Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 148
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    NL
    Posts
    594
    This is in our cloud, so it isn't very fair (because storage is on a SAN):

    [root@testserver ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=16k count=16k conv=fdatasync
    16384+0 records in
    16384+0 records out
    268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 2.36134 seconds, 114 MB/s (limited to 1gbit line because it is a single thread)

    Still, on an empty node you should easily get > 20mb/s.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,321
    What does that command do?
    dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=16k count=16k conv=fdatasync

    Can it be run on live server? Will it wipe out any data?

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    NL
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by chasebug View Post
    What does that command do?
    dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=16k count=16k conv=fdatasync

    Can it be run on live server? Will it wipe out any data?
    It only writes a file test, you can use it on a production server

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    163
    vpslatch (managed24 server)

    dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync
    16384+0 records in
    16384+0 records out
    1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 26.8052 seconds, 40.1 MB/s

    ===================

    Directspace $2 server:

    [root@harber ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync
    16384+0 records in
    16384+0 records out
    1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 20.5059 seconds, 52.4 MB/s

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ~/
    Posts
    1,382

    My Results

    For the sake of comparison:

    PHOTON VPS:

    Code:
    [root@master ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=4k conv=fdatasync
    4096+0 records in
    4096+0 records out
    268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 13.1446 seconds, 20.4 MB/s
    Racksrv.com VPS

    Code:
    root@server [~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=4k conv=fdatasync
    4096+0 records in
    4096+0 records out
    268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 0.774849 seconds, 346 MB/s
    2host.com VPS (actualy supprised it even ran lol)

    Code:
    [root@shout2 ~]#dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=4k conv=fdatasync
    4096+0 records in
    4096+0 records out
    268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 1.82974 seconds, 147 MB/s
    My own VPS (XEN) on a crappy desktop system that is totaly overloaded without any raid and I am shocked it even still runs

    Code:
    [root@backup ~]#dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=4k conv=fdatasync
    4096+0 records in
    4096+0 records out
    268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 4.51338 seconds, 59.5 MB/s
    So rackserv win hands down, I ran each test 5 times and took a result that sat in the middle on all of them

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    1,686
    We have a few nodes undergoing RAID rebuilds, if you can PM your IP I can verify with what's going on with your VPS.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ~/
    Posts
    1,382
    PM sent, let me know when the rebuilds are done (If my node is one of them) and I will run it again.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Charlotte,NC
    Posts
    138
    One thing I would caution people on are using raw shorterm numbers like these to judge overall performance. Would you have 20MB/s of extremely stable storage on an HA array off the box, or 400MB/s on a Raid0 array? I always recommend people I consult with to take a overall view of performance and availability, and try not to get caught up in benchmarks.
    And to be perfectly honest, real world disk usage doesn't come close to saturating interface like dd is capably of. So I would also recommend understanding what TYPE of storage a host is using, versus what raw scores you can come up with.

    Case in point, it would take 2 and maybe 3 1G fiber drops to hit the half the 346MB/s, but you could fairly easily hit that number with 4-6 consumer grade sata disks in a single server config. But would you rather have a HA fiber storage cluster that can do 80MB/s and support multiple full server failures, and more bandwidth versus pure speed, or 400MB/s that goes completely down when a single server fails. It's a balancing act, and I think it's our job as providers to better educate consumers, if we want to see the industry grow in the right direction.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ~/
    Posts
    1,382
    Its a fair point you make Linology, I dont know what they all use hardware wise, although from the 2 host website my VPS that got 147MB/s is using SATA II drives in raid 10.

    Is there a query I can run from the VPS that would give me a hint or would that need to be ran on the node itself?

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ~/
    Posts
    1,382
    Quote Originally Posted by PhotonVPS-Jim View Post
    We have a few nodes undergoing RAID rebuilds, if you can PM your IP I can verify with what's going on with your VPS.
    Have you finished the raid rebuild yet?

