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.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
I think they must mean dedicated "threads" and not "cores". Because alloying 2 cores per VPS x 2 VPS = Node is full
That doesn't make any sens...
It is weird why they do not pass it, the host CPU definetely supports it.
most likely overselling (calling threads cores) and having 4
Surely that's what they mean, so we're still sharing CPU. Admittedly, not bad oversell ratio though for the price. Not really "dedicated" though since thread does not equal core, but closer than anything else in that price range for the specs, certainly.
and terrible single thread performance, you should be seeing well over 3400 and 6000+
Ah, selected CentOS 7. Thanks for the info, I'll try another template to see :-)
Maybe @Ernie can explain this to us ? :P
I guess they put at least 4 VM's on that Box, maybe also 5 or 6 with a bit overselling.
Otherwise when i see E3 Boxes at CC they cost like 60-70$ minimum, it would be a loss if they just put 2 of them on one box.
16$ and no Dedicated cores, eh.
great, now KVMs can be sold as "CLOUD" dedicated servers
Nothing new, actually Providers sold VMWare Servers as Dedicated Core i7 Server for like 30EUR, which first look like a Dedicated Box.
There are methods to check that these are not Legit, but it was kinda hard, most Customers got trolled so far.
These are very high availability servers which are virtualized with KVM. In the case of an E3-1240v3 has 8 threads and 3 or 4 customers on each physical device.
The idea behind this product was to provide a high-end, not oversubscribed service for customers looking for a premium product that cannot afford full dedicated servers. Its a great alternative for someone that has a budget between a normal VPS and a dedicated server.
3 or 4 customers per node ?
I agree on the budget point esp. with the included IPv4.
but would you care to elaborate something more about your network-setup? it seems... slowish. I know this hasn't to be the node itself, but maybe something on the way to your uplink...
and while I was just about to open a support ticket, but you were so kind to jump into this thread, I'll just ask here:
does it seem possible to change the cpu-model for the KVM guests to the 'host-cpu' and pass on all features with it - like the already mentioned AES-NI
does it seem possible to enable nesting with kvm_intel kernel-module to pass on VMX (I'd rather like to split my ressources with kvm, thus make use of this machine as like a smart ressource bundle ;-))
Correct.
Feel free to open a ticket we can check into the network item for you.
so it's not dedicated and you are overselling, this is just a vps in reality nothing special.
I'm in the middle. On one hand it's a VPS with significantly less CPU overselling than is normal, but on the other hand if you sell dedicated CPU I submit that people are more likely to use what you sell them.
Granted, theory vs practice who knows. They could all be 90% idle for all I know.
Normally kvm nodes have like 30 to 100 customers per node.now compare.
I think with max 4 vms per node, 3 threads per vm would not be over-subscribed either.
I like this product.
Is the Ssd in RAID? Can the full hardware capability flags be passed through (aes especially) ?
can i use that to creat small kvm vps?
No we do have ATOMs and X3450 at great prices though.
well someone posted some geekbench results above and looking at them there is certainly some overselling being done. not massively but a fair bit.
That IO doesn't look to great, is this the HDD or SSD option?
(Oh, and does someone know how to get the code block in the quote?)
I took the HDD option. if the nodes are as small, as described, probably just two sata disks in some kind of raid1.
so that is sadly what leaves it just a bigger kvm vps, with (so far) very average performance to me. but at least it answers my questions above...
the additional IPv4s were, what's made it interesting - but not be able to split those ressources up (other than ovz or lxc) will more likely kill that advantage at once.
You can always switch to SSD! Just open a ticket.
This seems more like an Abusive Cores type of offering - VPS with dedicated resources. Oversold a bit if they're counting threads as cores.
thanks, but the io isn't my first concern so far, otherwise I would have opted for SSD in first place.
I am just not interested in a single big KVM even on SSD - I simply don't need as I could do such a setup on one of my dedis already ;-)
as I am doing business mainly in europe but would like to hold a small option in US your described selling point was exactly hitting the spot.
no need to rent a full dedicated at a higher price, but be able to run my own dedicated like setup
mostly I use and setup (KVM) vps with around 3-4 GB and ~50 GB HDD, nearly all running the same hosting setup (LAMP/LEMP) etc.
so $17/m for the given specs and number of IPs could have been a no-brainer for having some instances on standby. but I am not going without KVM for that.
no offense meant, and no complain at all. exactly that is why I am willing to spend 15 € on a testing
monthday (rather than buying poptarts) ;-)No problem if I can help further let me know.
This is more like an elaborate VPS.
Saw someone do a geekbench earlier and realized I've never used geekbench by CLI. Not much different, but a little better than the previous.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/5679448
On the SSD version.