96MB Low End VPS Review Part 53 – One Provider Cloud
If you have been reading my VPS reviews recently, you would realize that I was at least, for a while, looking for some relatively “high” end VPS packages (of course, using the LEB standard), particularly with large hard drive space and a reasonable amount of RAM. The reason for me to do this is pretty simple, I was looking to build a fail-safe private network of backups using Crashplan and headless VPS. As such, when OneProvider posted their offer on WHT, I decided to take the dive and take a look.
Basic Information and Set Up
One Provider is part of Brainstorm Network Inc., which seems to own a few brands, besides OneProvider, they are also the owners of BSNServers and HostHaha (which is one of those hosts providing “unlimited” shared hosting, which is one of the most debatable concept on WHT, however 96MB.com is not about shared hosting and I would personally leave this debate to the shared hosting reviewers, particularly considering that one of the early proponents of the “unlimited” concept, Hostgator, has obviously achieved some degree of success and was sold recently to Endurance International). As per their advertisements, here are the plans on the offer:
As you can see, the hard drive amount is rather large and even the smallest plan has ample amount of hard drive spaces.
Once clicked on the order link, you are being taken to their product details page, which has further information about the VPS they have on the offer. For the vCL-02 plan that I have chosen, the product details looks something like this:
I do not have an iOS phone nor Android phone for me to try out the mobile apps, however it seems that they are just using the mobile application for OnApp.
You can also order in 2 continents, although you could not choose specific countries and the only information I have got in from their reply to their advertisement on WHT, which indicated that in North America, the VPS is provisioned in Chicago by default with a few other alternatives that you can choose from:
The sign up system is using HTTPS protocol and seems to be a heavily customized WHMCS theme.
Although there seems to be quite a few selectable dropdowns, there are actually very few of them that has more than one option, the first one is the ability to choose OS:
As you can see, there are not many OS options available, however pretty much all the major distributions of Linux OS has been covered here.
The next option that you could choose is a control panel:
I am actually surprised that those control panels cost more than what you could probably get from the outside vendors.
IP addresses cost 1.50 per IP, which is probably around the average as well.
Provision of the VPS was instant and I have received the VPS the same moment I have received my Paypal receipt. The VPS welcome email is a pretty standard email from WHMCS:
As you can see, the URL to the control panel is not within the email but on the top of the email, which took me a few seconds to find. Also, the hostname is set to a default hostname but you can always change it in the control panel.
The control panel is a Virtualizor-based control panel on HTTP protocol, and once logged in, the server list is shown, followed by their support feed with the latest announcement:
There is also a dropdown menu on the top of the page to choose the country (or rather the location) if you have signed up multiple VPS with them.
Click on the All Services, you are being presented with the billing and service details of the VPS:
Looking down from the side menu, there is also server monitoring which I believe you could add checks to the server, this is one of the few times that I have seen a VPS provider who is actually integrating the server monitoring services with the main VPS control panel. Compare to VPS providers who only offer monitoring at the node level, I certainly prefer this approach more as I am sure we have encountered occasions where the node is online but for various reasons, the particular VPS, or some services on the VPS, are not:
And there is also an iOS management menu, which unfortunately as per One Provider, actually stopped at the development stage:
Their support system is using Kayako, however it is well-integrated into the control panel as well:
Quite frankly speaking I prefer Kayako a lot more than the support system from WHMCS, simply because it has many nice features such as the ability to open and reply tickets directly by sending emails, although in WHMCS (if the providers set it up properly) you should be able to reply tickets via email as well.
Click on the Manage button from the main menu and you are instantly presented with the management interface:
As you could see, most of the features you need to change in the VPS is literally a click away from here, which is similar to the old SolusVM user interface. Obviously functionality-wise the new SolusVM interface has a lot more features, but in terms of the presentation, I still prefer the old interface a lot more.
Although I did not find any place to set up rDNS and there is no instant backup as well, I have taken a few screenshots of some of the functionalities:
First one is the CPU utilization, which shows the amount of CPU being used:
Next, the bandwidth utilization:
And Performance is more like a menu with both CPU and RAM:
As you can see, one of the major issues here is that all these data are just a snapshot rather than the historical data, which makes the data a lot less useful than it should be. Furthermore, there is no graphical display of the data, which is something that I wish they could have.
