C2: Affordable X86-64 Servers • Hacker News Board

Re: C2: Affordable X86-64 Servers

#171

Post by mynameisvlad » Wed, Mar 09, 2016, 5:05 PM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #148

techdragon wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Charging for KVM access.... Sounds extremely unpleasant. Why would you want a provider like the that, who is going to kick you in the genitals when you're down?

Just to put it into perspective, both Azure and AWS don't allow KVM access at all, at any price, period. If your VM doesn't boot then only THEIR support can restore it (and both of their support is expensive).

Is it even possible to have a KVM for a VM? Don't you need it to be bare metal for that? In which case, it would make sense why neither AWS nor Azure offer it, since they don't offer bare metal hosting.

Re: C2: Affordable X86-64 Servers

#172

Post by tux3 » Wed, Mar 09, 2016, 5:08 PM UTC

tux3 wrote: post #59

networked wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please run nbench [1]. I ran it on the C1 in April 2015 and got the following results: CPU : 4 CPU L2 Cache : OS : Linux 3.2.34-29 C compiler : gcc version 4.8.2 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.8.2-19ubuntu1) libc : libc-2.19.so MEMORY INDEX : 5.859 INTEGER INDEX : 8.164 FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 5.770 For comparison, here are an Intel Atom N450, a Core 2 Duo L7500 and a Raspberry Pi 1 Model B: CPU : Dual GenuineIntel Intel(R) Atom(TM)…

Here are the results on a C2S: CPU : 4 CPU GenuineIntel Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU C2550 @ 2.40GHz 2394MHz L2 Cache : 1024 KB OS : Linux 4.4.4-std-3 C compiler : gcc version 4.8.4 (Ubuntu 4.8.4-2ubuntu1~14.04.1) libc : libc-2.19.so MEMORY INDEX : 22.134 INTEGER INDEX : 17.899 FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 21.522

And for comparison here's the VC1 (VPS):

  CPU                 : Dual GenuineIntel Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU  C2750  @ 2.40GHz 2394MHz
  L2 Cache            : 4096 KB
  OS                  : Linux 4.4.4-std-3
  C compiler          : gcc version 5.3.1 20160224 (Debian 5.3.1-10) 
  libc                : libc-2.21.so
  MEMORY INDEX        : 22.474
  INTEGER INDEX       : 17.149
  FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 22.035

The single core performance is pretty much the same as the C2S, but it has half as many cores and one fourth the memory.

Re: C2: Affordable X86-64 Servers

#173

Post by jamiesonbecker » Wed, Mar 09, 2016, 5:09 PM UTC

antouank wrote: post #170

jamiesonbecker wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is helpful but you're not mentioning what instance type at EC2.. t2 and t1 instances do heavy throttling after you use up your CPU credits[1] so it's likely that you were just using all or most of a full Xeon CPU. I got similar results on even a t2.nano.. until I used up the CPU credits. Then it slowed to a crawl! Also keep in mind that nbench only tests a single CPU[2]. Apples to apples would probably be a smal…

If nbench only uses 1 core, yes, my comparison is wrong. Is there a similar benchmarking linux tool that can use many cores? edit: instance is a t2.micro

I don't think the comparison is wrong per se; this actually makes it a bit easier, since you're just comparing one core to another.

The only thing that I think is problematic is comparing a t2 to anything else, since that CPU performance is not sustainable as it might be elsewhere. m3 and m4 (and other instance types @ aws) are not explicitly throttled. (Source: AWS Solutions Architect)

We're running a portion of our workload at Userify[1] on AWS, but not the biggest portion, but this is actually for bandwidth cost reasons, not CPU (even though our workload is almost entirely CPU and bandwidth -- almost zero disk; our infrastructure at AWS would cost 8x more!)

1. https://userify.com (SSH key management)

Re: C2: Affordable X86-64 Servers

#174

Post by wyldfire » Wed, Mar 09, 2016, 5:23 PM UTC

gravypod wrote: post #159

Using this for a remote backup server would be cool. Start the server, copy over backup, take their "storage snapshot", and turn off the server. Lets do some napkin math: (In USD) - $0.01/hr USD - 10hr of backups each day (Heavy Usage) - 10 cents/day, $3/month, $36/year You can also take snapshots. So that's extra cool. Edit: Calculations for 150GB storage instances: - €0.01/hr (@ 150GB of storage) - 20hr of backups…

I don't think that's right if there's really a fixed cost per each snapshot. The website says this in the pricing FAQ:

> Each snapshot is billed €0.50 per creation and €0.002 per 50GB/h up to 500 continuous hours.

