memory for that price is expected to not have top performance plus, to put it politely, have plenty of neighbours ..
But still the multithreaded results are quite decent and so are the crypto results.
Now, let's look at the disk
--- Disk 4 KB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 2.19 - min 1.75 (80.0%), max 2.82 (128.9%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 2.02 - min 1.67 (82.8%), max 2.51 (124.4%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 5.54 - min 4.33 (78.2%), max 6.86 (123.9%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 4.92 - min 4.07 (82.7%), max 5.98 (121.5%)
--- Disk 4 KB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 2.09 - min 1.60 (76.7%), max 2.54 (121.8%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 1.94 - min 1.55 (80.0%), max 2.43 (125.4%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 5.60 - min 4.72 (84.3%), max 6.91 (123.4%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 5.02 - min 4.20 (83.7%), max 5.95 (118.6%)
--- Disk 64 KB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 20.21 - min 16.23 (80.3%), max 25.40 (125.7%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 19.98 - min 16.65 (83.3%), max 25.05 (125.4%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 1101.76 - min 855.06 (77.6%), max 1386.73 (125.9%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 72.24 - min 59.77 (82.7%), max 89.74 (124.2%)
--- Disk 64 KB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 5.07 - min 4.18 (82.5%), max 8.77 (173.1%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 3.53 - min 2.54 (71.9%), max 5.66 (160.1%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 1128.32 - min 795.46 (70.5%), max 1439.54 (127.6%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 61.44 - min 50.06 (81.5%), max 73.33 (119.3%)
--- Disk 1 MB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 30.83 - min 23.99 (77.8%), max 39.17 (127.1%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 55.01 - min 42.58 (77.4%), max 68.81 (125.1%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 2363.33 - min 1821.94 (77.1%), max 2852.15 (120.7%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 404.10 - min 340.34 (84.2%), max 489.60 (121.2%)
--- Disk 1 MB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 16.67 - min 13.65 (81.9%), max 22.62 (135.7%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 16.05 - min 13.67 (85.1%), max 20.29 (126.4%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 2408.94 - min 1843.37 (76.5%), max 2790.89 (115.9%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 404.38 - min 297.37 (73.5%), max 466.34 (115.3%)
--- Disk IOps (Sync/Direct) ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 10.64 - min 7.30 (68.6%), max 15.81 (148.6%)
IOps : avg 2722.78 - min 1869.28 (68.7%), max 4046.21 (148.6%)
A reasonably decent result, not a super-performant disk but more than good enough. And with relatively low spread, especially for a cheap promo VPS. I'd call it "solid" and certainly more than good enough for most use cases.
And now to connectivity - fasten your seat belts!
--- Europe ---
NO OSL mirror.terrahost.no [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 359.1 - min 239.8 (66.8%), max 448.1 (124.8%)
Ping [ms]: avg 28.8 - min 24.0 (83.4%), max 35.6 (123.7%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 30.3 - min 24.2 (80.0%), max 87.5 (289.2%)
UK LON lon.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 603.5 - min 399.3 (66.2%), max 650.1 (107.7%)
Ping [ms]: avg 16.8 - min 5.0 (29.8%), max 21.8 (129.9%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 17.5 - min 16.6 (94.9%), max 30.5 (174.4%)
NL AMS mirrors.xtom.nl [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 995.1 - min 668.6 (67.2%), max 1307.0 (131.3%)
Ping [ms]: avg 12.0 - min 11.6 (96.5%), max 20.2 (168.0%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 12.5 - min 11.6 (92.5%), max 37.2 (296.7%)
DE FRA fra.lg.core-backbone.com [F: 2]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 1908.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 2436.8 (127.7%)
Ping [ms]: avg 1.6 - min 1.1 (68.7%), max 3.2 (199.8%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 1.9 - min 1.2 (63.5%), max 18.3 (968.4%)
FR PAR mirror.in2p3.fr [F: 1]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 733.6 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 871.4 (118.8%)
