Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Quick Links


Shells Virtual Desktop
BMail.ag - Secure Email Service
Server.net
CPLicense.net
VPS Server
Buy VPN
Vultr
VMs for AI
HostDare
ReliableSite White-Label Dedicated Hosting for Resellers
InterServer VPS
BMail.ag - Secure Email Service
Best VPN
High-Performance Bare Metal Server Solutions
Karvl.com
Server Mania Cloud Hosting
DataWagon Hosting
AlphaVPS Hosting
Evoxt.com
Clouvider
VPS Hosting with NVMe
Residential IPs in the US & 4G Mobile Proxies in EU & US with Unlimited Bandwidth
ReliableSite White-Label Dedicated Hosting for Resellers
Rabisu - Hosting Solutions
Shells Virtual Desktop

Categories

In this Discussion

Home › Offers
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.

HostBrr | Two year anniversary deals | AMD EPYC Turin + Block Storage | Flash deals !

1…1213151718…59

Comments

  • maverickmaverick Member

    @labze said:

    @lala_th said:

    @labze said:

    @lala_th said:
    Here's another one for the family.

    Seems like we found the sinner that resulted in 1 package per account limit :D

    Fuck! Please don't cancel my porn servers. :(

    You mean educational recreation content right?

    riiiiight!

  • lala_thlala_th Member

    @labze said:

    @lala_th said:

    @labze said:

    @lala_th said:
    Here's another one for the family.

    Seems like we found the sinner that resulted in 1 package per account limit :D

    Fuck! Please don't cancel my porn servers. :(

    You mean educational recreation content right?

    Yes of course, I didn't mean to say that. :)

    Thanked by 1maverick
  • maverickmaverick Member

    @MS said:

    @labze said: 1 package per account limit

    A rule that every provider should implement in order to give more people a shot at these rare flash deals . :+1:

    i agree 100%!

    i liked the other rule even more, that flash deals are not transferrable, this should de-incentivise scalpers, and once again give more opportunity to genuine buyers!

    way to go @labze!

    Thanked by 5_MS_ lukast__ dav848 jnd vastness4594
  • _MS__MS_ Member

    @maverick said: i liked the other rule even more, that flash deals are not transferrable, this should de-incentivise scalpers, and once again give more opportunity to genuine buyers!

    You know what, I once advocated for this same rule in a Service Transfers thread, where it was not received very positively.

    So, I also like this non-transferable rule more. :)

    Thanked by 3maverick jnd vastness4594
  • maverickmaverick Member

    @MS said:

    @maverick said: i liked the other rule even more, that flash deals are not transferrable, this should de-incentivise scalpers, and once again give more opportunity to genuine buyers!

    You know what, I once advocated for this same rule in a Service Transfers thread, where it was not received very positively.

    So, I also like this non-transferable rule more. :)

    well, to be exact, i meant only these "unsustainable" flash deals, and by provider discretion, the providers need to enforce the rule: "you were lucky, you got it, you paid for it, now fuckin' keep it and don't leech" :)

    generally, i have a great opinion of providers who DO allow transfers and document the rules for it, i think it's a great mechanism both for providers and customers, providers keep the cash flow, and some customers are able to fetch deals that might be out of stock or similar

    so, only for these extremely rare flash deals (very affordable, but also very hard to fetch), i guess it's perfectly fine to disallow transfers, because otherwise scalpers see the big profit margin and target them heavier, that's why

    Thanked by 3JohnFilch123 _MS_ lukast__
  • _MS__MS_ Member

    @maverick said: well, to be exact, i meant only these "unsustainable" flash deals

    Yup, I also meant the same ones, that last for only a few seconds. :)

    Thanked by 1maverick
  • darkimmortaldarkimmortal Member
    edited April 2025

    Did some benchmarking on the block storage. It is cached so the YABS fio results are not representative

    fio Disk Speed Tests (Mixed R/W 50/50) (Partition /dev/vdb1):
---------------------------------
Block Size | 4k            (IOPS) | 64k           (IOPS)
  ------   | ---            ----  | ----           ---- 
Read       | 246.83 MB/s  (61.7k) | 2.17 GB/s    (33.9k)
Write      | 247.48 MB/s  (61.8k) | 2.18 GB/s    (34.1k)
Total      | 494.31 MB/s (123.5k) | 4.35 GB/s    (68.0k)
           |                      |                     
Block Size | 512k          (IOPS) | 1m            (IOPS)
  ------   | ---            ----  | ----           ---- 
Read       | 2.62 GB/s     (5.1k) | 3.76 GB/s     (3.6k)
Write      | 2.76 GB/s     (5.4k) | 4.01 GB/s     (3.9k)
Total      | 5.39 GB/s    (10.5k) | 7.78 GB/s     (7.5k)

    The real performance is visible in a longer test, e.g.


