96MB Low End VPS Review Part 60–Your Domain Goes Here
As 96MB.com grows everyday, so is the number of requests for a review of the services, and as the pile grows up, there is often one or two that tend to slide through the crack. YourDomainGoesHere (YDGH) is one of them, I have ordered and being paying for their services for more than half a year and each and every time I paid my invoice, I kept telling myself I will need to get this review done next week, and…the cycle just repeated.
So finally, I have decided to write about them and take a look at how their services are performing.
(On a side note, I do pay for every VPS that I have written on this blog, except the ones that I labeled clearly as part of the promotions/beta testing, I will normally ask for a refund for the VPS that I paid purely for review purposes – only after the review has been published and if it is within the provider’s money back guarantee time period, therefore in this case, I will just pay for the VPS from YDGH since obviously it has gone way over their money back guarantee period).
Basic Information and Set Up
Here is the VPS that I have ordered when YDGH had their promotion on LET:
Initially, their Chicago location was sold out (for some reason Chicago seems to be their most popular area, and it is normally the first one YDGH sold out whenever they have a sale) and I had to order the one in Dallas first. However, I have submitted a ticket for them and they actually remembered to reply to my tickets a few weeks later when they had stock in Chicago and offered to cancel my Dallas VPS and moved everything to the Chicago location.
Their homepage is actually pretty nicely designed, and although I am not exactly a fan of their background picture, I actually really like the slider:
As you can see, at the moment, there is no stock on the lowest plan in all three areas, YDGH, for some reason, seems to have the same principle as BuyVM, where not having enough stock all the time is something good.
Note that they included SolusVM among all three options for control panels, but this does not mean you get a SolusVM master or slave license, instead, it just means you will be able to use SolusVM to control your VPS. CPanel, however, will set you back an extra 15 USD per month, which is the same as the outside price and DirectAdmin will set you back an extra 7.95 USD per month, which is not any cheaper than the regular market price. By default, the plan comes with 2 IP addresses and extra IP address is a dollar each.
Their larger plans have pretty interesting pricing as well, while most of the providers would offer a price of either a full dollar amount or something like .99 or .95 cents, their price for the third-largest plan ends with .88, so is the largest plan they have:
Also, unlike most of the providers w ho tend to advertise dedicated and swap RAM separately, they do not actually advertise that. For example, the plan that I have received has 512MB of dedicated RAM and 512MB of burstable RAM, which is not the same as what people would normally think when they see a 1024GB RAM plan, I believe I have read at least one complain about the way YDGH advertise the RAM amount on LowEndTalk before, but I guess it is their business and their decision.
Provision was instant and it was pretty interesting when I received the email, the subject actually stated “New Dedicated Server Information”. Of course I would be insane (or rather they would be) if they have offered me a dedicated server at that price. Everything else was pretty standard though.
SolusVM is on non-standard HTTP port and there is no instant rDNS and nor any centralized backup feature.
There are quite a few common OS template for reinstallation:
Test on the VPS
As mentioned above, the VPS that I have bought is an OpenVZ VPS with 512MB of dedicated RAM and 512MB of burstable RAM, the server is located in Continuum DC in Chicago, IL and I have installed Debian 6 32 bit for testing purposes.
Probably because I have left this server running for a while and completely forgot about it, it is actually one of the servers that I have the longest uptime so far (of course, other than the uptime of this server that this blog sits on):
uptime 09:06:42 up 54 days, 18:11, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Therefore it was difficult for me to say goodbye to the uptime and reinstall the system for testing, however I guess it is worth when the readers like you gets a good view of the services YDGH provides via the review.