There is also various one-click installers to install control panels, although I have not tried them out:
Finally, although there are a few more options compare to the initial sign-up form, the OS choices is still relatively few:
Fortunately it covered pretty much all the major Linux distributions although having only Ubuntu 10.04 and CentOS 5 is somewhat outdated. However, for me, I am happy as long as Debian 6 is around!
Test on the VPS
The test VPS is located in Chicago, IL, with 150GB of hard drive, two vCPU cores and 1GB of RAM. I have installed Debian 6 32 bit for testing purposes.
After a fresh OS reload, about 17MB of RAM was used:
free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 2048 17 2030 0 0 0
-/+ buffers/cache: 17 2030
Swap: 0 0 0
Top output showing the processes running:
top - 01:20:23 up 3 min, 1 user, load average: 0.01, 0.02, 0.00
Tasks: 14 total, 2 running, 12 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 0.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni,100.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
Mem: 2097152k total, 18276k used, 2078876k free, 0k buffers
Swap: 0k total, 0k used, 0k free, 0k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
1589 root 18 0 8540 3008 2460 R 0 0.1 0:00.03 sshd
1397 root 18 0 5136 2432 1188 S 0 0.1 0:00.00 apache2
1398 www-data 15 0 5276 2432 1128 S 0 0.1 0:00.00 apache2
1591 www-data 15 0 5268 2404 1116 S 0 0.1 0:00.00 apache2
1592 root 15 0 2956 1608 1284 S 0 0.1 0:00.00 bash
1550 root 18 0 9992 1572 544 S 0 0.1 0:00.00 sendmail-mta
1634 root 15 0 2324 1084 896 R 0 0.1 0:00.00 top
1569 root 18 0 5484 972 588 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 sshd
1580 root 25 0 2388 864 692 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 xinetd
1419 root 18 0 2284 856 676 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 cron
1371 root 18 0 8664 808 472 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 saslauthd
1 root 15 0 2024 728 632 S 0 0.0 0:00.12 init
1386 root 15 0 1732 632 528 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 syslogd
1372 root 18 0 8664 496 160 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 saslauthd
And htop output:
About 470MB of hard drive space was used:
df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/simfs 150G 472M 150G 1% / tmpfs 1.0G 0 1.0G 0% /lib/init/rw tmpfs 1.0G 0 1.0G 0% /dev/shm
However, note that the inodes set up is not exactly big, considering the size of the hard drive:
df -i Filesystem Inodes IUsed IFree IUse% Mounted on /dev/simfs 1500000 26267 1473733 2% / tmpfs 262144 4 262140 1% /lib/init/rw tmpfs 262144 1 262143 1% /dev/shm
When the full LNMP stack was installed, the RAM amount used went up to 63MB, note that the output is a little unsual in a sense that most of the OpenVZ VPS I have seen have a much smaller value for Buffer than Mem row. However in this case, both rows displayed exactly the same value.
free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 2048 63 1984 0 0 0
-/+ buffers/cache: 63 1984
Swap: 0 0 0
Top output showing the full stack running:
top - 08:41:24 up 3:24, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 Tasks: 21 total, 1 running, 20 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 0.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni,100.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 2097152k total, 65900k used, 2031252k free, 0k buffers Swap: 0k total, 0k used, 0k free, 0k cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 9671 www 18 0 14992 11m 772 S 0 0.5 0:00.00 nginx 9652 mysql 15 0 34240 4880 2232 S 0 0.2 0:00.00 mysqld 9662 root 18 0 22620 4544 1404 S 0 0.2 0:00.05 php-cgi 9663 www 22 0 22620 4144 1004 S 0 0.2 0:00.00 php-cgi 9664 www 22 0 22620 4144 1004 S 0 0.2 0:00.00 php-cgi 9665 www 22 0 22620 4144 1004 S 0 0.2 0:00.00 php-cgi 9666 www 22 0 22620 4144 1004 S 0 0.2 0:00.00 php-cgi 9667 www 22 0 22620 4144 1004 S 0 0.2 0:00.00 php-cgi 1589 root 15 0 8828 3164 2476 S 0 0.2 0:00.49 sshd 1592 root 15 0 2956 1644 1320 S 0 0.1 0:00.00 bash 1550 root 18 0 9992 1572 544 S 0 0.1 0:00.01 sendmail-mta 9549 root 18 0 2676 1220 1008 S 0 0.1 0:00.00 mysqld_safe 9998 root 15 0 2324 1088 896 R 0 0.1 0:00.00 top 1569 root 18 0 5484 972 588 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 sshd 1580 root 25 0 2388 864 692 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 xinetd 1419 root 18 0 2284 856 676 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 cron 1371 root 18 0 8664 808 472 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 saslauthd
