GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers
-
@scottalanmiller said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
Basically, this is how we can get performance numbers. Nothing from the vendors themselves is useful. And collecting on production boxes isn't useful. With any shared system, we can only hope for decently clean numbers and then extrapolate over provisioning.
Most VMs are actually doing something, like running a webserver.
Would it be better to actually monitor things like response time, over time to actually get some metric that has some use in real life?
Aren't there any services that can do this, similar to Alexa for uptime for instance?
-
@pete-s said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
BTW, the CPU in your Vultr test is Intel Xeon W-2175 CPU @ 2.50GHz, from Intel's workstation CPUs.
How did you find this? I can't see where it is referenced.
-
@pete-s said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
@scottalanmiller said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
Basically, this is how we can get performance numbers. Nothing from the vendors themselves is useful. And collecting on production boxes isn't useful. With any shared system, we can only hope for decently clean numbers and then extrapolate over provisioning.
Most VMs are actually doing something, like running a webserver.
Would it be better to actually monitor things like response time, over time to actually get some metric that has some use in real life?
Aren't there any services that can do this, similar to Alexa for uptime for instance?
Depends, if you are looking for something standard, like a web server, AND you lock it down to make sure nothing else is using it, then yes, there are services that you can pay for that. But they will measure many things other than the cloud performance itself, so you will be measuring the whole situation and make it subjective, rather than objective.
For example, if I measure with a service that measures from Manhattan, a server in Manhattan will have a specific advantage over one in New Jersey. But my end users might be anywhere. If I measure from my house, that's useful for me, but not necessarily for my users. It can lead to bad results.
It's a useful measurement, and good services measure from all over the world. But they measure the resulting performance of your cloud, application, configuration, and all of the networking in between. Good for certain things, but not good for what we want to know here - which is which cloud provider gives us the best starting point to build upon.
-
@pete-s said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
.... except that Vultr uses workstation hardware, at least on one machine.
Intel classifies that model as Server...
https://ark.intel.com/products/130046/Intel-Xeon-W-2175-Processor-19_25M-Cache-2_50-GHz
-
I think the key behind Xeon W is that they are single socket Xeons, which actually is often better for cloud computing, as you get better cost and performance for the vast majority of cloud workloads. People looking for more capacity than a single large Xeon can provide are almost never going to cloud for that, as it is too costly. And NUMA is a killer for cloud workloads. So going with higher performance, single socket systems is very logical.
-
@scottalanmiller said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
@pete-s said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
.... except that Vultr uses workstation hardware, at least on one machine.
Intel classifies that model as Server...
https://ark.intel.com/products/130046/Intel-Xeon-W-2175-Processor-19_25M-Cache-2_50-GHz
No, it's W-series and W stands for Workstation:
New Intel Xeon W Processors Deliver Optimized Performance for Mainstream Workstation Professionals
The new Intel Xeon W processors are based on the Intel Xeon Scalable processor microarchitecture, but designed into a cost-optimized1 1-socket form factor specifically for professional workstations.It has the LGA2066 socket that it shares with Intel's high-end desktop CPUs but the Xeon W-series have ECC support. But who cares as long as it gets the job done for the right price. As you said it might be the best cost performance ratio for cloud deployment.
From your benchmarks you have a little more than 35% higher performance on Vultr. The other providers are still on the older E5-2600 generation of CPUs. When your instance shows up on a machine with the latest generation Xeon the performance will be the same. Then it will be a matter of uncontrollable parameters like how the provider allocate resources.
Unless one opts for dedicated instances. I know Vultr has them.
-
@pete-s said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
@scottalanmiller said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
@pete-s said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
.... except that Vultr uses workstation hardware, at least on one machine.
Intel classifies that model as Server...
https://ark.intel.com/products/130046/Intel-Xeon-W-2175-Processor-19_25M-Cache-2_50-GHz
No, it's W-series and W stands for Workstation:
New Intel Xeon W Processors Deliver Optimized Performance for Mainstream Workstation Professionals
It says that on the group page, but look at the specific page for that processor. Says server right on it, and on its parent page.
-
@pete-s said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
From your benchmarks you have a little more than 35% higher performance on Vultr. The other providers are still on the older E5-2600 generation of CPUs. When your instance shows up on a machine with the latest generation Xeon the performance will be the same. Then it will be a matter of uncontrollable parameters like how the provider allocate resources.