When the OS template was first loaded, about 16MB of RAM was used, which is quite standard for the Debian 6 installation:
free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 1024 16 1007 0 0 0
-/+ buffers/cache: 16 1007
Swap: 0 0 0
Top showing the processes running:
top - 21:55:08 up 12 min, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 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: 1048576k total, 16840k used, 1031736k free, 0k buffers
Swap: 0k total, 0k used, 0k free, 0k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
1655 root 18 0 8672 3020 2468 R 0 0.3 0:00.07 sshd
1389 root 15 0 5132 2436 1184 S 0 0.2 0:00.00 apache2
1390 www-data 20 0 5132 1844 584 S 0 0.2 0:00.00 apache2
1679 root 15 0 2956 1608 1288 S 0 0.2 0:00.00 bash
1582 root 18 0 9988 1548 500 S 0 0.1 0:00.00 sendmail-mta
1686 root 15 0 2324 1064 872 R 0 0.1 0:00.00 top
1601 root 18 0 5484 968 576 S 0 0.1 0:00.00 sshd
1411 root 18 0 2284 840 660 S 0 0.1 0:00.00 cron
1560 root 25 0 2388 832 668 S 0 0.1 0:00.00 xinetd
1360 root 18 0 8664 788 448 S 0 0.1 0:00.00 saslauthd
1379 root 18 0 1888 780 648 S 0 0.1 0:00.00 anacron
1 root 18 0 2024 676 584 S 0 0.1 0:00.40 init
1375 root 15 0 1732 628 504 S 0 0.1 0:00.00 syslogd
1361 root 18 0 8664 504 164 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 saslauthd
And htop output:
Slightly more than 400MB of hard drive space was used after the install, which was pretty reasonable:
df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/simfs 30G 413M 30G 2% / tmpfs 512M 0 512M 0% /lib/init/rw tmpfs 512M 0 512M 0% /dev/shm
And the inodes are set to pretty reasonable values:
df -i Filesystem Inodes IUsed IFree IUse% Mounted on /dev/simfs 15728640 26125 15702515 1% / tmpfs 131072 4 131068 1% /lib/init/rw tmpfs 131072 1 131071 1% /dev/shm
When the full LNMP stack was loaded, about 63MB of RAM was used:
free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 1024 63 960 0 0 0
-/+ buffers/cache: 63 960
Swap: 0 0 0
Top output showing the processes running:
top - 04:48:50 up 3:06, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 Tasks: 21 total, 2 running, 19 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: 1048576k total, 65100k used, 983476k free, 0k buffers Swap: 0k total, 0k used, 0k free, 0k cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 21589 www 21 0 14992 10m 416 S 0 1.1 0:00.00 nginx 21570 mysql 19 0 33944 4624 2020 S 0 0.4 0:00.00 mysqld 21580 root 18 0 22620 4540 1400 S 0 0.4 0:00.05 php-cgi 21581 www 18 0 22620 4132 992 S 0 0.4 0:00.00 php-cgi 21582 www 18 0 22620 4132 992 S 0 0.4 0:00.00 php-cgi 21583 www 18 0 22620 4132 992 S 0 0.4 0:00.00 php-cgi 21584 www 18 0 22620 4132 992 S 0 0.4 0:00.00 php-cgi 21585 www 25 0 22620 4132 992 S 0 0.4 0:00.00 php-cgi 1655 root 15 0 8816 3220 2484 R 0 0.3 0:02.30 sshd 1679 root 15 0 2956 1652 1328 S 0 0.2 0:00.00 bash 20443 root 18 0 2672 1200 996 S 0 0.1 0:00.00 mysqld_safe 21826 root 15 0 2324 1076 880 R 0 0.1 0:00.00 top 1601 root 18 0 5484 968 576 S 0 0.1 0:00.00 sshd 1411 root 15 0 2284 832 664 S 0 0.1 0:00.00 cron 1560 root 25 0 2388 832 668 S 0 0.1 0:00.00 xinetd 1582 root 15 0 9988 716 500 S 0 0.1 0:00.01 sendmail-mta 21588 root 19 0 4780 708 276 S 0 0.1 0:00.00 nginx
And htop output:
About 1.6GB of hard drive space was used:
df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/simfs 30G 1.6G 29G 6% / tmpfs 512M 0 512M 0% /lib/init/rw tmpfs 512M 0 512M 0% /dev/shm
And iNodes are set to pretty standard values:
df -i Filesystem Inodes IUsed IFree IUse% Mounted on /dev/simfs 15728640 69283 15659357 1% / tmpfs 131072 4 131068 1% /lib/init/rw tmpfs 131072 1 131071 1% /dev/shm
Note that the template is somewhat “broken” when I initially ran apt upgrade:
Ign http://ftp.debian.org squeeze/updates/main i386 Packages Ign http://ftp.debian.org squeeze/updates/contrib i386 Packages Ign http://ftp.debian.org squeeze/updates/non-free i386 Packages Err http://ftp.debian.org squeeze/updates/main i386 Packages 404 Not Found Err http://ftp.debian.org squeeze/updates/contrib i386 Packages 404 Not Found Err http://ftp.debian.org squeeze/updates/non-free i386 Packages 404 Not Found Fetched 6833 kB in 6s (1016 kB/s) W: Failed to fetch http://ftp.debian.org/debian-security/dists/squeeze/updates/main/binary-i386/Packages.gz 404 Not Found W: Failed to fetch http://ftp.debian.org/debian-security/dists/squeeze/updates/contrib/binary-i386/Packages.gz 404 Not Found W: Failed to fetch http://ftp.debian.org/debian-security/dists/squeeze/updates/non-free/binary-i386/Packages.gz 404 Not Found E: Some index files failed to download, they have been ignored, or old ones used instead.