And again, the htop output:
About 1.6GB of hard drive space was used:
df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/simfs 150G 1.6G 149G 2% / tmpfs 1.0G 0 1.0G 0% /lib/init/rw tmpfs 1.0G 0 1.0G 0% /dev/shm
And the inodes went up to 5%, which, considering only 1/75 of space is used, is not exactly generous:
df -i Filesystem Inodes IUsed IFree IUse% Mounted on /dev/simfs 1500000 69290 1430710 5% / tmpfs 262144 4 262140 1% /lib/init/rw tmpfs 262144 1 262143 1% /dev/shm
Uptime shows the VPS is up and running with little load:
uptime 10:38:39 up 39 days, 5:43, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Which is confirmed by the output of VMstats:
vmstat procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- ----cpu---- r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa 1 0 0 1985852 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 100 0
Beancounters shows nothing too interesting:
cat /proc/user_beancounters
Version: 2.5
uid resource held maxheld barrier limit failcnt
155: kmemsize 3600076 4719517 2147483647 2147483647 0
lockedpages 0 0 999999 999999 0
privvmpages 27754 31342 524288 524288 0
shmpages 642 1682 262144 262144 0
dummy 0 0 0 0 0
numproc 30 92 32567 32567 0
physpages 12173 12294 0 2147483647 0
vmguarpages 0 0 262144 262144 0
oomguarpages 12173 12294 262144 262144 0
numtcpsock 6 44 7999992 7999992 0
numflock 4 6 999999 999999 0
numpty 1 1 255 255 0
numsiginfo 0 3 1024 1024 0
tcpsndbuf 107352 770176 214748160 396774400 0
tcprcvbuf 98304 720896 214748160 396774400 0
othersockbuf 48888 71136 214748160 396774400 0
dgramrcvbuf 0 16944 214748160 396774400 0
numothersock 36 44 7999992 7999992 0
dcachesize 0 0 2147483647 2147483647 0
numfile 1066 2069 23999976 23999976 0
dummy 0 0 0 0 0
dummy 0 0 0 0 0
dummy 0 0 0 0 0
numiptent 24 24 999999 999999 0
CPUInfo shows there are two CPU cores available, however they are severely throttled to less than a half of their full clock speed:
cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 42 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E31270 @ 3.40GHz stepping : 7 cpu MHz : 1017.088 cache size : 8192 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 8 core id : 0 cpu cores : 4 apicid : 0 fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 13 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm syscall nx rdtscp lm constant_tsc ida nonstop_tsc arat pni monitor ds_cpl vmx smx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr sse4_1 sse4_2 popcnt lahf_lm bogomips : 6785.00 clflush size : 64 cache_alignment : 64 address sizes : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: [8] processor : 1 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 42 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E31270 @ 3.40GHz stepping : 7 cpu MHz : 1017.088 cache size : 8192 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 8 core id : 1 cpu cores : 4 apicid : 2 fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 13 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm syscall nx rdtscp lm constant_tsc ida nonstop_tsc arat pni monitor ds_cpl vmx smx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr sse4_1 sse4_2 popcnt lahf_lm bogomips : 6784.64 clflush size : 64 cache_alignment : 64 address sizes : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: [8]
Again, this is something that I fail to understand of many providers, what is the point of having multiple cores but each core is so badly limited that it could not even function as half a CPU core? I mean, what is the point, say, for me to sell a VPS that advertise as having 100 cores but each core has only 10MHz?