    # fio --size=30000m --filename=fiotest.tmp --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --name=hi --bs=1M --rw=write --iodepth=32
hi: (g=0): rw=write, bs=(R) 1024KiB-1024KiB, (W) 1024KiB-1024KiB, (T) 1024KiB-1024KiB, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-3.33
Starting 1 process
hi: Laying out IO file (1 file / 30000MiB)
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [W(1)][100.0%][w=64.0MiB/s][w=64 IOPS][eta 00m:00s] 
hi: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=4286: Fri Apr 18 23:09:02 2025
  write: IOPS=119, BW=120MiB/s (126MB/s)(29.3GiB/250557msec); 0 zone resets
    slat (usec): min=7, max=172493k, avg=5897.74, stdev=996062.52
    clat (usec): min=285, max=172508k, avg=261351.84, stdev=5592367.60
     lat (usec): min=320, max=172508k, avg=267249.58, stdev=5680118.12
    clat percentiles (usec):
     |  1.00th=[     873],  5.00th=[    1369], 10.00th=[    1991],
     | 20.00th=[    4047], 30.00th=[    7046], 40.00th=[   10421],
     | 50.00th=[   12911], 60.00th=[   16188], 70.00th=[   20055],
     | 80.00th=[   25822], 90.00th=[   36963], 95.00th=[   89654],
     | 99.00th=[ 1719665], 99.50th=[ 2634023], 99.90th=[17112761],
     | 99.95th=[17112761], 99.99th=[17112761]
   bw (  KiB/s): min= 2052, max=3410597, per=100.00%, avg=705266.30, stdev=979846.93, samples=87
   iops        : min=    2, max= 3330, avg=688.69, stdev=956.86, samples=87
  lat (usec)   : 500=0.12%, 750=0.41%, 1000=1.21%
  lat (msec)   : 2=8.31%, 4=9.71%, 10=18.92%, 20=30.99%, 50=23.16%
  lat (msec)   : 100=2.39%, 250=0.83%, 500=0.89%, 750=0.72%, 1000=0.42%
  lat (msec)   : 2000=1.06%, >=2000=0.85%
  cpu          : usr=0.36%, sys=0.14%, ctx=14696, majf=0, minf=13
  IO depths    : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=99.9%, >=64=0.0%
     submit    : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
     complete  : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
     issued rwts: total=0,30000,0,0 short=0,0,0,0 dropped=0,0,0,0
     latency   : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32

Run status group 0 (all jobs):
  WRITE: bw=120MiB/s (126MB/s), 120MiB/s-120MiB/s (126MB/s-126MB/s), io=29.3GiB (31.5GB), run=250557-250557msec

Disk stats (read/write):
  vdb: ios=0/30935, merge=0/4, ticks=0/2509060, in_queue=2720648, util=99.45%

    tl;dr write speed around 100MB/s, latency odd (note the 99.9%ile latency of 17 seconds!)

    With fsync'd writes the performance is worse, around 1 IOPS!

    # fio --size=3000m --filename=fiotest2.tmp --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --name=hi --bs=1M --rw=randwrite --iodepth=32 --fsync=1
hi: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=(R) 1024KiB-1024KiB, (W) 1024KiB-1024KiB, (T) 1024KiB-1024KiB, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
fio-3.33
Starting 1 process
^Cbs: 1 (f=1): [w(1)][2.2%][w=1022KiB/s][w=0 IOPS][eta 39m:08s]    
fio: terminating on signal 2