However changing the http to ftp in the apt sources seems to have fixed this problem.
CPU info shows it was assigned two virtual CPU cores on a Quad-core Q9300 CPU:
cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 23 model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9300 @ 2.50GHz stepping : 7 cpu MHz : 2493.750 cache size : 3072 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 4 core id : 0 cpu cores : 4 apicid : 0 fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 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 lm constant_tsc pni monitor ds_cpl vmx smx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr sse4_1 lahf_lm bogomips : 4987.50 clflush size : 64 cache_alignment : 64 address sizes : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: processor : 1 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 23 model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9300 @ 2.50GHz stepping : 7 cpu MHz : 2493.750 cache size : 3072 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 4 core id : 2 cpu cores : 4 apicid : 2 fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 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 lm constant_tsc pni monitor ds_cpl vmx smx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr sse4_1 lahf_lm bogomips : 4987.51 clflush size : 64 cache_alignment : 64 address sizes : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management:
The interesting bit was shown when I ran vzfree, and it shows only half of the swap was committed. The fact that there is swap usage, even though the VPS was more or less running at the bare minimum, may not be a good sign and indicate at least some level of overselling:
vzfree
Total Used Free
Kernel: 2048.00M 2.98M 2045.02M
Allocate: 1024.00M 76.69M 947.31M (512M Guaranteed)
Commit: 512.00M 39.77M 472.23M (48.0% of Allocated)
Swap: 18.37M (49.9% of Committed)
Meminfo for those who are interested:
cat /proc/meminfo MemTotal: 1048576 kB MemFree: 970196 kB Buffers: 0 kB Cached: 0 kB SwapCached: 0 kB Active: 0 kB Inactive: 0 kB HighTotal: 0 kB HighFree: 0 kB LowTotal: 1048576 kB LowFree: 970196 kB SwapTotal: 0 kB SwapFree: 0 kB Dirty: 14040 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:
time sync real 0m0.530s user 0m0.000s sys 0m0.008s
The disk I/O speed was rather unimpressive during the 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, 45.9206 s, 23.4 MB/s
Testing again did not improve too much either:
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, 33.0416 s, 32.5 MB/s
The ioping results were somewhat inconsistent as well, which could be an indicator of an oversold node:
ioping -c 10 . 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=1 time=60.2 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=2 time=49.4 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=3 time=15.7 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=4 time=76.0 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=5 time=33.1 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=6 time=9.1 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=7 time=13.3 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=8 time=10.2 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=9 time=26.0 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=10 time=6.9 ms --- . (simfs /dev/simfs) ioping statistics --- 10 requests completed in 9313.6 ms, 33 iops, 0.1 mb/s min/avg/max/mdev = 6.9/30.0/76.0/23.0 ms
And testing again:
ioping -c 10 . 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=1 time=59.3 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=2 time=5.8 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=3 time=7.9 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=4 time=28.3 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=5 time=73.0 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=6 time=13.3 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=7 time=8.6 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=8 time=10.2 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=9 time=21.4 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=10 time=24.2 ms --- . (simfs /dev/simfs) ioping statistics --- 10 requests completed in 9257.0 ms, 40 iops, 0.2 mb/s min/avg/max/mdev = 5.8/25.2/73.0/21.9 ms
Despite the not-so-great disk I/O speed, the network speed is actually pretty impressive:
wget cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test -O /dev/null --2012-11-09 10:59:49-- 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 9.1s 2012-11-09 10:59:58 (11.0 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
Considering the port speed is 100mbit, this download speed is close to the port speed.
