ARMv7 dedicated servers for 3.40 per month • Hacker News Board

Re: ARMv7 dedicated servers for 3.40 per month

#51

Post by edouardb » Thu, Sep 03, 2015, 12:55 PM UTC

mrmondo wrote: post #44

JosephRedfern wrote: post #17

I've just signed up for one of these instances - here are some speed tests/stats/details, if anyone's interested: https://gist.github.com/JosephRedfern/57c81ac95bf4f1175e3e If you'd like anything in particular running, let me know and I shall oblige when I can!

Hi, can you please run the following two fio tests: #Random write fio --randrepeat=1 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --gtod_reduce=1 --name=test --filename=test --bs=4k --iodepth=128 --size=4G --readwrite=randwrite #Random Read fio --randrepeat=1 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --gtod_reduce=1 --name=test --filename=test --bs=4k --iodepth=128 --size=4G --readwrite=randread

  ~# fio --randrepeat=1 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --gtod_reduce=1 --name=test --filename=test --bs=4k --iodepth=16 --size=4G --readwrite=randread

  test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=17457: Thu Sep  3 12:39:10 2015
   read : io=0B, bw=115612KB/s, iops=28903, runt= 36279msec
   cpu          : usr=17.12%, sys=67.12%, ctx=35506, majf=0, minf=39
   IO depths    : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=100.0%, 32=0.0%, >=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=0.1%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
      issued    : total=r=1048576/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0

  Run status group 0 (all jobs):
    READ: io=4096.0MB, aggrb=115612KB/s, minb=115612KB/s, maxb=115612KB/s, mint=36279msec, maxt=36279msec

  Disk stats (read/write):
   nbd0: ios=55484/53, merge=0/587, ticks=134950/1020, in_queue=135900, util=24.02%

  ~# fio --randrepeat=1 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --gtod_reduce=1 --name=test --filename=test --bs=4k --iodepth=16  --size=4G --readwrite=randwrite

  test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=17460: Thu Sep  3 12:43:54 2015
   write: io=0B, bw=15741KB/s, iops=3935, runt=266460msec
   cpu          : usr=3.97%, sys=25.75%, ctx=544104, majf=0, minf=23
   IO depths    : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=100.0%, 32=0.0%, >=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=0.1%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
      issued    : total=r=0/w=1048576/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0

  Run status group 0 (all jobs):
   WRITE: io=4096.0MB, aggrb=15740KB/s, minb=15740KB/s, maxb=15740KB/s, mint=266460msec, maxt=266460msec

  Disk stats (read/write):
   nbd0: ios=0/1053524, merge=0/106948, ticks=0/4282740, in_queue=4281210, util=100.00%

  ~# fio --randrepeat=1 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --gtod_reduce=1 --name=test --filename=test --bs=4k --iodepth=128 --size=4G --readwrite=randwrite

  test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=17463: Thu Sep  3 12:48:26 2015
   write: io=0B, bw=16400KB/s, iops=4100, runt=255749msec
   cpu          : usr=4.20%, sys=22.28%, ctx=576266, majf=0, minf=23
   IO depths    : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=0.1%, >=64=100.0%
      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=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.1%
      issued    : total=r=0/w=1048576/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0

  Run status group 0 (all jobs):
   WRITE: io=4096.0MB, aggrb=16400KB/s, minb=16400KB/s, maxb=16400KB/s, mint=255749msec, maxt=255749msec

  Disk stats (read/write):
   nbd0: ios=0/1047606, merge=0/56, ticks=0/32543280, in_queue=32545150, util=100.00%

  ~# fio --randrepeat=1 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --gtod_reduce=1 --name=test --filename=test --bs=4k --iodepth=128 --size=4G --readwrite=randread

  test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=9439: Thu Sep  3 12:48:32 2015
   read : io=0B, bw=28594KB/s, iops=7148, runt=146685msec
   cpu          : usr=8.60%, sys=31.77%, ctx=591701, majf=0, minf=138
   IO depths    : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=0.1%, >=64=100.0%
      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=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.1%
      issued    : total=r=1048576/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
      latency   : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=128

  Run status group 0 (all jobs):
    READ: io=4096.0MB, aggrb=28593KB/s, minb=28593KB/s, maxb=28593KB/s, mint=146685msec, maxt=146685msec

