Online.net new limited offers 3815 & 3915

ayukas

Model: ATA MB2000GCWDA is an expensive drive

http://www.amazon.co.uk/MB2000GCWDA-2TB-7-2K-MDL-SATA/dp/B00V4BKXO2

http://www.discountmicrosales.com/mb2000gcwda.html

It's an OEM version of HGST HUS724020ALA640, so basically a HP sticker on the disk makes such a difference in price.
http://www.amazon.com/Western-Digital-HGST-HUS724020ALA640-0F14690/dp/B00D1C7CSM

adil04

i'm struggling with hard drive partition and installing more than one operating system...

Can someone please give me simple, step by step, instructions (create a new partition) thank you in advance

wych

@adil04 said:
i'm struggling with hard drive partition and installing more than one operating system...

You have some replies in your thread.

coolice

deadbeef said: @coolice said:

So what's the one-liner (or similar) you suggest?

rm_ said: deadbeef said: So what's the one-liner (or similar) you suggest?

Just use a higher value for dd, like 4G or so, it will negate the effect of these small 128-256 MB caches.

>

I'm just pointing that the test is stupid ... to have some result which is accurate providers should not adopt any new technology....

To prove my point here some test results from inside 3815 KVM CentOS 7 Virtual Machine with XFS

[root@test ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=iotest bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync
16384+0 records in
16384+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1,1 GB) copied, 1,06337 s, 1,0 GB/s

[root@test ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=iotest1 bs=64k count=64k conv=fdatasync
65536+0 records in
65536+0 records out
4294967296 bytes (4,3 GB) copied, 3,83612 s, 1,1 GB/s

[root@test ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=iotest1 bs=64k count=128k conv=fdatasync
131072+0 records in
131072+0 records out
8589934592 bytes (8,6 GB) copied, 5,70858 s, 1,5 GB/s

[root@test ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=iotest1 bs=64k count=256k conv=fdatasync
262144+0 records in
262144+0 records out
17179869184 bytes (17 GB) copied, 10,1684 s, 1,7 GB/s

[root@test ~]# dd bs=1M count=4096 if=/dev/zero of=test conv=fdatasync 
4096+0 records in
4096+0 records out
4294967296 bytes (4,3 GB) copied, 4,05143 s, 1,1 GB/s

[root@test ~]# dd bs=1M count=10240 if=/dev/zero of=test conv=fdatasync
10240+0 records in
10240+0 records out
10737418240 bytes (11 GB) copied, 6,88879 s, 1,6 GB/s

[root@test ~]# dd bs=1M count=51200 if=/dev/zero of=test conv=fdatasync
51200+0 records in
51200+0 records out
53687091200 bytes (54 GB) copied, 23,2135 s, 2,3 GB/s

Same will happened with vz with ploop (ok I know ploop is bit fragile but it is the future both VZO and Virtuozzo are defaulting to that)

So choices are drop dd testing or drop new technology...

rm_

coolice said: I'm just pointing that the test is stupid

To prove my point here some test results from inside 3815 KVM

The only thing that is stupid here is your failure to correctly set up write barrier handling on KVM.

coolice

@rm_ this is the default install...

It is the "stupid" default choice of all of the developers of Centos7, Proxmox, Online or stupid dd

Proxmox, (default from online image)

 /dev/mapper/system-root on / type ext4 (rw,relatime,errors=remount-ro,barrier=1,stripe=16,data=ordered) 

(Only change on hypervisor level is to choose Virtio than IDE when creating VM , Nocache stays)

VM is also using default all just xfs is chosen for the partitions then done// done

edit all default mounts (no nobarrier)

/dev/vda1 on / type xfs (rw,relatime,seclabel,attr2,inode64,noquota)

Gulf

Any new feedbacks on 3915 SSD?
I'm going to replace an old ovh server with this one.

I've compared results above with ovh, looks like online.net has better connection to the US.

eduf

@Gulf said:
Any new feedbacks on 3915 SSD?
I'm going to replace an old ovh server with this one.

I've compared results above with ovh, looks like online.net has better connection to the US.

me too

Rolter

@Gulf said:
Any new feedbacks on 3915 SSD?
I'm going to replace an old ovh server with this one.

I've compared results above with ovh, looks like online.net has better connection to the US.

Been using it for a month now , speeds are awesome (both Network and Server).