Downloading again showed similar results:
wget cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test -O /dev/null --2012-11-09 11:00:44-- 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 2012-11-09 11:00:53 (11.3 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
For the upload test, the geographical location was once again the decisive factor:
First for the Quickweb VPS located in Chicago, IL (only a few miles away from where this VPS was located:
wget 216.231.xxx.xxx/100mb.test -O /dev/null --2012-11-08 22:02:45-- http://216.231.xxx.xxx/100mb.test Connecting to 216.231.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 11.1M/s in 9.0s 2012-11-08 22:02:54 (11.1 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
As you can see, the upload speed is close to the port speed as well.
For the other test VPS located in Los Angeles, CA, the speed is significantly less impressive, although I would say is still pretty good for a 100mbit port:
wget 216.231.xxx.xxx/100mb.test -O /dev/null --2012-11-09 11:07:51-- http://216.231.xxx.xxx/100mb.test Connecting to 216.231.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 7.57M/s in 16s 2012-11-09 11:08:07 (6.25 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
Finally, for the XenVZ test VPS located in Maidenhead, UK, the speed is a lot slower:
wget 216.231.xxx.xxx/100mb.test -O /dev/null --2012-11-09 11:00:37-- http://216.231.xxx.xxx/100mb.test Connecting to 216.231.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 6.67M/s in 27s 2012-11-09 11:01:04 (3.70 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
For the benchmark testing, I honestly did not hope for too much, but was fairly glad to see close to 1000 points on the UnixBench tests:
# # # # # # # ##### ###### # # #### # #
# # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # #
# # # # # # ## ##### ##### # # # # ######
# # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # #
# # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # #
#### # # # # # ##### ###### # # #### # #
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: xxxxx: GNU/Linux
OS: GNU/Linux -- 2.6.32-274.3.1.el5.028stab094.3 -- #1 SMP Thu Sep 22 13:24:07 MSD 2011
Machine: i686 (unknown)
Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="ANSI_X3.4-1968", collate="ANSI_X3.4-1968")
CPU 0: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9300 @ 2.50GHz (4987.5 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
CPU 1: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9300 @ 2.50GHz (4987.5 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
23:53:40 up 40 min, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.36, 0.60; runlevel 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Run: Sat Oct 27 2012 23:53:40 - 00:22:17
2 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 10416228.7 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 2271.4 MWIPS (10.3 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 3378.7 lps (29.3 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 345537.8 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 102642.2 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 719422.2 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 714408.5 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 207499.7 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 9059.2 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 3933.7 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 781.5 lpm (60.1 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 588173.7 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 10416228.7 892.6
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 2271.4 413.0
Execl Throughput 43.0 3378.7 785.8
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 345537.8 872.6
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 102642.2 620.2
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 719422.2 1240.4
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 714408.5 574.3
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 207499.7 518.7
Process Creation 126.0 9059.2 719.0
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 3933.7 927.8
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 781.5 1302.6
System Call Overhead 15000.0 588173.7 392.1
========
System Benchmarks Index Score 721.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Run: Sun Oct 28 2012 00:22:17 - 00:50:51
2 CPUs in system; running 2 parallel copies of tests
