Results 1 to 23 of 23
  1. #1

    VPS Disk I/O test

    Hello I have a hybrid vps in futurehosting, and decided to test it first one being the disk. What do you think of this results? thanks

    root@xxx [~]# 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, 36.0586 s, 29.8 MB/s

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Preston, England
    Posts
    159
    It's average, not amazing really.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by 198HOST View Post
    It's average, not amazing really.
    no, it is consider low IO instead.

    Just for comparison purpose, i grab a lowest spec vps from our vps range.

    [root@test]# 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, 8.21552 s, 131 MB/s

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,110
    Thats a very poor result, especially for a hybrid.

    One of our Xen vps:

    [root@test ~]# 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, 3.17292 s, 338 MB/s

  5. #5
    29.8 is not too bad.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    291
    That's not really good to be honest, not even reasonable.

    The point of hybrid is that you get more power / IO and less people on the node to abuse it, unless their is someone totally using disk at full throttle you should not be getting such speeds unless I'm missing something.

    But then again it is just numbers, unless you actually need to write 25mb/s+ every second then it shouldn't be an issue in reality.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Edinburgh/London
    Posts
    5,789
    Quote Originally Posted by thebarras View Post
    Hello I have a hybrid vps in futurehosting, and decided to test it first one being the disk. What do you think of this results? thanks

    root@xxx [~]# 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, 36.0586 s, 29.8 MB/s
    It means nothing. It has no bearing on real world performance so I don't know why people still insist on 'measuring' by it.

    If your site/scripts/programs are running as they should, what does it matter?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Preston, England
    Posts
    159
    Having said that you need to actually do it a few times because it's not 100% accurate, for instance;

    root@pine [~]# 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, 10.2123 s, 105 MB/s
    root@pine [~]# 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, 9.70176 s, 111 MB/s
    root@pine [~]# 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, 8.13292 s, 132 MB/s

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Martin-D View Post
    It means nothing. It has no bearing on real world performance so I don't know why people still insist on 'measuring' by it.

    If your site/scripts/programs are running as they should, what does it matter?
    I agree with you unless you are experiencing performance problems testing I/O is not necessary. I think that people get to involved in disk performance that they let it over shadow other important factors.

  10. #10
    Say to you that I am in Spain but vps are in UK.

    I have other vps with a spanish company ( 2GB ram) and have better result such as:

    xx@xxxx [~]# 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, 7,94856 seconds, 135 MB/s

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ashburn VA, San Diego CA
    Posts
    4,615
    Sequential test like this means almost nothing, especially with network based storage. What matters is IOPs. For example, a cheap SATA disk can do 180MB/sec but a measly 80 IOPs. Test your IOPs if you want a better indication of performance.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    586
    I get about 1GB/sec transfer rate on RAMNode SSD servers. Does anybody know how to check the IOPS?

    How is everyone copying their results? I use BitVise SSH client, I cannot copy anything I do in terminal, only paste commands.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Appdeveloper View Post
    I get about 1GB/sec transfer rate on RAMNode SSD servers. Does anybody know how to check the IOPS?

    How is everyone copying their results? I use BitVise SSH client, I cannot copy anything I do in terminal, only paste commands.
    Check out ioping for that. I have a script that will install it automatically for you if you want to PM me for it.

    I'm not familiar with all the SSH client options, but puTTY allows you to copy (and paste).

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    460
    future hosting hybrid
    root@test [~]# 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, 5.41795 s, 198 MB/s


    Jaguar VPS
    [root@test ~]# 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, 12.1865 seconds, 88.1 MB/s

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Edinburgh/London
    Posts
    5,789
    Just to add to the pot here, it also depends on the parameters.

    Code:
    dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync
    
    dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=512k count=1k conv=fdatasync
    
    dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=1M count=1k conv=fdatasync
    You'll get different results every time. It depends on a lot of factors such as the configuration of the RAID array (if any) that you're 'testing'.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    /root
    Posts
    23,991
    Quote Originally Posted by thebarras View Post
    Hello I have a hybrid vps in futurehosting, and decided to test it first one being the disk. What do you think of this results? thanks

    root@xxx [~]# 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, 36.0586 s, 29.8 MB/s

    This is just a basic test.