Meminfo is similar to the output of OpenVZ VPS:
cat /proc/meminfo MemTotal: 2097152 kB MemFree: 1985656 kB Buffers: 0 kB Cached: 0 kB SwapCached: 0 kB Active: 0 kB Inactive: 0 kB HighTotal: 0 kB HighFree: 0 kB LowTotal: 2097152 kB LowFree: 1985656 kB SwapTotal: 0 kB SwapFree: 0 kB Dirty: 780 kB Writeback: 0 kB AnonPages: 0 kB Mapped: 0 kB Slab: 0 kB PageTables: 0 kB NFS_Unstable: 0 kB Bounce: 0 kB CommitLimit: 0 kB Committed_AS: 0 kB VmallocTotal: 0 kB VmallocUsed: 0 kB VmallocChunk: 0 kB HugePages_Total: 0 HugePages_Free: 0 HugePages_Rsvd: 0 Hugepagesize: 2048 kB
And time sync as well:
time sync real 0m0.015s user 0m0.000s sys 0m0.001s
Disk I/O is pretty reasonable at more than 80MB/s:
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, 12.381 s, 86.7 MB/s
And test again showed slightly worse results, but still good enough for what I need:
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, 12.7178 s, 84.4 MB/s
IOPing results, on the other hand, is less than ideal as the output is not quite consistent:
ioping -c 10 . 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=1 time=0.1 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=2 time=0.2 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=3 time=0.1 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=4 time=17.0 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=5 time=16.9 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=6 time=0.1 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=7 time=0.1 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=8 time=12.7 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=9 time=0.2 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=10 time=0.1 ms --- . (simfs /dev/simfs) ioping statistics --- 10 requests completed in 9056.7 ms, 209 iops, 0.8 mb/s min/avg/max/mdev = 0.1/4.8/17.0/7.1 ms
Testing again gave similar values:
ioping -c 10 . 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=1 time=0.1 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=2 time=0.2 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=3 time=0.2 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=4 time=4.3 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=5 time=0.2 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=6 time=2.9 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=7 time=6.7 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=8 time=0.2 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=9 time=5.6 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=10 time=0.1 ms --- . (simfs /dev/simfs) ioping statistics --- 10 requests completed in 9029.5 ms, 486 iops, 1.9 mb/s min/avg/max/mdev = 0.1/2.1/6.7/2.5 ms
The network on the other hand is pretty solid, and I was able to get close to the line speed considering it is a 100mbit port:
wget cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test -O /dev/null --2012-07-10 10:44:52-- http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test Resolving cachefly.cachefly.net... 205.234.175.175 Connecting to cachefly.cachefly.net|205.234.175.175|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream] Saving to: `/dev/null' 100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 11.3M/s in 8.9s 2012-07-10 10:45:01 (11.3 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
Testing again showed similar results:
wget cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test -O /dev/null --2012-07-23 10:52:46-- http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test Resolving cachefly.cachefly.net... 205.234.175.175 Connecting to cachefly.cachefly.net|205.234.175.175|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream] Saving to: `/dev/null' 100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 11.4M/s in 8.9s 2012-07-23 10:52:55 (11.3 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
Encouraged by this results, I actually decided to push the limits a little and ran aget to download the 1GB files, and this box seems to hold reasnably well also:
First is the download test from HostDime in Florida, US:
aget http://72.29.70.131/1gbfile.tgz -n 10Attempting to read log file aget-1gbfile.tgz.log for resuming download job... Couldn't find log file for this download, starting a clean job... Head-Request Connection established Downloading /1gbfile.tgz (1023410176 bytes) from site 72.29.70.131(72.29.70.131:80). Number of Threads: 10 .. [4% completed] ..... [9% completed] ....... [14% completed] .......... [19% completed] ............ [24% completed] ............... [29% completed] ................. [34% completed] .................... [39% completed] ...................... [44% completed] ......................... [49% completed] ........................... [54% completed] .............................. [59% completed] ................................ [64% completed] ................................... [69% completed] ..................................... [74% completed] ........................................ [79% completed] .......................................... [84% completed] ............................................. [89% completed] ............................................... [94% completed] .................................................. [99% completed] .................................................. [100% completed] Download completed, job completed in 90 seconds. (11104 Kb/sec) Shutting down...
As you can see, even with the 1GB file, the downloading speed was close to line speed, showing that the speed is pretty consistent, which is always a good sign.
Testing again showed similar speed:
aget http://72.29.70.131/1gbfile.tgz -n 10Attempting to read log file aget-1gbfile.tgz.log for resuming download job... Couldn't find log file for this download, starting a clean job... Head-Request Connection established Downloading /1gbfile.tgz (1023410176 bytes) from site 72.29.70.131(72.29.70.131:80). Number of Threads: 10 .. [4% completed] ..... [9% completed] ....... [14% completed] .......... [19% completed] ............ [24% completed] ............... [29% completed] ................. [34% completed] .................... [39% completed] ...................... [44% completed] ......................... [49% completed] ........................... [54% completed] .............................. [59% completed] ................................ [64% completed] ................................... [69% completed] ..................................... [74% completed] ........................................ [79% completed] .......................................... [84% completed] ............................................. [89% completed] ............................................... [94% completed] .................................................. [99% completed] .................................................. [100% completed] Download completed, job completed in 89 seconds. (11229 Kb/sec) Shutting down...