hi: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=4368: Fri Apr 18 23:15:10 2025
  write: IOPS=1, BW=1906KiB/s (1952kB/s)(96.0MiB/51567msec); 0 zone resets
    slat (usec): min=17, max=196, avg=64.39, stdev=35.17
    clat (msec): min=965, max=24679, avg=16349.89, stdev=6830.34
     lat (msec): min=965, max=24679, avg=16349.96, stdev=6830.35
    clat percentiles (msec):
     |  1.00th=[  969],  5.00th=[ 3037], 10.00th=[ 5604], 20.00th=[ 9463],
     | 30.00th=[11610], 40.00th=[17113], 50.00th=[17113], 60.00th=[17113],
     | 70.00th=[17113], 80.00th=[17113], 90.00th=[17113], 95.00th=[17113],
     | 99.00th=[17113], 99.50th=[17113], 99.90th=[17113], 99.95th=[17113],
     | 99.99th=[17113]
   bw (  KiB/s): min= 2048, max= 4096, per=100.00%, avg=2511.70, stdev=865.31, samples=53
   iops        : min=    2, max=    4, avg= 2.45, stdev= 0.85, samples=53
  lat (msec)   : 1000=1.04%, 2000=1.04%, >=2000=97.92%
  fsync/fdatasync/sync_file_range:
    sync (msec): min=3903, max=5613.2k, avg=103173.50, stdev=688707.50
    sync percentiles (msec):
     |  1.00th=[ 3910],  5.00th=[ 5604], 10.00th=[ 8221], 20.00th=[10939],
     | 30.00th=[16174], 40.00th=[17113], 50.00th=[17113], 60.00th=[17113],
     | 70.00th=[17113], 80.00th=[17113], 90.00th=[17113], 95.00th=[17113],
     | 99.00th=[17113], 99.50th=[17113], 99.90th=[17113], 99.95th=[17113],
     | 99.99th=[17113]
  cpu          : usr=0.01%, sys=0.02%, ctx=183, majf=0, minf=9
  IO depths    : 1=1.0%, 2=3.1%, 4=4.2%, 8=8.3%, 16=16.7%, 32=135.4%, >=64=0.0%
     submit    : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
     complete  : 0=0.0%, 4=98.5%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=1.5%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
     issued rwts: total=0,96,0,66 short=0,0,0,0 dropped=0,0,0,0
     latency   : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32

Run status group 0 (all jobs):
  WRITE: bw=1906KiB/s (1952kB/s), 1906KiB/s-1906KiB/s (1952kB/s-1952kB/s), io=96.0MiB (101MB), run=51567-51567msec

Disk stats (read/write):
  vdb: ios=0/164, merge=0/0, ticks=0/50978, in_queue=102072, util=97.95%

    The VPS performance is absolutely top class, but I'm afraid I can't recommend the block storage - you will probably be disappointed coming from a single dedicated HDD or storage VPS offerings at other providers

    Other observations: read performance is hard to measure fairly with the caching setup, seems to be somewhere in the region of equivalent to a single dedicated HDD (200MB/s, 300 IOPS). Thin provisioning is being used judging by extremely high read speed on uninitialised/discarded areas.

    Thanked by 3maverick JohnnySac lukast__
  • maverickmaverick Member
    edited April 2025

    @darkimmortal said: Did some benchmarking on the block storage. It is cached so the YABS fio results are not representative

    Thank you so much for this detailed test! I'm also aware for a long time that YABS simple fio tests are not nearly as accurate as one would like, just like GB6 is utter garbage to asses multicore server performance.

    Obviously, I was also interested in block storage, but kinda would prefer that it is somewhat performant. While 126 MiB/s doesn't sound all that bad (for a shared environment), 1 IOPS at fsync'd writes definitely is bad.

    I'll run your test cases on my other storages tomorrow, just to see what is possible, and compare.

    Thanks again, really appreciate!

  • labzelabze Member, Patron Provider
    edited April 2025

    @darkimmortal said: With fsync'd writes the performance is worse, around 1 IOPS!

    You're testing with a 3000M file, you aren't going to see more than one IOPS on any HDD unless it is a large RAID-10 array.

    100 MB/s is around the target we've set for the system.

  • PineappleMPineappleM Member

    3.5 to 11.5h until the next flash deal drop for anyone trying to keep track.

    Thanked by 2wadhah maverick
  • NaughtyWombatNaughtyWombat Member

    I don't believe I can get any flash now since more people are monitoring this thread.

  • darkimmortaldarkimmortal Member
    edited April 2025

    @labze said:

    @darkimmortal said: With fsync'd writes the performance is worse, around 1 IOPS!

    You're testing with a 3000M file, you aren't going to see more than one IOPS on any HDD unless it is a large RAID-10 array.

    100 MB/s is around the target we've set for the system.

    It does deliver the target then to be fair, 100MB/s read/write, ignoring latency weirdness and fsync speed. Maybe I'm spoilt by other providers!

    The expected result on a single HDD is around 20-40 IOPS in that test, it should be roughly half the worst-case IOPS minus a bit extra for the fact that it's 1MB blocks not 4k

  • wadhahwadhah Member, Host Rep

    @NaughtyWombat said:
    I don't believe I can get any flash now since more people are monitoring this thread.

    believe in yourself

    Thanked by 1maverick
  • NaughtyWombatNaughtyWombat Member

    @wadhah said:

    @NaughtyWombat said:
    I don't believe I can get any flash now since more people are monitoring this thread.

    believe in yourself

    have been refreshing for hours....