    Code:
    [root@master ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=4k conv=fdatasync && rm test
    4096+0 records in
    4096+0 records out
    268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 17.9879 seconds, 14.9 MB/s

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ~/
    Posts
    1,382
    oh i forgot to add my $1.05 openvz vps from hostrail

    Code:
    [root@storage3 ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=4k conv=fdatasync
    4096+0 records in
    4096+0 records out
    268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 7.17027 seconds, 37.4 MB/s
    [root@storage3 ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=4k conv=fdatasync
    4096+0 records in
    4096+0 records out
    268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 6.85732 seconds, 39.1 MB/s
    [root@storage3 ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=4k conv=fdatasync
    4096+0 records in
    4096+0 records out
    268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 6.93566 seconds, 38.7 MB/s

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    NL
    Posts
    594
    Many people seem to only check the throughput, but random reads/writes are more important. For example the following VMs both do ~100MB/s, but there is a huge difference in performance:

    Xenserver vm:
    Results: 172 seeks/second, 13.79 ms random access time

    Cloud:
    Results: 1954 seeks/second, 0.51 ms random access time

    The last one is on a VM on our new cloud platform. Seeks can be tested using:

    http://www.linuxinsight.com/how_fast_is_your_disk.html

    Commands:
    wget http://www.linuxinsight.com/files/seeker
    chmod +x seeker
    ./seeker /dev/sda (change this to your disk)

    Another test i can recommend is bonnie++. But please stop focussing on these maximum throughput stats

  13. #63
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,042
    Quote Originally Posted by Rens View Post
    Many people seem to only check the throughput, but random reads/writes are more important. For example the following VMs both do ~100MB/s, but there is a huge difference in performance:

    Xenserver vm:
    Results: 172 seeks/second, 13.79 ms random access time

    Cloud:
    Results: 1954 seeks/second, 0.51 ms random access time

    The last one is on a VM on our new cloud platform. Seeks can be tested using:

    http://www.linuxinsight.com/how_fast_is_your_disk.html

    Commands:
    wget http://www.linuxinsight.com/files/seeker
    chmod +x seeker
    ./seeker /dev/sda (change this to your disk)

    Another test i can recommend is bonnie++. But please stop focussing on these maximum throughput stats


    ./seeker /dev/sda1
    Seeker v2.0, 2007-01-15, http://www.linuxinsight.com/how_fast_is_your_disk.html
    Benchmarking /dev/sda1 [15360MB], wait 30 seconds..............................
    Results: 133 seeks/second, 7.50 ms random access time

    yardvps

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ~/
    Posts
    1,382
    Quote Originally Posted by Rens View Post
    Many people seem to only check the throughput, but random reads/writes are more important. For example the following VMs both do ~100MB/s, but there is a huge difference in performance:

    Xenserver vm:
    Results: 172 seeks/second, 13.79 ms random access time

    Cloud:
    Results: 1954 seeks/second, 0.51 ms random access time

    The last one is on a VM on our new cloud platform. Seeks can be tested using:

    http://www.linuxinsight.com/how_fast_is_your_disk.html

    Commands:
    wget http://www.linuxinsight.com/files/seeker
    chmod +x seeker
    ./seeker /dev/sda (change this to your disk)

    Another test i can recommend is bonnie++. But please stop focussing on these maximum throughput stats
    I think thats a fair point you make hoever it is still a good indication.

    I have re ran a few using bonnie++ for consistancy as seeker does not work on openvz.

    2host.com VPS (XEN):
    Code:
    Version  1.96       ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
    Concurrency   1     -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
    Machine        Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP  /sec %CP
    blahblahblah 1G   320  97 109246  26 34810   2   796  96 131428   5 646.2   0
    Latency             34052us     360ms     164ms   18492us   28017us    1719ms
    Version  1.96       ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
    blahblahblah.com -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
                  files  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP
                     16  7513  14 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++
    Latency             10920us     870us   25300us     597us     363us     677us
    Hostrail $1.05 VPS (openvz)

    Code:
    Version  1.96       ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
    Concurrency   1     -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
    Machine        Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP  /sec %CP
    storage3.incepti 1G    43  10 17053   4 40982   7    96  10 175315  10  1137   7
    Latency              1469ms    5782ms     145ms     237ms     145ms    6648us
    Version  1.96       ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
    blahblah.blahblah -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
                  files  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP
                     16  2201   3 +++++ +++  6776   8  9548  12 +++++ +++  1157   1
    Latency               145ms     657us     172ms     144ms     144ms     305ms
    PhotonVPS (openVZ)


    Code:
    Version  1.96       ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
    Concurrency   1     -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
    Machine        Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP  /sec %CP
    blahbl.ahbalh. 2G   484  97 18222   4  4413   0   333  22  9231   0 154.0   1
    Latency             34280us    3735ms   20117ms     503ms   13816ms    3721ms
    Version  1.96       ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
    blahbl.blahbl.com -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
                  files  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP
                     16   513   1 +++++ +++   428   0  2008   3 +++++ +++   390   0
    Latency              1026ms    1473us     330ms    1147ms      77us     120us

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ~/
    Posts
    1,382
    not sure thats the best test as the result output is hard to read but if you look closley you can see that they do ok in some areas and not soo good in others.

