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
Said someone who is trying as hard as you.
Besides that, it was my only post in this thread, and I didn't attack the host at all - just commented bad example while you fight with everyone who does not agree with you. You're messed up, buddy.
Ok, can you please explain your your point?
The fact is market sells dedicated cores assuming that there is no need for 24/7 cpu hammering by all customers. To my view, this is realistic, unless you rent the whole hotel to mine your shitcoin.
What is wrong with Avoro at this point?
Nope. Just dedicate the appropriate amount of cores/threads to the hypervisor process. Voila. Nothing even the slightest bit complicated about this.
Knowing something and it being correct are two different things. If something isn't actually dedicated it should either not be called dedicated or at the very least made to be indistinguishable from dedicated. If it's neither of those, well, congratulations you are selling something that isn't as described. Dedicated has a very specific meaning and even if the pope himself misused it that wouldn't change.
I did. It's just you who decided to ignore it, continuing throwing your tantrum.
Just that cores in this case weren't dedicated, but you keep playing dumb.
Yeah and avoro tried to correct this. Then?
You're so messed up that you don't even know what you're discussing with whom. Or is there any particular reason why you're asking me this?
Please take a deep breath, go through the thread slowly word by word, and then involve into your personal mess those people who are actually interested in this. I never even commented on the host before you started with your crap about what I said, disregarding the fact that like said I never even commented on the host except for the last response to you.
Well, i always give back the things i've stolen if people notice and confront me. The portion that doesn't do this is my profit margin. I proud myself a very ethical business person as those people obviously didn't need what i took but then there's always those pesky guys trying to tell me that what i'm doing is wrong... Idiots.
A milestone LET thread.
Now, in every Dedicated Servers and Dedicated Cores VPS offer threads, one or more users will ask if the CPU is actually Dedicated or just Guaranteed/Shared Dedicated.
No it just happened I saw your argument about the hotel and the Karen sophism about "this is my private toilet, I dont care what the hotel will do", which actually helps no one.
I'd say that nothing about the fact that the cores aren't actually dedicated/allocated to one VPS is unexpected as @dataforest even said what they understand as dedicated cores (that they are usable at all times) years ago on LET.
(Besides, netcup does it the same way, except netcup apparently only migrates the VPS when the customer opens a ticket, the netcup CEO once said that 3% steal is acceptable for dedicated cores and @dataforest is right, on the netcup forum there are not that few complaints about steal.)
The only mistake I see @dataforest made was accepting such a large order.
Just one question @dataforest: how much steal exactly do you consider too much for a) the Rootserver's with dedicated cores, and b) the VPS without dedicated cores?
Someone just browsing their homepage will not have that information though as they state the direct opposite there (Php-Friends: "Die Ressourcen Ihres vServers sind diesem fest zugewiesen und können jederzeit vollständig abgerufen werden. Beeinträchtigungen durch Nachbarserver gehören der Vergangenheit an!" - unless Php-Friends operates completely different from Avoro that statement seems to be a straight up lie - while Avoro states "Gebuchte Ressourcen werden garantiert"). Noone ending up there is going to know that their idea of dedicated is really just shared burstable.
That seems reasonable. While it's still not really dedicated (and therefore something between misnomer and misrepresentation) that means the customer is at least going to get 97% of dedicated. That's something i wouldn't complain about. Beyond such metrics it gets questionable fast though. If i pay premium for dedicated resources that's likely because i plan to hammer them (no i'm not idling my 1€/h Hetzner instance for 3 hours after burning through my dataset at pretty much maxed everything...) and if i can't i'm not going to be happy.
Such a practice of waiting for the customer to complain is seriously dishonest in my opinion. It's basically taking advantage of people to naive to notice. Besides, if a provider chooses to do these kind of magic tricks it's up to them to make sure it works out. They neither are paying the client for debugging their platform nor would most of those have any interest in doing so after all.
Well it will be fun and games until different dedicated cores need to touch the mem controller at the same time. Or they are being throttled because the whole rest CPU is mining shitcoins at the same time. So at some point there will be overhead, pinned or not. Correct me if I am wrong.
Let's agree that this is not about ethics, but about having a CPU core with ~0% steal at low price. Now for the linguistic part, words mean nothing until they are used in a context by people who understand the same context. As long we all know how it works, choosing term A over term B is just philology.
I think that since you cannot have 100% isolation in a virtualized environment, I see nothing wrong with the specific term. But this is me.
Well, maybe. Modern systems are usually a little more complicated. It's not called dedicated memory controller though, so i guess we'll be spared from reading lots of spec sheets.
Dedicated has a very simple general meaning: "Exclusively designated for X". This is universal. While i will not complain as long as the person trying to fake dedicated succeeds or at least almost succeeds (why would i? i'm getting more or less what i've paid for) any kind of fuck up is solely on them (they are trying to sell a surrogate product after all with the sole purpose of personal financial gain) and also unfair business practice in relation to every honest seller that doesn't try to sell a faked product where the customer needs to second guess what the seller actually thinks his description is supposed to mean.
