Howdy, Stranger!

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


DigitalOcean (4 cores/8 GB) vs RunAbove XL3 (4 cores / 16 GB) vs Vultr (4 cores / 8 GB) - Page 3
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.

DigitalOcean (4 cores/8 GB) vs RunAbove XL3 (4 cores / 16 GB) vs Vultr (4 cores / 8 GB)

13»

Comments

  • DigitalOcean vs RunAbove XL3 vs Vultr

    DigitalOcean 
    

    That is the one I would get if I needed it.

  • kcaj said: Jarland is possibly one of the most down to earth people I've ever had the pleasure of interacting with.

    him being nice or nasty does not change the fact he works for them, and in this case his bias. of course he is going to defend the products.

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran
    edited August 2015

    @TarZZ92 said:
    him being nice or nasty does not change the fact he works for them, and in this case his bias. of course he is going to defend the products.

    Bias in favor of Vultr? Because I'm a DO employee? Lol in what world does that possibly make sense?

  • Jar said: Bias in favor of Vultr? Because I'm a DO employee? Lol where can I get whatever you're on?

    no you defending DO's very low performance systems.

    and your stupid little bit of sarcasm.. being honest i dislike you but that changes nothing.

  • Gulf said: 4 CPU / 80$

    NY http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/3185328

    London http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/3186538

    the NY one is shocking, my tablet PC has better single core performance than that. clearly some overselling

    certainly not worth $80

  • vfusevfuse Member, Host Rep

    Can you run this on small instances? For example at DO you can get 16 512mb instances for $80 per month, will give you a LOT more performance than just the one instance. Or at RunAbove 28 2gb sandbox instances.

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran
    edited August 2015

    @TarZZ92 said:
    no you defending DO's very low performance systems.

    >

    and your stupid little bit of sarcasm.. being honest i dislike you but that changes nothing.

    Nope. I responded to your statement about Vultr CPUs with a personal opinion about your views, generated by years of reading your words. It would be in poor taste for me to "defend" DigitalOcean CPU choices to you here. I wouldn't have commented on that, nor have I done so.

    Personally, I do like you. Always have Daniel. I'm sorry that it isn't mutual. I'd still do anything for you anytime.

    Thanked by 1yomero
  • LeeLee Veteran

    TarZZ92 said: no you defending DO's very low performance systems

    Has he done that in this thread? I never saw it, just a comment about the way you view CPU performance.

    Thanked by 1jar
  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran

    @yomero said:
    What about iwstack? Maounique

    IWStack is not about performance, it has SAN storage, E5 CPUs, etc.
    As a cloud has to be, is about scalability, predictability and features.
    This means: %Cpu(s): 24.8 us, 7.2 sy, 0.0 ni, 67.8 id, 0.2 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st
    Plenty of idle CPU in reserve.

  • Maounique said: IWStack is not about performance, it has SAN storage, E5 CPUs, etc.

    Agree. But the plans offer access to a lot of cpu cores for the price compared with other providers, that's why I recommended it. Maybe you have slower processors but more cores, and if the workload of the OP is parallelizable, it may work for him.

    Thanked by 1Maounique
  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran

    Maounique said: IWStack is not about performance, it has SAN storage, E5 CPUs, etc.

    I've really been wanting to try iwstack for a while. Solid name behind a real cloud service. Does it have US locations for deployment?

  • Jar said: Does it have US locations for deployment?

    Dallas. But no SAN storage, and not sure but no HA also.

    Thanked by 1jar
  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran

    HA is available, just not fail-over. It also has the old storage organization so spinning a new VM is taking a long time, but it is full SSD.
    If you need the full array of features, you will use the Milano one.

    Thanked by 1jar
  • sinsin Member

    Here's a $8/month VULTR benchmark I did last month:
    http://serverbear.com/benchmark/2015/07/16/SD4E7iBtrgwUNi7d

    UnixBench score: 2267.6
    I/O rate: 369.0 MB/second
    Bandwidth rate: 111.0 MB/second

  • GulfGulf Member
    edited August 2015

    I've also tested some other servers

    Vultr 4 Cores London http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/3188951

    RunAbove 2 Cores (great performance) http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/3189454

    DigitalOcean Frankfurt 4 Cores http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/3191276

  • yomeroyomero Member
    edited August 2015

    Gulf said: I've also tested some other servers

    Interesting to see the slower DO processors perform in a similar way to the vultr ones in your multicore bench.

    With a bit of luck maybe you can get some faster processors at DO at other locations.

    And btw, some plans at linode can give you more cores for your money and they are faster (E5-2680 v2 (2.8Ghz) and v3 (2.5Ghz) at least in my instances).

  • J1021J1021 Member
    edited August 2015

    Redacted.

    Thanked by 1GIANT_CRAB
  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran

    kcaj said: Redacted.

    Ha, congrats for evading the new ban on editing :P

  • sin said: -edit- I haven't tried the $5 plans for those cores so not sure about those and I have only seen the 3.4GHz cores twice over the past month, now all my deployments are either 2.4 or 3.6

    I just spun up a new $5 instance in LA to test this. The one I was running since about 2 weeks ago is 2.4GHz, the new one is 3.6GHz. So I can confirm that it extends to the $5 instances, at least in LA. I guess it's just pot luck which one you end up with though.

    Thanked by 1sin
  • HxxxHxxx Member

    I think that for this type of work/task a vultr dedicaded cloud would be a better fit. Dedicated resources, more room to "abuse".

  • sinsin Member

    MattB said: The one I was running since about 2 weeks ago is 2.4GHz, the new one is 3.6GHz. So I can confirm that it extends to the $5 instances, at least in LA

    Nice! I knew their NJ location had 3.6GHz cores and that's great to know that their LA location has them too along with $5 instances. If you end up with a 2.4 and you need a 3.6GHz just redeploy a few times.

    Thanked by 1MattB
  • hmm, now i use vultr for almost all my production site. and so far no problemo

  • What CPU are these 3.6Ghz cores?

  • MarkTurner said: What CPU are these 3.6Ghz cores?

    They don't show them but likely E3-1271 v3 or E5-1620

    Thanked by 2MarkTurner MattB
  • GulfGulf Member

    @sin said:
    If you end up with a 2.4 and you need a 3.6GHz just redeploy a few times.

    Glad to see greedy people like me who will better redeploy 10x times than buy a good "professional" vps.

    Thanked by 2MattB sin
  • I'm new to this, and I don't really know how to compare the speed except to check the cpuinfo and search online.

    Between the 3 models, including one I have 1.8ghz, it seems the 1.8ghz has higher score?

    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2588&cmp[]=2334&cmp[]=1210

  • If u need a high performance CPU, please choose Conoha

Sign In or Register to comment.