35% is a massive number in CPU Performance. That the others run older generations CPUs is a big deal, and something that Vultr advertises specifically. It's not random what you get, you always get Skylake on Vultr for that instance. You don't have to select it or get lucky. And most providers state that you won't get those versions without paying more.
-
@scottalanmiller said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
@pete-s said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
@scottalanmiller said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
@pete-s said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
.... except that Vultr uses workstation hardware, at least on one machine.
Intel classifies that model as Server...
https://ark.intel.com/products/130046/Intel-Xeon-W-2175-Processor-19_25M-Cache-2_50-GHz
No, it's W-series and W stands for Workstation:
New Intel Xeon W Processors Deliver Optimized Performance for Mainstream Workstation Professionals
It says that on the group page, but look at the specific page for that processor. Says server right on it, and on its parent page.
Yes, but that's the vertical segment. There's no segment for workstation, hence the reason it doesn't say workstation. Intel only have a few segments: desktop, embedded, mobile and server.
But have a look at Dell or HPE. You'll find it next to impossible to find a rackserver with a workstation CPU like W-2175. But you'll find it in plenty of workstations (Dell Precision, HP Z). That should tell you something.
PS. Pricing is not a lot different between the workstation and server CPUs.
Comparable to the 14 core W-2175 @ 2.5GHz is 14 core Intel Xeon Gold 6132 @ 2.6 GHz.
Rec. price: $1947 versus $2111. -
@pete-s said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
@scottalanmiller said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
@pete-s said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
@scottalanmiller said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
@pete-s said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
.... except that Vultr uses workstation hardware, at least on one machine.
Intel classifies that model as Server...
https://ark.intel.com/products/130046/Intel-Xeon-W-2175-Processor-19_25M-Cache-2_50-GHz
No, it's W-series and W stands for Workstation:
New Intel Xeon W Processors Deliver Optimized Performance for Mainstream Workstation Professionals
It says that on the group page, but look at the specific page for that processor. Says server right on it, and on its parent page.
Yes, but that's the vertical segment. There's no segment for workstation, hence the reason it doesn't say workstation. Intel only have a few segments: desktop, embedded, mobile and server.
But have a look at Dell or HPE. You'll find it next to impossible to find a rackserver with a workstation CPU like W-2175. But you'll find it in plenty of workstations (Dell Precision, HP Z). That should tell you something.
PS. Pricing is not a lot different between the workstation and server CPUs.
Comparable to the 14 core W-2175 @ 2.5GHz is 14 core Intel Xeon Gold 6132 @ 2.6 GHz.
Rec. price: $1947 versus $2111.But Dell and HPE don't focus on single CPU servers, which has long been something that they lacked. Their models are long build around the higher cost dual CPU configurations. Which would explain that more than anything.
-
@scottalanmiller said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
@pete-s said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
@scottalanmiller said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
@pete-s said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
@scottalanmiller said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
@pete-s said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
.... except that Vultr uses workstation hardware, at least on one machine.
Intel classifies that model as Server...
https://ark.intel.com/products/130046/Intel-Xeon-W-2175-Processor-19_25M-Cache-2_50-GHz
No, it's W-series and W stands for Workstation:
New Intel Xeon W Processors Deliver Optimized Performance for Mainstream Workstation Professionals
It says that on the group page, but look at the specific page for that processor. Says server right on it, and on its parent page.
Yes, but that's the vertical segment. There's no segment for workstation, hence the reason it doesn't say workstation. Intel only have a few segments: desktop, embedded, mobile and server.
But have a look at Dell or HPE. You'll find it next to impossible to find a rackserver with a workstation CPU like W-2175. But you'll find it in plenty of workstations (Dell Precision, HP Z). That should tell you something.
PS. Pricing is not a lot different between the workstation and server CPUs.
Comparable to the 14 core W-2175 @ 2.5GHz is 14 core Intel Xeon Gold 6132 @ 2.6 GHz.
Rec. price: $1947 versus $2111.But Dell and HPE don't focus on single CPU servers, which has long been something that they lacked. Their models are long build around the higher cost dual CPU configurations. Which would explain that more than anything.