Probably not but then 100% isolation isn't being claimed here either.
In practice what will happen if you get a VDS from a "honest" seller and you suddenly see performance degrade, because this is how a CPU works? @Advin has done some experiments with this IIRC. Given your definition, there is no dedicated core in a virtual environment.
Which is true, but at some point we have to separate VMs that are shared and cannot be used at 100% all the time, VMs that are unlimited, i.e. shared but go crazy, and VMs that are unlimited with best effort to not have cpu wait time.
This thread makes me wanna buy something from Avoro
... to the extend possible. Not being possible to be done perfectly doesn't excuse not even trying. Besides once HT is out of the way it's not that bad and, well, it's natural. Of course there's a bunch of busses, IO and whatnot that won't magically split itself.
Shared, shared burstable and shared best effort burstable with the latter being pretty much superfluous as there probably aren't that many people looking for burstable resources they can hardly use because the provider just doesn't give two shits about contention. Zero need to abuse dedicated there unless one is dead set on giving a certain impression, which doesn't really correlate much with reality. Yeah, i know, the marketing department won't be happy.
Yeah, I think that today is best time for unbeatable promo from @dataforest
burstable 24/7 promo please
I fear you don't need to hold your breath as they seem to be pretty miffed about people disagreeing with shared being the same as dedicated.
as per @dataforest
these cpu cores are dedicated for your use whenever you feel like
vs
general impression cpu cores 100% dedicated to the VDS
The problem arrises when you spend 22k EUR on hardware, and then they cancel all of the servers after 2 months because their crypto mining meta is no longer profitable. Miners who rent CPU want the providers to take on the risk for them. This is why most providers don't work with miners.
>
Yes that it's cause why we request 6 months payment in advanced
Regards
Yeah, pretty much. Funny thing though at least Php-Friends directly claims the simple version: "Die Ressourcen Ihres vServers sind diesem fest zugewiesen und können jederzeit vollständig abgerufen werden. Beeinträchtigungen durch Nachbarserver gehören der Vergangenheit an!" which translates to "The resources are statically allocated to your vServer and can be used to their full extend at any time. Impairments due to neighboring servers are history!" while Avoro just claims that "Gebuchte Ressourcen werden garantiert", which translates to "Booked resources are guaranteed" and is a little more ambiguous.
Ah, didn't notice you said that. I guarantee they won't be willing to pay 6 months in advance though, it ruins their whole system.
Yeah, it's pretty obvious what you're doing now. You are most likely just trying to control 50%+1 of the nodes on a random shitcoin blockchain so you can sign your own transactions. Nothing else makes sense, especially considering the specific amount of nodes, the weird CPU requirement, and the weird KYC thing.
This looks like an innocent node to me.
Common Maxy W.
Thanks for bring up this thread. IMHO, this kind marketing tactic that stretching the meaning "dedicated" is sad.
Before this, what I understand the meaning "dedicated" is: it's fully yours, you can expect to use it 100% all time with guaranteed performance.
The word guaranteed here is can be measured, like, with X compute power, if running program Y that doing some computation, you can expect 99th percentile it will be done in 10s, which mean only 1 in 100 times running it'll be over 10s. Or maybe 95th, or whatever.
At least that's the expectation for me, as customer. Or maybe I'm too naive to have that expectation for the word "dedicated"?
When the "dedicated" is reduce to only "you can use it 100% 24/7" without any measureable performance guarantee, then what's is the differentiate from "shared"?
It should have a kind opposite meaning between "shared" and "dedicated", from pricing to performance.
Without performance guarantee, the word "you can use it 100% 24/7" is become meaningless.
Also, as a customer I don't really like the comment of some user here that, you should do deeper due dilligent, counting this and that, this not possible etc. That's not my job to know or calculate the pricing, because I don't know your business plan, your investor, your buying pricing power to vendor, your employee wage etc, and I don't care really either. If you want doing heavy subsidized with loss to get growth, you can do that. Or if you're using some magic to pulling that pricing/performance. This doesn't mean I don't do due dilligent at all.
Last, if the provider cannot sell product at that price with guarantee performance, then simply don't sell with "dedicated" word. Please don't destroy the meaning of "dedicated".
Booked resources are guaranteed
That would be good enough to cover them legally. Since cpu cores can be used whenever needed. And if any customer makes extra noise move that VDS to the quieter host node.
— not a legal advice. Just sharing my opinion
Using the word "Dedicated" is a really bad marketing tactic. The only truly dedicated thing is physical servers. That said, if you're going to order hundreds of VMs, talk to the host prior. "Unlimited" stock isn't unlimited.
Keep in mind that CPU steal can still show even with dedicated vCPU cores. Past 50% CPU utilization, it starts hyperthreading. There’s also other issues like memory bandwidth and IO that can play an impact.
Having a dedicated core VDS doesn’t always guarantee that CPU steal will be 0%. It’s mostly a problem with AMD EPYC processors.
Makes perfect sense.
@online7237
would you like to comment on this?