  Disk stats (read/write):
   nbd0: ios=1047291/4, merge=0/1, ticks=18660030/50, in_queue=18659150, util=100.00%

Re: ARMv7 dedicated servers for 3.40 per month

#52

Post by mrb » Thu, Sep 03, 2015, 1:07 PM UTC

edouardb wrote: post #51

mrmondo wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, can you please run the following two fio tests: #Random write fio --randrepeat=1 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --gtod_reduce=1 --name=test --filename=test --bs=4k --iodepth=128 --size=4G --readwrite=randwrite #Random Read fio --randrepeat=1 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --gtod_reduce=1 --name=test --filename=test --bs=4k --iodepth=128 --size=4G --readwrite=randread

~# fio --randrepeat=1 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --gtod_reduce=1 --name=test --filename=test --bs=4k --iodepth=16 --size=4G --readwrite=randread test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=17457: Thu Sep 3 12:39:10 2015 read : io=0B, bw=115612KB/s, iops=28903, runt= 36279msec cpu : usr=17.12%, sys=67.12%, ctx=35506, majf=0, minf=39 IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=100.0%, 32=0.0%, >=64=0.0% submit : 0=0.0%…

Officially they provide 2000 read/write IOPS for a volume composed of one chunk (50GB) [1]. You measured 4000 r/w IOPS, so does this mean you ran it on a 100GB volume? If yes, then that's pretty amazing you get exactly the expected allocated IOPS performance for a $3.40/mo server.

[1] https://www.scaleway.com/faq/server/

Re: ARMv7 dedicated servers for 3.40 per month

#53

Post by cyberpanther » Thu, Sep 03, 2015, 1:09 PM UTC

US data center please and i'm all in.

Re: ARMv7 dedicated servers for 3.40 per month

#54

Post by elnappo » Thu, Sep 03, 2015, 1:14 PM UTC

No IPv6? This is a no-go for servers... Add it and i'm all in. ;)

Re: ARMv7 dedicated servers for 3.40 per month

#55

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 03, 2015, 1:18 PM UTC

zero_iq wrote: post #28

An interesting clause in the terms and conditions: * Users recognise that piracy harms artistic creation.

[deleted]

Re: ARMv7 dedicated servers for 3.40 per month

#56

Post by wilhil » Thu, Sep 03, 2015, 1:18 PM UTC

FYI - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFhgSKNJP2s&feature=youtu.be

For my own projects, I wish I could buy this hardware!

Re: ARMv7 dedicated servers for 3.40 per month

#57

Post by hackerboos » Thu, Sep 03, 2015, 1:21 PM UTC

Benchmark for those interested

http://serverbear.com/benchmark/2015/09/03/zCU7qHQu5fCH2q2d

Re: ARMv7 dedicated servers for 3.40 per month

#58

Post by mahouse » Thu, Sep 03, 2015, 1:23 PM UTC

zero_iq wrote: post #28

An interesting clause in the terms and conditions: * Users recognise that piracy harms artistic creation.

I recognise that piracy harms artistic creation, but I don't care. So can I sign up? ;P

Re: ARMv7 dedicated servers for 3.40 per month

#59

Post by miyuru » Thu, Sep 03, 2015, 1:26 PM UTC

their imagelab is pretty cool. finally a place to host my ghost blog cheaply.

https://www.scaleway.com/imagehub/

Re: ARMv7 dedicated servers for 3.40 per month

#60

Post by aroch » Thu, Sep 03, 2015, 1:27 PM UTC

mikmak wrote: post #33

aroch wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlikely...If there are 912 blades per server it would require 20Gbps of dedicated capacity per server. Having played around with Scaleway servers, they have at least a two cabinets of these servers (10-20 servers). Online.net's total network capacity is in the realm of 1Tbps. They would have to dedicated anywhere from 20-40% of their network capacity if they were to guarantee 200mbit

of course we don't deploy a network accounting for every machine at 200mb/s flat 24/24, this would just be throwing money away. The reality is that most users won't be using these 200mb/s constantly, every customer have different traffic pattern usages. We (online.net) have a long history in dedicated servers (yes we have a >1tb/s global network footprint), we known how to scale the network the proper way. It is care…

Do you mean the 1Gbps port for the enclosure (i.e. the server hosting the 912 blades)? If so, unless you're providing many 1Gbps links you're not anywhere close to providing good quality networking for these