Benchmarking AWS, DigitalOcean, Linode, Packet, and Vultr
goldfirestudios.com
Benchmarking AWS, DigitalOcean, Linode, Packet, and Vultr
1–10 of 17 posts
Re: Benchmarking AWS, DigitalOcean, Linode, Packet, and Vultr
#2I did a similar set of benchmarks, except with a bit more of a focus on storage performance, several years ago. Even included the results in a presentation at LISA. The most striking thing at the time was not so much the averages but the variability. IIRC Amazon was particularly bad in that regard, and Vultr particularly good (so kudos to them), but Digital Ocean's advantage in raw performance was so big that it still won out. Looks like not much has changed.
Re: Benchmarking AWS, DigitalOcean, Linode, Packet, and Vultr
#3> The virtualized nature of cloud hosting makes benchmarking over a period of time vital to getting the full picture.
It's so nice to see a benchmark of VPSs that takes this into account.
Re: Benchmarking AWS, DigitalOcean, Linode, Packet, and Vultr
#4> The virtualized nature of cloud hosting makes benchmarking over a period of time vital to getting the full picture. It's so nice to see a benchmark of VPSs that takes this into account.
Seems kind of pointless if there's going to be a single data point from all providers. That doesn't account for noisy neighbours and other issues.
Re: Benchmarking AWS, DigitalOcean, Linode, Packet, and Vultr
#5This is great to see. I love DigitalOcean and they've really stepped up their game wrt. product offerings.
But I was surprised at how DO beat AWS EC2 in most but not all of the tests. Their performance is impressive considering that they're not on the same scale as AWS, Azure or GCP
Re: Benchmarking AWS, DigitalOcean, Linode, Packet, and Vultr
#6I think the AWS failures on iops tests should've been examined more prior to publication, or at least explained more to the reader.
AWS General Purpose EBS volumes scale based on volume size, so a purely naively-done test with a default AMI's performance could be as low as 24 iops (8GB*3 IOPS per GB) once exhausting it's burst iops quota. I think it's unfair to compare apples to oranges here, as you can make these volumes scale to absurd numbers, if you have the cash.
Re: Benchmarking AWS, DigitalOcean, Linode, Packet, and Vultr
#7I love DO, but man in practice the CPU performance of their machines have been horrible in my experience. Like 2-3x worse than the same $ spend on ec2.
Re: Benchmarking AWS, DigitalOcean, Linode, Packet, and Vultr
#8This is great to see. I love DigitalOcean and they've really stepped up their game wrt. product offerings. But I was surprised at how DO beat AWS EC2 in most but not all of the tests. Their performance is impressive considering that they're not on the same scale as AWS, Azure or GCP
EC2 (EBS in particular) has always had lackluster performance from my experience, compared to the alternatives. To be honest though, relative performance has never been a factor or even a consideration in most of the places I've worked at.
I'm not saying that to minimize the issue either, it's just that enterprise users/management simply don't care.
Re: Benchmarking AWS, DigitalOcean, Linode, Packet, and Vultr
#9Missing 2018 in the Title.
Re: Benchmarking AWS, DigitalOcean, Linode, Packet, and Vultr
#10I think the AWS failures on iops tests should've been examined more prior to publication, or at least explained more to the reader. AWS General Purpose EBS volumes scale based on volume size, so a purely naively-done test with a default AMI's performance could be as low as 24 iops (8GB*3 IOPS per GB) once exhausting it's burst iops quota. I think it's unfair to compare apples to oranges here, as you can make these vo…
Agree need to use 1TB EBS volume (the smallest volume that removes bursting limits) and an EBS optimized and enhanced networking instance to be accurate. I'll be the first to admit that AWS has a serious problem with overcomplicating things though. You really shouldn't have all these different options and gotchas.