Downloading the file from ThinkBroadBand from UK has been slightly worse, however considering the physical distance and the fact that ThinkBroadBand is almost always pretty slow, the speed is actually quite respectable.
aget http://ipv4.download.thinkbroadband.com/1GB.zip -n 10Attempting to read log file aget-1GB.zip.log for resuming download job... Couldn't find log file for this download, starting a clean job... Head-Request Connection established Downloading /1GB.zip (1073741824 bytes) from site ipv4.download.thinkbroadband.com(80.249.99.148:80). Number of Threads: 10 .. [4% completed] ..... [9% completed] ....... [14% completed] .......... [19% completed] ............ [24% completed] ............... [29% completed] ................. [34% completed] .................... [39% completed] ...................... [44% completed] ......................... [49% completed] ........................... [54% completed] .............................. [59% completed] ................................ [64% completed] ................................... [69% completed] ..................................... [74% completed] ........................................ [79% completed] .......................................... [84% completed] ............................................. [89% completed] ............................................... [94% completed] .................................................. [99% completed] .................................................. [100% completed] Download completed, job completed in 143 seconds. (7332 Kb/sec) Shutting down...
For the upload speed, the geographical proximity seems to be the biggest determinant here, first is from my Quickweb VPS in Chicago, IL, which is closest to the test VPS:
wget 23.19.xxx.xxx/100mb.test -O /dev/null --2012-07-23 23:53:19-- http://23.19.xxx.xxx/100mb.test Connecting to 23.19.xxx.xxx:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream] Saving to: `/dev/null' 100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 11.2M/s in 8.9s 2012-07-23 23:53:28 (11.2 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
As you can see, the upload speed is almost the same as the download speed from Cachefly, which is impressive.
Download speed to my Quickweb test VPS in Los Angeles, CA, is slightly worse as it is geographically further away from the test VPS:
wget 23.19.xxx.xxx/100mb.test -O /dev/null --2012-07-24 00:01:24-- http://23.19.xxx.xxx/100mb.test Connecting to 23.19.xxx.xxx:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream] Saving to: `/dev/null' 100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 8.80M/s in 10s 2012-07-24 00:01:34 (9.89 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
Finally, my XenVZ test VPS in Maidenhead, UK, shows the slowest speed as it is in Europe, however it is still pretty reasoanable:
wget 23.19.xxx.xxx/100mb.test -O /dev/null --2012-07-25 09:27:42-- http://23.19.xxx.xxx/100mb.test Connecting to 23.19.xxx.xxx:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream] Saving to: `/dev/null' 100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 6.52M/s in 16s 2012-07-25 09:27:58 (6.15 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
For the benchmark, due to the fact that the CPU resource is actually pretty limited, I was not expecting very impressive scores. As it turned out, the scores are actually a pretty good indication of the true amount of resources:
# # # # # # # ##### ###### # # #### # #
# # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # #
# # # # # # ## ##### ##### # # # # ######
# # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # #
# # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # #
#### # # # # # ##### ###### # # #### # #
Version 5.1.3 Based on the Byte Magazine Unix Benchmark
Multi-CPU version Version 5 revisions by Ian Smith,
Sunnyvale, CA, USA
January 13, 2011 johantheghost at yahoo period com
1 x Dhrystone 2 using register variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 x Double-Precision Whetstone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 x Execl Throughput 1 2 3
1 x File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 1 2 3
1 x File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1 2 3
1 x File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 1 2 3
1 x Pipe Throughput 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 x Pipe-based Context Switching 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 x Process Creation 1 2 3
1 x System Call Overhead 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 x Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 1 2 3
1 x Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1 2 3
2 x Dhrystone 2 using register variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 x Double-Precision Whetstone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 x Execl Throughput 1 2 3
2 x File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 1 2 3
2 x File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1 2 3
2 x File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 1 2 3
2 x Pipe Throughput 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 x Pipe-based Context Switching 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 x Process Creation 1 2 3
2 x System Call Overhead 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 x Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 1 2 3
2 x Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1 2 3
========================================================================
BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.3)
System: onecloud-vds-op: GNU/Linux
OS: GNU/Linux -- 2.6.32-308.el5.028stab099.3 -- #1 SMP Wed Mar 7 15:56:00 MSK 2012
Machine: i686 (unknown)
Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="ANSI_X3.4-1968", collate="ANSI_X3.4-1968")
CPU 0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E31270 @ 3.40GHz (6785.0 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