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 22138840.9 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 4133.2 MWIPS (9.8 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 5087.7 lps (29.6 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 217814.2 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 65848.7 KBps (30.1 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 497121.6 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 1374523.3 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 432314.0 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 14865.6 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 5361.1 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 801.7 lpm (60.1 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 978904.5 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 22138840.9 1897.1
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 4133.2 751.5
Execl Throughput 43.0 5087.7 1183.2
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 217814.2 550.0
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 65848.7 397.9
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 497121.6 857.1
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 1374523.3 1104.9
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 432314.0 1080.8
Process Creation 126.0 14865.6 1179.8
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 5361.1 1264.4
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 801.7 1336.1
System Call Overhead 15000.0 978904.5 652.6
========
System Benchmarks Index Score 942.5
Testing again showed even slightly better 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: xxxxx: GNU/Linux
OS: GNU/Linux -- 2.6.32-274.3.1.el5.028stab094.3 -- #1 SMP Thu Sep 22 13:24:07 MSD 2011
Machine: i686 (unknown)
Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="ANSI_X3.4-1968", collate="ANSI_X3.4-1968")
CPU 0: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9300 @ 2.50GHz (4987.5 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
CPU 1: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9300 @ 2.50GHz (4987.5 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
01:17:27 up 2:04, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.02, 0.69; runlevel 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Run: Sun Oct 28 2012 01:17:27 - 01:45:46
2 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 10171392.2 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 2166.0 MWIPS (9.8 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 3410.4 lps (29.9 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 330921.3 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 104614.4 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 606851.3 KBps (30.1 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 699809.1 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 228356.8 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 9776.7 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 3852.3 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 764.3 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 622999.5 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 10171392.2 871.6
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 2166.0 393.8
Execl Throughput 43.0 3410.4 793.1
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 330921.3 835.7
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 104614.4 632.1
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 606851.3 1046.3
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 699809.1 562.5
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 228356.8 570.9
Process Creation 126.0 9776.7 775.9
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 3852.3 908.6
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 764.3 1273.9
System Call Overhead 15000.0 622999.5 415.3
========
System Benchmarks Index Score 715.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Run: Sun Oct 28 2012 01:45:46 - 02:14:17
2 CPUs in system; running 2 parallel copies of tests
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 21253800.0 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 4329.2 MWIPS (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 5009.9 lps (29.8 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 215174.6 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 69105.2 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 572029.4 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 1381243.7 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 430615.8 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 15201.7 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 5577.5 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 817.3 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 1005045.5 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 21253800.0 1821.2
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 4329.2 787.1
Execl Throughput 43.0 5009.9 1165.1
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 215174.6 543.4