  • wadhahwadhah Member, Host Rep

    @NaughtyWombat said:

    @wadhah said:

    @NaughtyWombat said:
    I don't believe I can get any flash now since more people are monitoring this thread.

    believe in yourself

    have been refreshing for hours....

    Probably no more deals tonight as @labze is dealing with tickets and stuff, come back tomorrow refreshed and ready to click fast

    Thanked by 1maverick
  • NaughtyWombatNaughtyWombat Member

    @wadhah said:

    @NaughtyWombat said:

    @wadhah said:

    @NaughtyWombat said:
    I don't believe I can get any flash now since more people are monitoring this thread.

    believe in yourself

    have been refreshing for hours....

    Probably no more deals tonight as @labze is dealing with tickets and stuff, come back tomorrow refreshed and ready to click fast

    Which time zone is @labze in? I will synchronize with him; otherwise, it would be useless for me to keep refreshing.

  • labzelabze Member, Patron Provider

    @NaughtyWombat said:

    @wadhah said:

    @NaughtyWombat said:

    @wadhah said:

    @NaughtyWombat said:
    I don't believe I can get any flash now since more people are monitoring this thread.

    believe in yourself

    have been refreshing for hours....

    Probably no more deals tonight as @labze is dealing with tickets and stuff, come back tomorrow refreshed and ready to click fast

    Which time zone is @labze in? I will synchronize with him; otherwise, it would be useless for me to keep refreshing.

    CEST.

    But as mentioned, I will try and time deals at different times to accommodate different time zones.

    Thanked by 8NaughtyWombat barbaros Smigit wadhah JohnnySac sliix Decicus lukast__
  • defaultdefault Veteran

    Happy Anniversary!

  • NaughtyWombatNaughtyWombat Member

    @labze said:

    @NaughtyWombat said:

    @wadhah said:

    @NaughtyWombat said:

    @wadhah said:

    @NaughtyWombat said:
    I don't believe I can get any flash now since more people are monitoring this thread.

    believe in yourself

    have been refreshing for hours....

    Probably no more deals tonight as @labze is dealing with tickets and stuff, come back tomorrow refreshed and ready to click fast

    Which time zone is @labze in? I will synchronize with him; otherwise, it would be useless for me to keep refreshing.

    CEST.

    But as mentioned, I will try and time deals at different times to accommodate different time zones.

    Okay... thanks for the hard work, your service is good, so I want to get more.

  • emg88emg88 Member
    edited April 2025 
    Region: Europe  https://bench.monster v1.7.4 2023-12-15 
 Usage : curl -sL bench.monster | bash -s -- -Europe
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 OS           : Ubuntu 24.04.2 LTS (64 Bit)
 Virt/Kernel  : KVM / 6.8.0-58-generic
 CPU Model    : AMD EPYC 9655 96-Core Processor
 CPU Cores    : 1 @ 2600.002 MHz x86_64 1024 KB Cache
 CPU Flags    : AES-NI Enabled & VM-x/AMD-V Enabled
 Load Average : 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
 Total Space  : 39G (2.3G ~6% used)
 Total RAM    : 3867 MB (450 MB + 396 MB Buff in use)
 Total SWAP   : 0 MB (0 MB in use)
 IPv4/IPv6    : ✔ Online / ❌ Offline
 Uptime       : 0 days 0:55
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Location     : Germany, Berlin (State of Berlin)
 ASN & ISP    : AS214902, IP Interactive / rootbash.com - IT services
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 ## Geekbench v6 CPU Benchmark:

  Single Core : 2798  (MONSTER)
   Multi Core : 2787

 ## IO Test

 CPU Speed:
    bzip2     : 246 MB/s
   sha256     :   1.8 GB/s
   md5sum     : 856 MB/s

 RAM Speed:
   Avg. write : 8089.6 MB/s
   Avg. read  : 32597.3 MB/s

 Disk Speed:
   1st run    : 3.5 GB/s
   2nd run    : 3.4 GB/s
   3rd run    : 3.5 GB/s
   -----------------------
   Average    : 3549.9 MB/s