CPU 1: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E31270 @ 3.40GHz (6784.6 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
12:35:52 up 39 days, 7:40, 1 user, load average: 8.30, 5.89, 3.62; runlevel 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Run: Tue Jul 10 2012 12:35:52 - 13:05:20
2 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 13517686.1 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 3515.1 MWIPS (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 3919.6 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 443344.5 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 121204.4 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 1032174.0 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 771906.5 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 174121.7 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 11715.7 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 4388.2 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 594.8 lpm (60.1 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 579496.6 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 13517686.1 1158.3
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 3515.1 639.1
Execl Throughput 43.0 3919.6 911.5
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 443344.5 1119.6
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 121204.4 732.4
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 1032174.0 1779.6
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 771906.5 620.5
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 174121.7 435.3
Process Creation 126.0 11715.7 929.8
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 4388.2 1034.9
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 594.8 991.3
System Call Overhead 15000.0 579496.6 386.3
========
System Benchmarks Index Score 824.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Run: Tue Jul 10 2012 13:05:20 - 13:38:20
2 CPUs in system; running 2 parallel copies of tests
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 13534230.2 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 7026.1 MWIPS (10.1 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 3931.6 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 458535.9 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 122894.5 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 1039006.4 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 774938.0 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 248537.2 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 11896.1 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 4432.8 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 596.9 lpm (60.1 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 582764.6 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 13534230.2 1159.7
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 7026.1 1277.5
Execl Throughput 43.0 3931.6 914.3
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 458535.9 1157.9
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 122894.5 742.6
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 1039006.4 1791.4
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 774938.0 622.9
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 248537.2 621.3
Process Creation 126.0 11896.1 944.1
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 4432.8 1045.5
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 596.9 994.9
System Call Overhead 15000.0 582764.6 388.5
========
System Benchmarks Index Score 906.6
Testing again showed pretty similar results:
# # # # # # # ##### ###### # # #### # #
# # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # #
# # # # # # ## ##### ##### # # # # ######
# # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # #
# # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # #
#### # # # # # ##### ###### # # #### # #
Version 5.1.3 Based on the Byte Magazine Unix Benchmark
Multi-CPU version Version 5 revisions by Ian Smith,
Sunnyvale, CA, USA
January 13, 2011 johantheghost at yahoo period com
1 x Dhrystone 2 using register variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 x Double-Precision Whetstone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 x Execl Throughput 1 2 3
1 x File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 1 2 3
1 x File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1 2 3
1 x File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 1 2 3
1 x Pipe Throughput 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 x Pipe-based Context Switching 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 x Process Creation 1 2 3
1 x System Call Overhead 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 x Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 1 2 3
1 x Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1 2 3
2 x Dhrystone 2 using register variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 x Double-Precision Whetstone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 x Execl Throughput 1 2 3
2 x File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 1 2 3
2 x File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1 2 3
2 x File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 1 2 3
2 x Pipe Throughput 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 x Pipe-based Context Switching 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 x Process Creation 1 2 3
2 x System Call Overhead 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 x Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 1 2 3
2 x Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1 2 3
========================================================================
BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.3)
System: onecloud-vds-op: GNU/Linux
OS: GNU/Linux -- 2.6.32-308.el5.028stab099.3 -- #1 SMP Wed Mar 7 15:56:00 MSK 2012
Machine: i686 (unknown)
Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="ANSI_X3.4-1968", collate="ANSI_X3.4-1968")
CPU 0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E31270 @ 3.40GHz (6785.0 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