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 69105.2 417.6
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 572029.4 986.3
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 1381243.7 1110.3
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 430615.8 1076.5
Process Creation 126.0 15201.7 1206.5
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 5577.5 1315.5
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 817.3 1362.2
System Call Overhead 15000.0 1005045.5 670.0
========
System Benchmarks Index Score 964.4
Finally for the Geenbench tests, this VPS actually managed to score more than 3000 points:
System Information
Platform: Linux x86 (32-bit)
Compiler: GCC 4.1.2 20070925 (Red Hat 4.1.2-33)
Operating System: Linux 2.6.32-274.3.1.el5.028stab094.3 i686
Model: Linux PC (Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300)
Motherboard: Unknown Motherboard
Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300
Processor ID: GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 7
Logical Processors: 2
Physical Processors: 1
Processor Frequency: 2.49 GHz
L1 Instruction Cache: 0.00 B
L1 Data Cache: 0.00 B
L2 Cache: 3.00 MB
L3 Cache: 0.00 B
Bus Frequency: 0.00 Hz
Memory: 7.75 GB
Memory Type: N/A
SIMD: 1
BIOS: N/A
Processor Model: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300
Processor Cores: 2
Integer
Blowfish
single-threaded scalar 1786 |||||||
multi-threaded scalar 3674 ||||||||||||||
Text Compress
single-threaded scalar 1999 |||||||
multi-threaded scalar 3825 |||||||||||||||
Text Decompress
single-threaded scalar 1446 |||||
multi-threaded scalar 2963 |||||||||||
Image Compress
single-threaded scalar 1376 |||||
multi-threaded scalar 2657 ||||||||||
Image Decompress
single-threaded scalar 1195 ||||
multi-threaded scalar 2225 ||||||||
Lua
single-threaded scalar 2650 ||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 6070 ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Floating Point
Mandelbrot
single-threaded scalar 1860 |||||||
multi-threaded scalar 3507 ||||||||||||||
Dot Product
single-threaded scalar 3400 |||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 5902 |||||||||||||||||||||||
single-threaded vector 2559 ||||||||||
multi-threaded vector 4666 ||||||||||||||||||
LU Decomposition
single-threaded scalar 1747 ||||||
multi-threaded scalar 1778 |||||||
Primality Test
single-threaded scalar 2445 |||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 4147 ||||||||||||||||
Sharpen Image
single-threaded scalar 4790 |||||||||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 9249 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blur Image
single-threaded scalar 3536 ||||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 6973 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Memory
Read Sequential
single-threaded scalar 3593 ||||||||||||||
Write Sequential
single-threaded scalar 3430 |||||||||||||
Stdlib Allocate
single-threaded scalar 1723 ||||||
Stdlib Write
single-threaded scalar 1561 ||||||
Stdlib Copy
single-threaded scalar 2938 |||||||||||
Stream
Stream Copy
single-threaded scalar 2163 ||||||||
single-threaded vector 2339 |||||||||
Stream Scale
single-threaded scalar 2280 |||||||||
single-threaded vector 2130 ||||||||
Stream Add
single-threaded scalar 2222 ||||||||
single-threaded vector 2366 |||||||||
Stream Triad
single-threaded scalar 2462 |||||||||
single-threaded vector 1839 |||||||
Integer Score: 2655 ||||||||||
Floating Point Score: 4039 ||||||||||||||||
Memory Score: 2649 ||||||||||
Stream Score: 2225 ||||||||
Overall Geekbench Score: 3095 ||||||||||||
Again, the second test showed somewhat better results:
System Information
Platform: Linux x86 (32-bit)
Compiler: GCC 4.1.2 20070925 (Red Hat 4.1.2-33)
Operating System: Linux 2.6.32-274.3.1.el5.028stab094.3 i686
Model: Linux PC (Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300)
Motherboard: Unknown Motherboard
Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300
Processor ID: GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 7
Logical Processors: 2
Physical Processors: 1
Processor Frequency: 2.49 GHz
L1 Instruction Cache: 0.00 B
L1 Data Cache: 0.00 B
L2 Cache: 3.00 MB
L3 Cache: 0.00 B
Bus Frequency: 0.00 Hz
Memory: 7.75 GB
Memory Type: N/A
SIMD: 1
BIOS: N/A
Processor Model: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300
Processor Cores: 2
Integer
Blowfish
single-threaded scalar 1428 |||||
multi-threaded scalar 2971 |||||||||||
Text Compress
single-threaded scalar 1580 ||||||
multi-threaded scalar 3776 |||||||||||||||
Text Decompress
single-threaded scalar 1800 |||||||
multi-threaded scalar 3278 |||||||||||||
Image Compress
single-threaded scalar 1722 ||||||
multi-threaded scalar 3275 |||||||||||||
Image Decompress
single-threaded scalar 1492 |||||