Ping [ms]: avg 12.9 - min 3.7 (28.7%), max 15.7 (121.7%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 32.8 - min 12.7 (38.7%), max 224.0 (682.6%)
CH GEN pkg.adfinis-on-exoscale.ch [F: 2]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 917.9 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 1008.5 (109.9%)
Ping [ms]: avg 11.0 - min 10.6 (96.4%), max 13.5 (122.8%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 12.3 - min 10.7 (86.9%), max 21.9 (177.9%)
IT MIL it1.mirror.vhosting-it.com [F: 13]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 723.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 1070.9 (148.1%)
Ping [ms]: avg 10.7 - min 10.1 (94.5%), max 16.4 (153.5%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 21.0 - min 10.1 (48.0%), max 285.1 (1356.3%)
ES MAD mirror.es.stackscale.com [F: 5]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 303.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 347.6 (114.4%)
Ping [ms]: avg 33.6 - min 30.9 (92.0%), max 45.5 (135.5%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 45.0 - min 31.6 (70.2%), max 829.8 (1844.1%)
RO almalinux.mirrors.orange.ro [F: 5]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 341.4 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 401.1 (117.5%)
Ping [ms]: avg 31.4 - min 9.9 (31.5%), max 40.8 (129.8%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 36.0 - min 27.7 (76.9%), max 350.3 (972.6%)
GR UNK speedtest.ftp.otenet.gr [F: 139]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 0.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 0.0 (0.0%)
Ping [ms]: avg 44.4 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 88.7 (200.0%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 44.4 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 88.7 (200.0%)
RU MOS speedtest.hostkey.ru [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 240.5 - min 195.9 (81.5%), max 284.7 (118.4%)
Ping [ms]: avg 45.4 - min 38.1 (83.9%), max 49.4 (108.8%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 55.7 - min 38.3 (68.8%), max 413.5 (742.5%)
--- Asia ---
RU SIB mirror.truenetwork.ru [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 125.8 - min 114.3 (90.9%), max 135.6 (107.8%)
Ping [ms]: avg 87.6 - min 32.7 (37.3%), max 95.8 (109.4%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 89.0 - min 83.9 (94.2%), max 108.4 (121.8%)
IR TEH mirror.mobinhost.com [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 147.3 - min 121.2 (82.2%), max 165.6 (112.4%)
Ping [ms]: avg 73.2 - min 65.9 (90.0%), max 91.5 (125.0%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 82.0 - min 67.7 (82.6%), max 571.2 (696.7%)
IN MUM mirrors.piconets.webwerks.in [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 95.7 - min 92.4 (96.5%), max 99.2 (103.6%)
Ping [ms]: avg 113.1 - min 37.8 (33.4%), max 122.0 (107.9%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 115.9 - min 112.8 (97.3%), max 141.2 (121.8%)
SG SGP mirror.sg.gs [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 70.8 - min 61.9 (87.4%), max 72.9 (102.9%)
Ping [ms]: avg 154.9 - min 154.3 (99.6%), max 162.7 (105.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 163.1 - min 154.6 (94.8%), max 972.4 (596.3%)
CN HKG mirrors.xtom.hk [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 61.0 - min 58.9 (96.6%), max 62.7 (102.9%)
Ping [ms]: avg 179.0 - min 178.5 (99.7%), max 188.6 (105.4%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 179.4 - min 178.5 (99.5%), max 188.6 (105.1%)
CN NAJ mirror.nyist.edu.cn [F: 5]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 47.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 84.0 (178.9%)
Ping [ms]: avg 227.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 297.4 (130.9%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 293.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 525.5 (178.9%)
CN BEJ mirrors.bfsu.edu.cn [F: 1]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 43.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 48.8 (112.9%)
Ping [ms]: avg 223.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 403.8 (180.4%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 228.4 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 403.8 (176.8%)
JP OSA mirrors.xtom.jp [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 43.4 - min 41.6 (95.9%), max 45.9 (105.6%)
Ping [ms]: avg 252.2 - min 240.2 (95.3%), max 257.5 (102.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 253.2 - min 240.2 (94.9%), max 265.7 (105.0%)