CPU 1: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E31270 @ 3.40GHz (6784.6 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
18:24:05 up 39 days, 13:28, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00; runlevel 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Run: Tue Jul 10 2012 18:24:05 - 18:53:34
2 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 13461680.9 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 3511.2 MWIPS (10.1 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 3927.4 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 456008.5 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 124189.5 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 1044989.5 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 770230.6 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 223799.3 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 11841.6 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 4383.1 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 592.2 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 579217.7 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 13461680.9 1153.5
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 3511.2 638.4
Execl Throughput 43.0 3927.4 913.3
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 456008.5 1151.5
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 124189.5 750.4
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 1044989.5 1801.7
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 770230.6 619.2
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 223799.3 559.5
Process Creation 126.0 11841.6 939.8
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 4383.1 1033.8
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 592.2 986.9
System Call Overhead 15000.0 579217.7 386.1
========
System Benchmarks Index Score 845.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Run: Tue Jul 10 2012 18:53:34 - 19:26:36
2 CPUs in system; running 2 parallel copies of tests
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 13393631.9 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 7022.6 MWIPS (10.1 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 3925.9 lps (29.9 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 452351.1 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 122396.9 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 1020142.1 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 772459.6 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 246095.5 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 11766.7 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 4391.9 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 592.2 lpm (60.1 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 576263.8 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 13393631.9 1147.7
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 7022.6 1276.8
Execl Throughput 43.0 3925.9 913.0
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 452351.1 1142.3
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 122396.9 739.6
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 1020142.1 1758.9
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 772459.6 620.9
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 246095.5 615.2
Process Creation 126.0 11766.7 933.9
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 4391.9 1035.8
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 592.2 987.0
System Call Overhead 15000.0 576263.8 384.2
========
System Benchmarks Index Score 899.0
Geekbench was actually in a sense “nicer” and gave a pretty decent benchmark score of close to 5000 points:
System Information
Platform: Linux x86 (32-bit)
Compiler: GCC 4.1.2 20070925 (Red Hat 4.1.2-33)
Operating System: Linux 2.6.32-308.el5.028stab099.3 i686
Model: Linux PC (Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E31270 @ 3.40GHz)
Motherboard: Unknown Motherboard
Processor: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E31270 @ 3.40GHz
Processor ID: GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 42 Stepping 7
Logical Processors: 2
Physical Processors: 1
Processor Frequency: 1.02 GHz
L1 Instruction Cache: 0.00 B
L1 Data Cache: 0.00 B
L2 Cache: 256 KB
L3 Cache: 0.00 B
Bus Frequency: 0.00 Hz
Memory: 11.7 GB
Memory Type: N/A
SIMD: 1
BIOS: N/A
Processor Model: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E31270 @ 3.40GHz
Processor Cores: 2
Integer
Blowfish
single-threaded scalar 2318 |||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 1639 ||||||
Text Compress
single-threaded scalar 1888 |||||||
multi-threaded scalar 1848 |||||||
Text Decompress
single-threaded scalar 2044 ||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 2134 ||||||||
Image Compress
single-threaded scalar 1865 |||||||
multi-threaded scalar 1751 |||||||
Image Decompress
single-threaded scalar 2529 ||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 1855 |||||||
Lua
single-threaded scalar 2673 ||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 2660 ||||||||||
Floating Point
Mandelbrot
single-threaded scalar 2048 ||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 1880 |||||||
Dot Product
single-threaded scalar 3246 ||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 3220 ||||||||||||
single-threaded vector 5862 |||||||||||||||||||||||
multi-threaded vector 5014 ||||||||||||||||||||
LU Decomposition
single-threaded scalar 3829 |||||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 3842 |||||||||||||||
Primality Test
single-threaded scalar 3195 ||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 2627 ||||||||||
Sharpen Image
single-threaded scalar 7457 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 7520 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blur Image
single-threaded scalar 5693 ||||||||||||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 5775 |||||||||||||||||||||||
Memory
Read Sequential
single-threaded scalar 7866 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Write Sequential