    Only tested a few VPS's above but assuming I am reading that right then the little $1.05 VPS from host rail actualy seems to do better than the PhotonVPS in most areas and the 2host wins overall (shocked)

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    1,686
    Quote Originally Posted by backtogeek View Post
    not sure thats the best test as the result output is hard to read but if you look closley you can see that they do ok in some areas and not soo good in others.

    Only tested a few VPS's above but assuming I am reading that right then the little $1.05 VPS from host rail actualy seems to do better than the PhotonVPS in most areas and the 2host wins overall (shocked)
    I did some checking and it appears you're on our older legacy systems with 10K RPM disks in RAID1. The writes on these servers are slower, however the reads will be outperforming. If you wish to move to a RAID10 node, please open a ticket to do so.

    One the second note your comparing OpenVZ and Xen and these results will vary. To be fair you should be comparing similar virtualization platforms from different providers.

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,785
    dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=4k conv=fdatasync
    How long does this take to run? I tried it twice and it appeared to just hang. I waited about a minute. No results or prompt afterward. Can a host block this command?

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    1,800
    The time it takes depends on how fast your server can write the file, which this command is meant to test - sequential throughput. Most likely, your disks are extremely slow and it is still writing the file and not timing out.

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,785
    My VPS is with KnownHost so I don't think there would be a disk issue. My VPS is running fine. I'm just doing this for haha's. What happens when it's done writing the file? Does a command prompt display, or something else? Thanks.

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    1,800
    Look at the original post.

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,785
    Well it worked immediately this time so I don't know. Maybe I did something wrong. Anyway how is this speed? Thanks.

    root@host [~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64 count=4k conv=fdatasync
    4096+0 records in
    4096+0 records out
    262144 bytes (262 kB) copied, 0.00844 seconds, 31.1 MB/s

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    1,800
    I think you're missing a "k" in bs:

    dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=4k conv=fdatasync

    This outputs a 268mb file which might be a better indicator, rather than writing 262kb.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,785
    LOL. Thanks. I'm such a noob. This is better.

    root@host [~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=4k conv=fdatasync
    4096+0 records in
    4096+0 records out
    268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 1.53869 seconds, 174 MB/s

    How do I delete the file?
    Last edited by TheJoker; 12-16-2010 at 10:05 PM.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    1,800
    rm -f test

    Nice result!

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    771
    Well, an update on my VRTServer cloud. I had low expectations due to all their poor reviews, but not this bad. I was kind of hoping it would be half decent though, ah well.

    It's gone from ~10MB/s, which was already awful, to:


    [root@s2 ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=16k count=16k conv=fdatasync
    16384+0 records in
    16384+0 records out
    268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 176.499 seconds, 1.5 MB/s


    [root@s2 ~]# ./seeker /dev/sda
    Seeker v2.0, 2007-01-15, http://www.linuxinsight.com/how_fast_is_your_disk.html
    Benchmarking /dev/sda [51200MB], wait 30 seconds.............................
    Results: 322 seeks/second, 3.10 ms random access time

    Asked them to look into it, never heard back. It's cancelled now.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Tool for stress test , check disk i/o and health of drives in array
    By turbovps in forum Colocation, Data Centers, IP Space and Networks
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-17-2010, 03:47 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-22-2010, 12:06 PM
  3. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-12-2010, 02:23 PM
  4. 1 Test VPS Only! Windows 2003 VPS - 512MB RAM / 50GB / 100GB Bandwidth
    By A Grateful Dad in forum VPS Hosting Offers
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-22-2009, 09:48 PM
  5. Hard disk test 'surprises' Google.
    By encoderX in forum Computers and Peripherals
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-21-2007, 03:06 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •