no way to compare when less than two revisions
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Previous revisionLast revision | |||
— | en:information_technology:dedicated_or_virtual_server [2020-06-22 10:53] – Heikki | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | ====== A dedicated server or a virtual server ====== | ||
+ | |||
+ | <WRAP info> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Introduction ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | I've been running [[https:// | ||
+ | * Hetzner has started to offer some interesting VPS's (vServer). I was interested in VQ 19. | ||
+ | * I used a VPS before EQ 4 and it worked fine so I generally have nothing against the idea of a VPS. | ||
+ | * I checked my [[https:// | ||
+ | * My service provides no income but I pay all the fees. The monthly fee is a factor and a VPS generally costs less than a Dedi. | ||
+ | * Running a dedicated server when VPS is enough is a waste of natural resources and a form of consumerism. | ||
+ | |||
+ | While reading this comparison please keep in mind that we are talking about cheap servers intended for small scale use. When I write things like //excellent performance// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== The features list ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Here are the main features found in EQ 4 and VQ 19 with my comments. Notice that the features listed reflect the Hetzner' | ||
+ | |||
+ | ^ Feature ^ Hetzner EQ 4 ^ Hetzner VQ 19 ^ My comments ^ | ||
+ | | Price per month | 49 euros (has a setup fee) | 19 euros (no setup fee) | Both are cheap compared to the specs and Hetzner' | ||
+ | | Traffic included (if exceeded the network connection is switched to a slower one) | 10 TB | 4 TB | 10 TB is much more than I need and it is very unlikely that I would hit the 4 TB limit. So this is not a deciding factor for me. | | ||
+ | | RAM | 8 GB | 2 GB | So both are fine for me. 8 GB is a huge space and due to disk buffering EQ 4 mostly servers my content from RAM. 2 GB is enough to run [[https:// | ||
+ | | Disk space | 750 GB software mirrored | 80 GB on some sort of RAID | 80 GB is enough to fit the system, the service, the content and a couple of copies of them. Both have a some sort for RAID protection. | | ||
+ | | Backup space | 100 GB included | none | This is a strong point to choose EQ 4 instead of VQ 19. I have lot of photo content and it cannot be uploaded from home (limited uplink) or when on travel (3G) in a reasonable time. With VQ 19 I would need to use Amazon' | ||
+ | | CPU | Intel i7-920 4 cores | Single virtual core | Intel i7 makes [[https:// | ||
+ | | Management | Full control. Feature-rich management robot including monitoring and rescue features. Multiple OS images available. | Full control. Feature-rich management robot including monitoring and rescue features. Multiple OS images available. | The services offer similar management features and freedom of configuration. | | ||
+ | | The hardware | Consumer-grade components. | Consumer-grade components. | Nothing special here. With these price tags do not expect to get enterprise class hardware. For us not running an enterprise consumer-grade hardware gives the best performance compared to the price. I'd bet that in practice four VQ 19's run on a single EQ class server. | | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== The test results ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | I had a day to spare so I ordered VQ 19. The setup process seems to be automatic since I ordered it the middle of the night during a weekend and during a holiday season and it was up and running in 15 minutes. Then I installed Debian 64 bit minimal, configured the system and shipped the whole [[https:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | The test results are pretty much as I expected. VQ 19 has an excellent CPU performance and an adequate IO performance. EQ of course beats VQ in numbers. But in practice considering my application I'd say the difference in small. | ||
+ | |||
+ | My application' | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Disk performance ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Disk performance testing with dd is a crude method. Yes it gives some performance figures but the load don't match a typical web application. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Using big block sizes show rather weak results for VQ 19. I'd say that these are just benchmark numbers. The tests with smaller block sizes are closer to real life and there VQ 19 performs adequately. | ||
+ | |||
+ | My application should run fine on VQ 19. EQ 4 offers more IO power. But if you have something really IO demanding maybe the standard EQ disk system is not enough for you. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ^ the test ^ EQ 4 ^ VQ 19 ^ | ||
+ | | nice dd if=/ | ||
+ | | dd if=/ | ||
+ | | dd if=/ | ||
+ | | dd if=/ | ||
+ | | dd if=/ | ||
+ | | hdparm -t on root | 332 MB in 3.00 seconds = 110.54 MB/sec | 76 MB in 3.41 seconds = 22.31 MB/sec | | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Unix Bench ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | EQ 4 is CPU-vice a high performance server. VQ 19 shows excellent results too matching the EQ's single core results. | ||
+ | |||
+ | === EQ 4 === | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | ======================================================================== | ||
+ | BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.3) | ||
+ | |||
+ | | ||
+ | OS: GNU/Linux -- 2.6.32-5-amd64 -- #1 SMP Tue Jun 14 09:42:28 UTC 2011 | ||
+ | | ||
+ | | ||
+ | CPU 0: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (5346.9 bogomips) | ||
+ | Hyper-Threading, | ||
+ | CPU 1: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (5346.3 bogomips) | ||
+ | Hyper-Threading, | ||
+ | CPU 2: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (5346.3 bogomips) | ||
+ | Hyper-Threading, | ||
+ | CPU 3: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (5346.3 bogomips) | ||
+ | Hyper-Threading, | ||
+ | CPU 4: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (5346.3 bogomips) | ||
+ | Hyper-Threading, | ||
+ | CPU 5: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (5346.3 bogomips) | ||