single-threaded scalar 11906 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stdlib Allocate
single-threaded scalar 5568 ||||||||||||||||||||||
Stdlib Write
single-threaded scalar 8308 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stdlib Copy
single-threaded scalar 16601 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stream
Stream Copy
single-threaded scalar 6455 |||||||||||||||||||||||||
single-threaded vector 7523 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stream Scale
single-threaded scalar 6736 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
single-threaded vector 7414 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stream Add
single-threaded scalar 6061 ||||||||||||||||||||||||
single-threaded vector 6633 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stream Triad
single-threaded scalar 6406 |||||||||||||||||||||||||
single-threaded vector 4875 |||||||||||||||||||
Integer Score: 2100 ||||||||
Floating Point Score: 4372 |||||||||||||||||
Memory Score: 10049 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stream Score: 6512 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Overall Geekbench Score: 4926 |||||||||||||||||||
Testing again showed slightly worse score but is nonetheless pretty decent:
System Information
Platform: Linux x86 (32-bit)
Compiler: GCC 4.1.2 20070925 (Red Hat 4.1.2-33)
Operating System: Linux 2.6.32-308.el5.028stab099.3 i686
Model: Linux PC (Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E31270 @ 3.40GHz)
Motherboard: Unknown Motherboard
Processor: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E31270 @ 3.40GHz
Processor ID: GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 42 Stepping 7
Logical Processors: 2
Physical Processors: 1
Processor Frequency: 1.02 GHz
L1 Instruction Cache: 0.00 B
L1 Data Cache: 0.00 B
L2 Cache: 256 KB
L3 Cache: 0.00 B
Bus Frequency: 0.00 Hz
Memory: 11.7 GB
Memory Type: N/A
SIMD: 1
BIOS: N/A
Processor Model: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E31270 @ 3.40GHz
Processor Cores: 2
Integer
Blowfish
single-threaded scalar 2312 |||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 1608 ||||||
Text Compress
single-threaded scalar 2005 ||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 1852 |||||||
Text Decompress
single-threaded scalar 2049 ||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 2143 ||||||||
Image Compress
single-threaded scalar 1813 |||||||
multi-threaded scalar 1748 ||||||
Image Decompress
single-threaded scalar 2591 ||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 1811 |||||||
Lua
single-threaded scalar 2661 ||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 2696 ||||||||||
Floating Point
Mandelbrot
single-threaded scalar 2010 ||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 1883 |||||||
Dot Product
single-threaded scalar 3289 |||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 3166 ||||||||||||
single-threaded vector 5751 |||||||||||||||||||||||
multi-threaded vector 4960 |||||||||||||||||||
LU Decomposition
single-threaded scalar 3806 |||||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 3877 |||||||||||||||
Primality Test
single-threaded scalar 3199 ||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 2552 ||||||||||
Sharpen Image
single-threaded scalar 7518 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 7464 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blur Image
single-threaded scalar 5723 ||||||||||||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 5810 |||||||||||||||||||||||
Memory
Read Sequential
single-threaded scalar 7725 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Write Sequential
single-threaded scalar 10867 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stdlib Allocate
single-threaded scalar 5634 ||||||||||||||||||||||
Stdlib Write
single-threaded scalar 7438 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stdlib Copy
single-threaded scalar 14759 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stream
Stream Copy
single-threaded scalar 5379 |||||||||||||||||||||
single-threaded vector 6224 ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stream Scale
single-threaded scalar 5680 ||||||||||||||||||||||
single-threaded vector 5659 ||||||||||||||||||||||
Stream Add
single-threaded scalar 4725 ||||||||||||||||||
single-threaded vector 5146 ||||||||||||||||||||
Stream Triad
single-threaded scalar 5287 |||||||||||||||||||||
single-threaded vector 3906 |||||||||||||||
Integer Score: 2107 ||||||||
Floating Point Score: 4357 |||||||||||||||||
Memory Score: 9284 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stream Score: 5250 |||||||||||||||||||||
Overall Geekbench Score: 4644 ||||||||||||||||||
Overall, the network was really impressive and the disk I/O is pretty decent as well, unfortunately as the CPU was limited which prevented an otherwise pretty decent VPS to show its full potential.
Customer Service and Support
The fact that OneProvider was using Kayako did earn itself a few more points from me, however the time taken for them to respond to technical ticket was a bit longer than what I would like it to be. My support ticket asking where I can find the iOS app in the AppStore basically took almost one day to reply (sent at 8:55am, replied at 10:45pm) however the reply was actually pretty detailed and informed me why the development for the application was paused, which was great. They also have a technical support and sales live chat online, although it is not really 24 hours and I have not really used it to make a comment on how well it is.
Conclusion
Overall, I like this VPS a lot as a backup VPS: it is pretty stable and the network is pretty good, disk I/O is decent enough as a backup machine. Although the support is slow and the CPU resource, despite having 2 CPU cores, is very restrained, which means it would not be suitable for any CPU-intensive task, it is definitely a great candidate to be used as a storage VPS due to the large disk space it has.