    You should use other software to test it properly and make sure you are not running anything yet in your vps.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Tulsa, OK, USA
    Posts
    376
    Quote Originally Posted by thebarras View Post
    Hello I have a hybrid vps in futurehosting, and decided to test it first one being the disk. What do you think of this results? thanks

    root@xxx [~]# 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, 36.0586 s, 29.8 MB/s
    the results of "ioping -D -s 1M -i 0 -w 2s $HOME" may be more interesting, as random seek performance and latency guarantees are actually more important than linear throughput.

    filesystems are not normally contiguous chunks of data, so seek performance and host scheduler latencies are far more important metrics than contiguous read/write performance.

    also conv=fdatasync is unfairly biased towards containers, because it induces a flush of the filesystem metadata journal to disk, which containers do not have their own physical filesystem. conv=fdatasync may also show problems on servers where there is no problem, if the server has recently written data to disk.

    as a result, conv=fsync may yield better results depending on how much data is in the filesystem journal.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    localhost
    Posts
    1,495
    Quote Originally Posted by FastServ View Post
    Sequential test like this means almost nothing, especially with network based storage. What matters is IOPs. For example, a cheap SATA disk can do 180MB/sec but a measly 80 IOPs. Test your IOPs if you want a better indication of performance.



    <10 char>

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Tulsa, OK, USA
    Posts
    376
    other thoughts:

    if you're going to do this silly test, you should do so in a way which avoids inducing iosched dequeues, which means using writes the length of the drive's LBA size.

    so, you probably want:

    dd if=/dev/zero bs=4096 count=256k of=1gb.bin conv=fdatasync

    also as a correction to my previous post, fdatasync just flushes the data part of the journal, fsync includes metadata (and always induces a dequeue).

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    235
    Mine is much slower, I guess then..

    dd if=/dev/zero bs=4096 count=256k of=1gb.bin conv=fdatasync
    262144+0 records in
    262144+0 records out
    1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 52.044 s, 20.6 MB/s

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    58
    running
    dd if=/dev/zero bs=4096 count=256k of=1gb.bin conv=fdatasync

    OpenITC KVM (UK) (their low-end-box)
    262144+0 records in
    262144+0 records out
    1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 39.8 s, 27.0 MB/s

    Gridlane KVM (SE)
    262144+0 records in
    262144+0 records out
    1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 14.8657 s, 72.2 MB/s

    Inception XEN (UK)
    262144+0 records in
    262144+0 records out
    1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 5.13088 s, 209 MB/s

    Must say that my Inception VPS has very good IO, boots in like 5 nano seconds.
    The OpenITC box is great value for money
    Using Gridlane for production because of their location (Stockholm) and reliability

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Prague, Czech Rep.
    Posts
    17
    # dd if=/dev/zero bs=4096 count=256k of=1gb.bin conv=fdatasync
    262144+0 records in
    262144+0 records out
    1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 12.2085 s, 88.0 MB/s

    my personal VPS from vpsfree.cz (Prague)

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,944
    dd testing is a joke. We have some older SSD drives that sometimes only put out about 70MB/s as opposed to our SATAIII drives that put out 120MB/s in dd but when your utilizing real world performance, that same SSD can handle about 50x the load of the SATA since it puts out about 10000 IOPS as opposed to 200.

Similar Threads

  1. VPS Disk I/O test
    By andr3w4u in forum VPS Hosting
    Replies: 147
    Last Post: 10-11-2013, 01:51 AM
  2. iobench: Test your *real* VPS disk I/O
    By devonblzx in forum VPS Hosting
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 11-12-2012, 12:35 PM
  3. Test Hard disk Speed
    By Cbchung in forum Hosting Security and Technology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-19-2012, 11:38 AM
  4. DD disk test 19 MB/s acceptable?
    By chasebug in forum VPS Hosting
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 08-22-2011, 02:52 AM
  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
  •