multi-threaded scalar 2384 |||||||||
Lua
single-threaded scalar 3315 |||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 6325 |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Floating Point
Mandelbrot
single-threaded scalar 1480 |||||
multi-threaded scalar 2987 |||||||||||
Dot Product
single-threaded scalar 2704 ||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 5527 ||||||||||||||||||||||
single-threaded vector 2544 ||||||||||
multi-threaded vector 3837 |||||||||||||||
LU Decomposition
single-threaded scalar 2081 ||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 2067 ||||||||
Primality Test
single-threaded scalar 2927 |||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 4497 |||||||||||||||||
Sharpen Image
single-threaded scalar 6034 ||||||||||||||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 11740 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blur Image
single-threaded scalar 4420 |||||||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 8063 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Memory
Read Sequential
single-threaded scalar 2400 |||||||||
Write Sequential
single-threaded scalar 2083 ||||||||
Stdlib Allocate
single-threaded scalar 2204 ||||||||
Stdlib Write
single-threaded scalar 1223 ||||
Stdlib Copy
single-threaded scalar 3412 |||||||||||||
Stream
Stream Copy
single-threaded scalar 2122 ||||||||
single-threaded vector 2277 |||||||||
Stream Scale
single-threaded scalar 2272 |||||||||
single-threaded vector 2168 ||||||||
Stream Add
single-threaded scalar 2248 ||||||||
single-threaded vector 2407 |||||||||
Stream Triad
single-threaded scalar 2433 |||||||||
single-threaded vector 1755 |||||||
Integer Score: 2778 |||||||||||
Floating Point Score: 4350 |||||||||||||||||
Memory Score: 2264 |||||||||
Stream Score: 2210 ||||||||
Overall Geekbench Score: 3168 ||||||||||||
Customer Service and Support
Despite having quite a few customers, YDGH has provided pretty good customer support and services. For instance, at the time when I signed up, the promo code was not working initially and the Chicago location was out of stock. I put in a ticket on 18:23 and received the response at 19:31 for the promo code issue. I ended up signed up for another location initially and the ticket was left in progress. Half a month later, when I almost forgot about the ticket, Corey actually contacted me to inform me that they have some stock in Chicago and asked me if I want to move over or not, which they happily did that for me for free and the ticket confirming the details of the move were answered in 2 or 3 minutes. When I switched to my own Google Apps rather than using GMail for my personal email, the invoice notification emails went to my spam box for some reason and I missed a payment for almost two weeks. Rather than simply shutting down the VPS, Corey has once again contacted me via ticket asking me if I would like to keep the VPS, and my reply to that ticket at 22:54 was answered two minutes later.
While many VPS service providers offer quick response, they are probably one of the few low-end providers that offer “active” response and rather than waiting for issues to happen and clients to complain, which would probably do a great amount of good deal to their business reputation.
Conclusion
The VPS from YDGH itself may not be that impressive, the disk I/O is slow and even RAM was probably oversold, network speed is great and the benchmarking is OK, but the fact that it is housed in Continuum DC, which, until recently, had only 2 upstream providers, worried me somewhat. However, their “active” style of support, despite being an unmanaged service, is somewhat comforting and it may be suitable for people who are on a budget and yet don’t want to worry about the VPS being cut off because of the invoice did not arrive to the inbox.
Chicago/La are likely to have lower performance than dallas. Dallas has our newest and best hardware. Our newest server in Dallas is FAR superior to past servers. Eventually we will upgrade all nodes including Chicago and Los Angeles to same or better hardware.
@YDGH-Wayne: Thanks a lot for your your comments and clarifications, unfortunately I only get to test the Chicago server. Hopefully the Chicago server will be upgraded to RAID 10 eventually and I’d be more than happy to give you some new feedbacks the next time I review YDGH!
Hi 96mb! We thank you for this review but there are a few things I would like to point out…
Our nodes in chicago and la are only a raid1 machine. We haven’t been able to upgrade that yet to our latest raid10 build which gives IO speeds upwards of 300MB/s. We realize that this raid1 build has it’s downfalls and it obviously shows in your tests.
Also – please contact me regarding some linking opportunities from your site.