When Intel's single socket workstation CPU is the same price as one multi-socket server CPU, why should they bother? They have single socket AMD Epyc servers which makes sense when it comes to price and performance.
-
@pete-s said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
@scottalanmiller said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
@pete-s said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
@scottalanmiller said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
@pete-s said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
@scottalanmiller said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
@pete-s said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
.... except that Vultr uses workstation hardware, at least on one machine.
Intel classifies that model as Server...
https://ark.intel.com/products/130046/Intel-Xeon-W-2175-Processor-19_25M-Cache-2_50-GHz
No, it's W-series and W stands for Workstation:
New Intel Xeon W Processors Deliver Optimized Performance for Mainstream Workstation Professionals
It says that on the group page, but look at the specific page for that processor. Says server right on it, and on its parent page.
Yes, but that's the vertical segment. There's no segment for workstation, hence the reason it doesn't say workstation. Intel only have a few segments: desktop, embedded, mobile and server.
But have a look at Dell or HPE. You'll find it next to impossible to find a rackserver with a workstation CPU like W-2175. But you'll find it in plenty of workstations (Dell Precision, HP Z). That should tell you something.
PS. Pricing is not a lot different between the workstation and server CPUs.
Comparable to the 14 core W-2175 @ 2.5GHz is 14 core Intel Xeon Gold 6132 @ 2.6 GHz.
Rec. price: $1947 versus $2111.But Dell and HPE don't focus on single CPU servers, which has long been something that they lacked. Their models are long build around the higher cost dual CPU configurations. Which would explain that more than anything.
When Intel's single socket workstation CPU is the same price as one multi-socket server CPU, why should they bother? They have single socket AMD Epyc servers which makes sense when it comes to price and performance.
Performance perhaps. It's tuned differently. And $200 isn't the same, that's a bit of money in a cloud decision matrix.
-
AMD Epyc is more recent. I'd like to see more of that, too. But you can't just move from Intel to AMD in a single environment. Very few providers have moved to Epyc because one reason or another, mostly from established norms, I would imagine.
-
I was planning to get an AMD Epyc server for testing but as you mentioned you can't do live migration between Intel and AMD hosts. So I figured I need at least two nodes, preferably more. With enough memory and storage it adds up so from a budget perspective it didn't make sense. In the end I got a couple of refurbished servers instead with Intel CPUs.
-
@pete-s said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
I was planning to get an AMD Epyc server for testing but as you mentioned you can't do live migration between Intel and AMD hosts. So I figured I need at least two nodes, preferably more. With enough memory and storage it adds up so from a budget perspective it didn't make sense. In the end I got a couple of refurbished servers instead with Intel CPUs.
I think that's why a lot of clouds haven't gone to it, yet. But I see new deployments trying it out.
-
@scottalanmiller said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
AMD Epyc is more recent. I'd like to see more of that, too. But you can't just move from Intel to AMD in a single environment. Very few providers have moved to Epyc because one reason or another, mostly from established norms, I would imagine.
Intel's partner eco-system is one of the best out there IMNSHO. We get great support from them with advanced warranty replacement for any product found to be defective.
When we ventured into AMD a while back to see what was up their eco-system was too fragmented with too much room for willy wagging between hardware vendors whose components were in the servers we were building.
Most, if not all, of Microsoft's A Series VMs back in the day were built on AMD Opteron. When running in-guest performance tests for CPU on the equivalent Intel and AMD instance (Core/vRAM) the Intel absolutely killed AMD for performance.
I'd like to see the same side-by-side comparisons of the current AMD EPYC and Intel Scalable. AMD most certainly has the PCIe Gen3 limitations somewhat mitigated by adding all of those lanes, but that becomes a somewhat moot point if the CPU is not as efficient as the equivalent Intel product.
-
@pete-s said in GeekBench Results for Cloud Servers:
disk
One cannot test for Disk numbers in any real way at least not reliably.
All of the hosting environments we set up have a set of storage QoS policies that are configured according to their customer facing plans. Azure does this and I'm sure that AWS and others also do the same.
EDIT: Better said: One cannot test for in-guest Disk numbers …
-
-
@emad-r not bad, a little better than average (median).
-
Topic like this should be pinned and done every year or so. No one keeps alot of track about this.
What else we can test efficiently...
RAM Speed ? but who cares about this.
How we can test VM Cloud Download/Upload