Why is the snapshot billed per-rate instead of per-time or per-capacity?

Re: C2: Affordable X86-64 Servers

#175

Post by gravypod » Wed, Mar 09, 2016, 5:26 PM UTC

wyldfire wrote: post #174

gravypod wrote: post #159

Using this for a remote backup server would be cool. Start the server, copy over backup, take their "storage snapshot", and turn off the server. Lets do some napkin math: (In USD) - $0.01/hr USD - 10hr of backups each day (Heavy Usage) - 10 cents/day, $3/month, $36/year You can also take snapshots. So that's extra cool. Edit: Calculations for 150GB storage instances: - €0.01/hr (@ 150GB of storage) - 20hr of backups…

I don't think that's right if there's really a fixed cost per each snapshot. The website says this in the pricing FAQ: > Each snapshot is billed €0.50 per creation and €0.002 per 50GB/h up to 500 continuous hours. Why is the snapshot billed per-rate instead of per-time or per-capacity?

I think there is a cost for the initial provisioning, not for loading the snapshot each time. I might be wrong though.

Re: C2: Affordable X86-64 Servers

#176

Post by vmp » Wed, Mar 09, 2016, 5:26 PM UTC

tiernano wrote: post #15

tluyben2 wrote: post #6

Invite only.... So you cannot even get them. What's the use of this announcement?

I'm an existing customer of the original c1, I just spun up a box now... Might be invite to new customers only...

I had my account disabled a few months ago and support wouldn't re-enable it, told me to wait in line. :(

Re: C2: Affordable X86-64 Servers

#177

Post by 7b64f0f2 » Wed, Mar 09, 2016, 5:30 PM UTC

lazyjones wrote: post #11

Avotons are very slow, an 8C SoC will typically be slower than an 8 year old 2C desktop CPU (I ran Go builds as a benchmark on my own 2.4 GHz C2750 vs. a 2008 iMac with 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo). As for Scaleway, some people seem to like it very much, but I found their policy about spamming their users problematic. They (online.net) mock you at registration with a sleazy checked and disabled box for receiving spam ("produc…

Not based on SuperMicro MicroBlades, home R&D design : https://twitter.com/scaleway/status/707617919434412034

Re: C2: Affordable X86-64 Servers

#178

Post by stcredzero » Wed, Mar 09, 2016, 5:31 PM UTC

Right now I'm developing on Amazon EC2, because of the low ping times and because I have a range of options in terms of being hosted around the world to minimize low ping times for potential customers. I would like to know what options would I have at scaleway.com, but I can't find that information easily.

All I found was: How are my servers positioned in terms of network proximity and resiliency? -- The ability to group your servers to create placement preferences is already integrated in the core of our system. We will expose it to you in the coming months.

Re: C2: Affordable X86-64 Servers

#179

Post by Someone1234 » Wed, Mar 09, 2016, 5:38 PM UTC

mynameisvlad wrote: post #171

Someone1234 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to put it into perspective, both Azure and AWS don't allow KVM access at all, at any price, period. If your VM doesn't boot then only THEIR support can restore it (and both of their support is expensive).

Is it even possible to have a KVM for a VM? Don't you need it to be bare metal for that? In which case, it would make sense why neither AWS nor Azure offer it, since they don't offer bare metal hosting.

> Is it even possible to have a KVM for a VM?

Yes? It isn't called a KVM, but most hypervisors have a management tool which allows you to act as if you're sitting in front of a physical machine. This is how most allow you to install operating systems (aside from images).

> Don't you need it to be bare metal for that? In which case, it would make sense why neither AWS nor Azure offer it, since they don't offer bare metal hosting.

It is more a logistical problem. The hypervisor viewer isn't security aware yet, so in order to provide "KVM"-like access to a single VPS they'd need to alter how the viewer and interface works.

Re: C2: Affordable X86-64 Servers

#180

Post by SwellJoe » Wed, Mar 09, 2016, 5:42 PM UTC

mynameisvlad wrote: post #171

Someone1234 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to put it into perspective, both Azure and AWS don't allow KVM access at all, at any price, period. If your VM doesn't boot then only THEIR support can restore it (and both of their support is expensive).

Is it even possible to have a KVM for a VM? Don't you need it to be bare metal for that? In which case, it would make sense why neither AWS nor Azure offer it, since they don't offer bare metal hosting.

You can attach to a KVM or Xen instance with vnc, generally speaking, which allows access to the BIOS, grub, and other stages of the boot. It's generally how I would troubleshoot a non-booting VM.