ServerBear Performance Comparison of Rackspace, Digital Ocean, Linode and Vultr
-
We need some latency numbers from around the world. Anyone want to collect some for us?
Here is the first IP address. A long running ping (hundreds or thousands of pings) would be good, we need the final stats from that:
- 104.236.119.59
- 108.61.151.173
- 172.99.75.133
We have a good idea on bandwidth, IO, CPU and memory. Network latency is pretty huge.
-
-
@scottalanmiller said:
We need some latency numbers from around the world. Anyone want to collect some for us?
Here is the first IP address. A long running ping (hundreds or thousands of pings) would be good, we need the final stats from that:
- 104.236.119.59
- 108.61.151.173
- 172.99.75.133
We have a good idea on bandwidth, IO, CPU and memory. Network latency is pretty huge.
pings running from CentOS 7 VM doing nothing else in a colo in St Louis. remind me later to kill it and get stats.
-
Thanks.
-
Still waiting on RS.
-
Rackspace info is up.
-
@scottalanmiller Is lower better?
-
It is odd to see that DO has the lowest IO rate, but the
overallsecond highest score.Edit: Fixed typo.
-
@dafyre said:
It is odd to see that DO has the lowest IO rate, but the overall highest score.
IOPS it makes sense. Yes, write is slower, but read is crazy fast. Or do I have the read/write reversed? I'm used to seeing things listing read first
-
Vultr with that NJ location. Hi handsome.
-
-
@travisdh1 said:
@dafyre said:
It is odd to see that DO has the lowest IO rate, but the overall highest score.
IOPS it makes sense. Yes, write is slower, but read is crazy fast. Or do I have the read/write reversed? I'm used to seeing things listing read first
I wrote the header backwards.
-
-
@IRJ said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
@scottalanmiller Is lower better?
Lower what exactly?
bench
Higher is better. I think that IOPS are a small amount, if any, of that score. It's about computational performance.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
We need some latency numbers from around the world. Anyone want to collect some for us?
Here is the first IP address. A long running ping (hundreds or thousands of pings) would be good, we need the final stats from that:
- 104.236.119.59
- 108.61.151.173
- 172.99.75.133
We have a good idea on bandwidth, IO, CPU and memory. Network latency is pretty huge.
104.236.119.59 = 8 MS Average 1,000 pings
108.61.151.173 = 7 MS Average 1,000 pings
Mangolassi.it (162.242.243.171) = 14 MS average 500 pings -
Whoops, sorry. We just killed the RS node because it is expensive
You can test that RS ping against mangolassi.it instead. Same location, same node type. Sorry.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Whoops, sorry. We just killed the RS node because it is expensive
You can test that RS ping against mangolassi.it instead. Same location, same node type. Sorry.
With the RS nodes being so expensive... why would you not stand them up on DO or Vultr?
Edit: I mean for production and not tests like this.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Whoops, sorry. We just killed the RS node because it is expensive
You can test that RS ping against mangolassi.it instead. Same location, same node type. Sorry.
Running now. Will update my above post.
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Whoops, sorry. We just killed the RS node because it is expensive
You can test that RS ping against mangolassi.it instead. Same location, same node type. Sorry.
With the RS nodes being so expensive... why would you not stand them up on DO or Vultr?
Edit: I mean for production and not tests like this.
Well DO and Vultr were not well known or well tested at the time that most of the RS nodes were created. And RS still offers a lot of features that those do not, like load balancers. But these days, the advantages to RS are fewer and fewer.
-
@wirestyle22 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Whoops, sorry. We just killed the RS node because it is expensive
You can test that RS ping against mangolassi.it instead. Same location, same node type. Sorry.
Running now
Thanks
