Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

VPS Benchmarking – Cloudfanatic, DigitalOcean, Linode, Vultr

blog.aawadia.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 63 posts

Re: VPS Benchmarking – Cloudfanatic, DigitalOcean, Linode, Vultr

#51

Post by berkle4455 »

mrelectric wrote: post #40
berkle4455 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why in the world do you think “big tech” would single out one shitty German hosting company not even covered by the post in question, and I can't just be one pissed off ex-customer warning others to stay far away? Hetzner is pretty terrible.

What exactly happened? I m curious because I and my customers have been using it for years now without a hitch

I should do a write-up but basically it was a combination of running tailscale (which sends a packet to an unroutable UDP destination nonstop [1]) and my game taking off at the same time. It triggered their false-positive-laden DDOS protection. I responded to the email straight away explaining it was fully under my control and not being attacked. I filled out their attestation form of the same, which is supposed to grant you 24 hrs before they block all traffic. I had responded within a couple hours.

They blackholed my server right when things were starting to hockey stick and took until the following day to unlock it. I lost a ton of users to a full outage while I had an unplanned migration to AWS.

When they finally unlocked my server their tech responded to my ticket begging them to unlock my server with an extremely condescending “It’s unlocked but I’m certain you’re not in control of this server”

Anyway, never again. I’ll pay a premium for stability and intelligent support staff and systems that don’t automatically blackhole your server.

[1] https://github.com/tailscale/tailscale/blob/94304819263b0553...

Re: VPS Benchmarking – Cloudfanatic, DigitalOcean, Linode, Vultr

#52

Post by qeternity »

distortionfield wrote: post #49
qeternity wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Hetzner will sell you a 1c / 2gb instance for $5/mo and you can do an incredible amount with that. 99% of people’s side projects can run on that. Hell, plenty of startups could run on that.

YMMV, but this doesn’t pass the smell test for me. modest sized projects will freeze a $5 droplet during an install and build for me. I’ve tried across multiple providers. DigitalOcean, Linode, and Vultr. Tried all of them, and a $5 droplet can’t handle anything but a static site IMO. I don’t disagree a startup can go far on a small droplet but inflation has made $5 droplets too slow to be useful IME.

What do you mean? There are no specifics here.

Re: VPS Benchmarking – Cloudfanatic, DigitalOcean, Linode, Vultr

#53

Post by axelthegerman »

distortionfield wrote: post #49
qeternity wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Hetzner will sell you a 1c / 2gb instance for $5/mo and you can do an incredible amount with that. 99% of people’s side projects can run on that. Hell, plenty of startups could run on that.

YMMV, but this doesn’t pass the smell test for me. modest sized projects will freeze a $5 droplet during an install and build for me. I’ve tried across multiple providers. DigitalOcean, Linode, and Vultr. Tried all of them, and a $5 droplet can’t handle anything but a static site IMO. I don’t disagree a startup can go far on a small droplet but inflation has made $5 droplets too slow to be useful IME.

You should give hetzner a try. Definitely much better value (on paper at least) and so far been working flawlessly for me.

Would appreciate some more voices on noisy neighbors at hetzner though as that's always the bigger problem of VPS than the promises they make

Re: VPS Benchmarking – Cloudfanatic, DigitalOcean, Linode, Vultr

#54

Post by pleoxy »

pleoxy wrote: post #43
this_was_posted wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this anecdotal or based on widespread publicly available evidence? Not meant as an accusation, but it’s the first time I’m hearing this and it’s slightly alarming

Can confirm hearing similar reports various places. OCI has a similar rep. Really rough when you get rug pulled by your provider.

Why down vote? I've had instances yanked. It sucks. No fraud, willing to pay, not abusing services.

I've read about lots of other users who have as well. Can't exactly poll their users.

Other providers have been fine for me.

Re: VPS Benchmarking – Cloudfanatic, DigitalOcean, Linode, Vultr

#55

Post by dijksterhuis »

SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #18
dijksterhuis wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nit pick: Spaces is not an AWS S3 equivalent -- compatibility matrix vs. S3: https://docs.digitalocean.com/reference/api/spaces-api/#aws-...

I think it’s fair to not call it equivalent because of that, but it’s also fair to acknowledge what is unsupported is pretty power user level stuff for the most part. I used spaces in s3 compatibility for a few use cases and never ran into the problem that what I was trying to do was unsupported. Granted I was not trying to do fancy things, but still. Some examples of things that I used the S3 compat for that worked…

Yep, for basic object storage via boto3 etc. it mostly works fine. hence why I called it a nit pick.