I am hosting one high traffic website on a LNMP stack with around 6M impressions/day and the server is barely getting past 10% of its resource usage (except the storage , which is around 80% used)

I wish i had grabbed a few 2X2TB servers when they were in stock .

chdesign

promotion ended 2 hours ago there were 25 in stock and after 10 minutes there was no one

arpanjot

@chdesign said:
promotion ended 2 hours ago there were 25 in stock and after 10 minutes there was no one

they were back again?

Gulf

@Rolter said:
I wish i had grabbed a few 2X2TB servers when they were in stock .

Very good server. I got SSD version. It is fully HP, even SSD by HP.

Rolter

@arpanjot said:

Yes they were , and i again grabbed a few of them -- Pretty nice servers and deal (no gauranteed BW though , will have to avoid using the servers for anything BW intensive )

4n0nx

I wish online.net was a bit more precise about their bandwidth policy. Does 200 mbit/s mean they will ask to reduce usage at 200.01 mbit/s average? Does "no guaranteed bandwidth" mean they won't even accept 50 mbit/s average use?

IThinkUFailed

@Rolter said:
(no gauranteed BW though , will have to avoid using the servers for anything BW intensive )

it was confirmed to be 200Mbps.

Gulf

@IThinkUFailed said:
it was confirmed to be 200Mbps.

Support said 300

Rolter

@IThinkUFailed said:
it was confirmed to be 200Mbps.

Can you please link me to the source of that info ?

IThinkUFailed

@Rolter said:
Can you please link me to the source of that info ?

It's in a ticket to me. I ordered it and then was experiencing slow downloads. This has since sorted itself out. I was a bit pissed off as they were all giving us the run around in terms of information that day.

Rolter

@IThinkUFailed said:

I like how Online.net's support is always so polite , even after you bash them . This is some good customer support.

Thank you for the picture.

IThinkUFailed

@Rolter said:
I like how Online.net's support is always so polite , even after you bash them . This is some good customer support.

I bashed them after we had been waiting 6+ hours for a simple response to our questions. All of us were ignored by staff.

Gulf

@Rolter said:

They said 300 to me. The same question....

wych

The bandwidth varies between specific offers.

@IThinkUFailed said:
I bashed them after we had been waiting 6+ hours for a simple response to our questions. All of us were ignored by staff.

Seems some get A* support and others not so much...

zeitgeist

I think one reason for the whole bandwidth vs. guaranteed bandwidth confusion is language-related. For example, have a look here:

http://documentation.online.net/fr/serveur-dedie/offres/serveur-dedibox-limited-edition-1115/start

It says: "Bande passante: 200 Mbit/s"

Then go to the English page:

http://documentation.online.net/en/serveur-dedie/offres/serveur-dedibox-limited-edition-1115/server-dedibox-limited-edition-1115

It says: "Internet bandwidth guaranteed: 200 Mbit/s"

In other words, they translated "Bande passante" with guaranteed bandwidth. Now, if you go to the 3815-3915 page: http://documentation.online.net/fr/serveur-dedie/offres/serveur-dedibox-limited-edition-3815-3915/start

It says: "Bande Passante : 200 Mbps"

There is no English language available for this offer. Obviously, given how they translated the French page for the 1115, you'd think that the same "Bande Passante : 200 Mbps" passage would translate into the same "bandwidth guaranteed".

Amitz

wrong thread, sorry

4n0nx

Amitz said: wrong thread, sorry

np I forgive you

Amitz

4n0nx said: np I forgive you

Thanks! :-)

IThinkUFailed

@wych said:
The bandwidth varies between specific offers.

Seems some get A* support and others not so much...

Yup. The other day I asked for a server I cancelled to be un-cancelled as I found a use for it. Less than 60 seconds from sending the ticket in it was responded to and un-cancelled. That was the best support I've had from Online...

The time in which the image was took I was incredibly stressed as I was getting less than 2MB/s to the US and such so I was like "Oh god. We've all been screwed." and I needed to know if there was a guaranteed bandwidth or not. The next day the connection was back to how it should be but the worry was they were going to turn round and just be like "Nope! NO guarantees" sort of deal.

Basically they have good and bad days on this day it was incredibly bad. About 20 people waiting on a confirmation and nobody responding so everyone was stressed.

Gulf

I moved one website from ovh to online.net and after 2 weeks I feel ovh network is better. However ping are the same.

online.net pros

• fast support (sales questions)

• HP hardware, ECC memory

ovh pros

• better network

• better control panel

• better connectivity for mena region

I will move back this website to the ovh next year.