AU SYD mirror.internet.asn.au [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 46.4 - min 45.9 (98.9%), max 47.2 (101.7%)
Ping [ms]: avg 242.1 - min 241.1 (99.6%), max 263.9 (109.0%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 242.7 - min 241.2 (99.4%), max 263.9 (108.7%)
--- Africa ---
ZA JOB mirror.datakeepers.co.za [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 62.9 - min 49.2 (78.3%), max 65.7 (104.4%)
Ping [ms]: avg 172.0 - min 170.9 (99.4%), max 176.1 (102.4%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 178.8 - min 171.0 (95.7%), max 229.8 (128.6%)
KE NAI mirror.liquidtelecom.com [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 80.9 - min 75.4 (93.2%), max 85.2 (105.3%)
Ping [ms]: avg 136.6 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 178.8 (130.9%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 137.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 178.8 (129.8%)
--- America ---
US NYC nyc.mirrors.clouvider.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 127.8 - min 100.0 (78.2%), max 132.8 (103.8%)
Ping [ms]: avg 84.4 - min 27.1 (32.1%), max 113.9 (134.9%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 86.6 - min 82.5 (95.2%), max 126.9 (146.5%)
US CHI ord.mirror.rackspace.com [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 108.4 - min 102.5 (94.6%), max 110.0 (101.5%)
Ping [ms]: avg 103.0 - min 102.5 (99.5%), max 111.8 (108.5%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 105.5 - min 102.7 (97.4%), max 138.8 (131.6%)
US LAX mirror.alma.lax1.serverforge.org [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 77.6 - min 64.0 (82.4%), max 82.0 (105.6%)
Ping [ms]: avg 142.6 - min 140.7 (98.7%), max 151.2 (106.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 145.4 - min 141.3 (97.2%), max 160.6 (110.5%)
You see, I had a reason to say "fasten your seatbelts". Those are really, really good results one rarely sees with promos from LET providers.
Now a side note: As you may have noticed I spent a lot of time to come up with a decent current network targets list. And indeed a decent provider can reach and achieve decent results with those targets. One exception: no matter how hard I try Greece seems to be weird and problematic wrt connectivity.
Also worth mentioning, I have done enough benchmarking to have learned that, at least for the major targets, one should have at least two options - and I do. For the sake of readability though I only show one. Exception: China, for which I show both targets plus Hongkong, in part for the reason that I'm super happy to finally have a few China targets that are reachable and reliably work at least from decently connected providers like HostBrr.
Now, with that out of the way you'll certainly see that I didn't promise too much ( "fasten your seatbelts"). What a nice result set! All the european targets (except GR) with multi-hundred Mb/s and the "big 3 or 4" even with 500+ Mb/s and NL about a Gb/s. Yes DE is about 2 Gb/s but then my VPS is in DE,FR.
Next Asia. Not only does the HostBrrVPS reach Teheran(!) but it actually achieves a quite good result and so does the Siberia target. Also the India target is quite decent, but what really excited me is to see the results for both China targets, Bejing and Nanjing: over 40 Mb/s! And Hongkong is quite nice as well with about 60 Mb/s. As for Ozzyland the result is OK, probably even good with about 45 Mb/s but frankly, I've learned that the point with connectivity to Australia from Europe isn't about a number but rather about reaching it at all, so "passed, decent job" the verdict is I guess.
Not that it was needed but there's even a cherry on top, quite decent results for both Nairobi and Johannesburg.
SQL benchmark with a bit over 1 mio records:
[50]: 103 s 901 ms
[6]: 731 s 065 ms
so, slower than my Contabo (also Epyc) VPS in both batch sizes but not crappy.
(the numbers within [] are batch sizes, "how many records are committed in a transaction?")
TL;DR/verdict: processor and memory performance nothing to write home about but really OK - connectivity however is really great, globally!
IMO a very good choice for a web-server or crawler or the like (and the cheapest VPS of that promo also for a VPN). You might want to stay away from heavy DB use though, but still, certainly good enough for the majority of dynamic web site. Certainly one of my nicer VPSs. Well done, labze!