There are additional interop things like Apache Spark Spaces that don't work like Spark AWS S3 (endpoint URL config issue which I lost the will to sort out as it was quicker to just use AWS S3 :shrug:).

Re: VPS Benchmarking – Cloudfanatic, DigitalOcean, Linode, Vultr

#56

Post by dijksterhuis »

blowski wrote: post #17
dijksterhuis wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nit pick: Spaces is not an AWS S3 equivalent -- compatibility matrix vs. S3: https://docs.digitalocean.com/reference/api/spaces-api/#aws-...

It doesn’t have full feature parity, but as the post you shared says, they “aim for full interoperability with S3”. If you have an S3 client doing basic object storage stuff, it will work fine with Spaces.

Eh, not Apache Spark Spaces. Doesn't work out the box unlike Spark AWS S3.

See other child comment above. Faster to use AWS S3 instead of trying to fix it (IIRC can't set the endpoint url or something, which is required for Spaces). :shrug:

Re: VPS Benchmarking – Cloudfanatic, DigitalOcean, Linode, Vultr

#57

Post by blowski »

dijksterhuis wrote: post #56
blowski wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t have full feature parity, but as the post you shared says, they “aim for full interoperability with S3”. If you have an S3 client doing basic object storage stuff, it will work fine with Spaces.

Eh, not Apache Spark Spaces. Doesn't work out the box unlike Spark AWS S3. See other child comment above. Faster to use AWS S3 instead of trying to fix it (IIRC can't set the endpoint url or something, which is required for Spaces). :shrug:

I appreciate I'm making a "No True Scotsman" point, but Spark isn't really "a typical S3 client doing basic object storage stuff". I'm thinking of your standard web app persisting uploads and static files.

Re: VPS Benchmarking – Cloudfanatic, DigitalOcean, Linode, Vultr

#58

Post by Macha »

capableweb wrote: post #33
Macha wrote: post #29

> Linode had the slowest cpus at just under 2Ghz Uhh, a statement like this somewhat hurts the ability to trust the other claims of the benchmark. Sure, Linode has the lowest clock speed, but you're comparing Epyc Milan which is almost a decade newer than the Sandy-Bridge EP of Cloudfanatic for example. Unsurprisingly, this is even reflected in the one cpu benchmark run, geekbench, which Linode comes first in.

> Uhh, a statement like this somewhat hurts the ability to trust the other claims of the benchmark. Why? > Sure, Linode has the lowest clock speed, but you're comparing Epyc Milan which is almost a decade newer than the Sandy-Bridge EP of Cloudfanatic for example. Sure, but also take into consideration that the Linode instance costs $48/month while the Cloudfanatic one costs $18/month. Both of them have the same amou…

> Why?

To add on to what denotational wrote, an assertive and wrong statement on the cpu performance also implies they didn't research too in depth before running the benchmark, so it casts doubt on if they controlled for other factors in their test too. Like for the disk test, did they take care to ensure all the VPSes are running the same filesystem? Do any of the providers make you choose between directly attached storage and network block storage? etc.

Re: VPS Benchmarking – Cloudfanatic, DigitalOcean, Linode, Vultr

#59

Post by aaomidi »

berkle4455 wrote: post #51
mrelectric wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly happened? I m curious because I and my customers have been using it for years now without a hitch

I should do a write-up but basically it was a combination of running tailscale (which sends a packet to an unroutable UDP destination nonstop [1]) and my game taking off at the same time. It triggered their false-positive-laden DDOS protection. I responded to the email straight away explaining it was fully under my control and not being attacked. I filled out their attestation form of the same, which is supposed to g…

I’ve also had hetzner take down my serger for 1.5 months.

Not a good company if you’re relying on it for anything important

Re: VPS Benchmarking – Cloudfanatic, DigitalOcean, Linode, Vultr

#60

Post by kazanz »

threeseed wrote: post #24
kazanz wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s actually the opposite. AWS will run on top of other hosting providers for some services and regions. That’s why you’re paying so much for AWS.

No. You're paying so much because (a) they make a lot of money ($20bn yearly profit) and (b) they have an extremely large headcount which are building the large number of services they provide. Never heard of them running on other providers though. Surely that would a problem for all of the compliance e.g. HIPAA, FIPS ?

Both A and B are true. But that doesn't preclude them from still charging a heavy premium over other providers in the market. Which is exactly what is happening, the raw COGS of operating a provider are dramatically lower than the prices they charge.
Post reply on HN