 ## Europe Speedtest.net

 Location                         Upload           Download         Ping   
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Nearby                           2363.32 Mbit/s   44.30 Mbit/s    * 1541.519 ms
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 UK, London (toob Ltd)            6.79 Mbit/s      534.34 Mbit/s   10.733 ms
 Netherlands, Amsterdam (XS News) 850.04 Mbit/s    3331.64 Mbit/s  7.078 ms
 Germany, Berlin (DNS:NET)        3.82 Mbit/s      555.50 Mbit/s   11.596 ms
 Sweden, Stockholm (SUNET)        10.73 Mbit/s     117.73 Mbit/s   21.761 ms
 Norway, Oslo (NextGenTel)        17.47 Mbit/s     417.03 Mbit/s   42.148 ms
 Spain, Madrid (MasMovil)         13.29 Mbit/s     405.21 Mbit/s   29.535 ms
 Austria, Vienna (A1)             2.61 Mbit/s      1150.48 Mbit/s  11.727 ms
 Poland, Warsaw (ISP Emitel)      378.11 Mbit/s    2231.03 Mbit/s  18.202 ms
 Ukraine, Kyiv (KyivStar)         2.61 Mbit/s      823.88 Mbit/s   33.631 ms
 Latvia, Riga (Bite)              613.49 Mbit/s    1709.36 Mbit/s  22.134 ms
 Romania, Bucharest (iNES)        709.02 Mbit/s    1608.98 Mbit/s  26.744 ms
 Greece, Athens (GRNET)           429.50 Mbit/s    1154.97 Mbit/s  43.211 ms
 Turkey, Urfa (Firatnet)          207.99 Mbit/s    118.90 Mbit/s   65.377 ms
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Timestamp   : 2025-04-18 23:13:32 GMT

 - https://www.speedtest.net/result/17631059331.png
 - https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/11581443
    Thanked by 1JohnnySac
  • alex_1069alex_1069 Member

    Miss again :'(

    Thanked by 1PineappleM
  • sliixsliix Member
    edited April 2025

    Good morning from Equinix JH1 timezone. Would love some more Frankfurt dealz.

  • NHNHNH000NHNHNH000 Member

    good morning
    fell asleep luckily the 7 bucks deal didn't happen o:)

    Thanked by 1beanman109
  • beanman109beanman109 Member, Host Rep, Megathread Squad

    @NHNHNH000 said:
    good morning
    fell asleep luckily the 7 bucks deal didn't happen o:)

    it's midday I'm protected now

    Thanked by 1NHNHNH000
  • AstroAstro Member

    IST folks :(

  • codelockcodelock Member

    Post a deal now 😁

    Thanked by 1PineappleM
  • PineappleMPineappleM Member

    @labze said:

    @foitin said:
    Missed as usual :|
    It's the only hybrid storage VPS flash sale?

    All deals are intended to be made available twice, spaced out, so in maybe 8-16 hours for next batch.

    • unpaid orders will be canceled and made available for new orders.

    Now it's 8 hours so flash deal anytime now...

  • beanman109beanman109 Member, Host Rep, Megathread Squad

    @MS said:

    @beanman109 said:

    @NHNHNH000 said:

    @beanman109 said:

    @NHNHNH000 said: it's possibel

    https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/23483140

    guess it took 1 hour

    Still a double-digit score. How about 1% CPU?

    Geekbench 5 Benchmark Test:
---------------------------------
Test            | Value
                |
Single Core     | 2
Multi Core      | 3
Full Test       | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/23483761

YABS completed in 520 min 37 sec
    Thanked by 12PineappleM anakara NHNHNH000 Blembim Protocol903 vastness4594 sh97 hyperblast _MS_ jnd BasToTheMax lukast__
  • PineappleMPineappleM Member

    @beanman109 said:

    @MS said:

    @beanman109 said:

    @NHNHNH000 said:

    @beanman109 said:

    @NHNHNH000 said: it's possibel

    https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/23483140

    guess it took 1 hour

    Still a double-digit score. How about 1% CPU?

    Geekbench 5 Benchmark Test:
---------------------------------
Test            | Value
                |
Single Core     | 2
Multi Core      | 3
Full Test       | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/23483761

YABS completed in 520 min 37 sec

    I can't decide if this is insane or sad.

    Thanked by 1beanman109
  • cybertechcybertech Member

    @beanman109 said:

    @MS said:

    @beanman109 said:

    @NHNHNH000 said:

    @beanman109 said:

    @NHNHNH000 said: it's possibel

    https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/23483140

    guess it took 1 hour

    Still a double-digit score. How about 1% CPU?

    Geekbench 5 Benchmark Test:
---------------------------------
Test            | Value
                |
Single Core     | 2
Multi Core      | 3
Full Test       | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/23483761

YABS completed in 520 min 37 sec

    geekbench is gonna be so pissed with all these outliers

    Thanked by 7beanman109 PineappleM Blembim JohnnySac vastness4594 Decicus lukast__
Sign In or Register to comment.