+ | Hyper-Threading, | ||
+ | CPU 6: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (5346.3 bogomips) | ||
+ | Hyper-Threading, | ||
+ | CPU 7: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (5346.3 bogomips) | ||
+ | Hyper-Threading, | ||
+ | | ||
+ | |||
+ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ||
+ | Benchmark Run: Sun Jul 24 2011 12:47:28 - 13:15:49 | ||
+ | 8 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests | ||
+ | |||
+ | Dhrystone 2 using register variables | ||
+ | Double-Precision Whetstone | ||
+ | Execl Throughput | ||
+ | File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks | ||
+ | File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks | ||
+ | File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks | ||
+ | Pipe Throughput | ||
+ | Pipe-based Context Switching | ||
+ | Process Creation | ||
+ | Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) | ||
+ | Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) | ||
+ | System Call Overhead | ||
+ | |||
+ | System Benchmarks Index Values | ||
+ | Dhrystone 2 using register variables | ||
+ | Double-Precision Whetstone | ||
+ | Execl Throughput | ||
+ | File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks | ||
+ | File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks | ||
+ | File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks | ||
+ | Pipe Throughput | ||
+ | Pipe-based Context Switching | ||
+ | Process Creation | ||
+ | Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) | ||
+ | Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) | ||
+ | System Call Overhead | ||
+ | | ||
+ | System Benchmarks Index Score 1475.4 | ||
+ | |||
+ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ||
+ | Benchmark Run: Sun Jul 24 2011 13:15:49 - 13:44:22 | ||
+ | 8 CPUs in system; running 8 parallel copies of tests | ||
+ | |||
+ | Dhrystone 2 using register variables | ||
+ | Double-Precision Whetstone | ||
+ | Execl Throughput | ||
+ | File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks | ||
+ | File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks | ||
+ | File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks | ||
+ | Pipe Throughput | ||
+ | Pipe-based Context Switching | ||
+ | Process Creation | ||
+ | Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) | ||
+ | Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) | ||
+ | System Call Overhead | ||
+ | |||
+ | System Benchmarks Index Values | ||
+ | Dhrystone 2 using register variables | ||
+ | Double-Precision Whetstone | ||
+ | Execl Throughput | ||
+ | File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks | ||
+ | File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks | ||
+ | File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks | ||
+ | Pipe Throughput | ||
+ | Pipe-based Context Switching | ||
+ | Process Creation | ||
+ | Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) | ||
+ | Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) | ||
+ | System Call Overhead | ||
+ | | ||
+ | System Benchmarks Index Score 5173.9 | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | === VQ 19 === | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | ======================================================================== | ||
+ | BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.3) | ||
+ | |||
+ | | ||
+ | OS: GNU/Linux -- 2.6.32-5-amd64 -- #1 SMP Tue Jun 14 09:42:28 UTC 2011 | ||
+ | | ||
+ | | ||
+ | CPU 0: QEMU Virtual CPU version 0.12.3 (5614.1 bogomips) | ||
+ | x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/ | ||
+ | | ||
+ | |||
+ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ||
+ | Benchmark Run: Sun Jul 24 2011 12:49:25 - 13:17:39 | ||
+ | 1 CPU in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests | ||
+ | |||
+ | Dhrystone 2 using register variables | ||
+ | Double-Precision Whetstone | ||
+ | Execl Throughput | ||
+ | File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks | ||
+ | File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks | ||
+ | File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks | ||
+ | Pipe Throughput | ||
+ | Pipe-based Context Switching | ||
+ | Process Creation | ||
+ | Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) | ||
+ | Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) | ||
+ | System Call Overhead | ||
+ | |||
+ | System Benchmarks Index Values | ||
+ | Dhrystone 2 using register variables | ||
+ | Double-Precision Whetstone | ||
+ | Execl Throughput | ||
+ | File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks | ||
+ | File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks | ||
+ | File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks | ||
+ | Pipe Throughput | ||
+ | Pipe-based Context Switching | ||
+ | Process Creation | ||
+ | Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) | ||
+ | Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) | ||
+ | System Call Overhead | ||
+ | | ||
+ | System Benchmarks Index Score 1493.3 | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Web access ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Apache ab was used with a typical [[https:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | With my application both servers scale very well. EQ 4's scalability seems astronomical. A scenario causing lots of disk IO (especially writes) would be interesting. It should widen the performance gap between EQ 4 and VQ 19 seen in these results. | ||
+ | | ||
+ | === EQ 4 === | ||
+ | |||
+ | From a remote host in Finland: ab -n 300 -c 10 ... | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | Concurrency Level: | ||
+ | Time taken for tests: | ||
+ | Complete requests: | ||
+ | Failed requests: | ||
+ | Write errors: | ||
+ | Total transferred: | ||
+ | HTML transferred: | ||
+ | Requests per second: | ||
+ | Time per request: | ||
+ | Time per request: | ||
+ | Transfer rate: 237.82 [Kbytes/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | Connection Times (ms) | ||
+ | min mean[+/-sd] median | ||
+ | Connect: | ||
+ | Processing: | ||
+ | Waiting: | ||
+ | Total: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) | ||
+ | 50% 601 | ||
+ | 66% 607 | ||
+ | 75% 611 | ||
+ | 80% 614 | ||
+ | 90% 618 | ||
+ | 95% 623 | ||
+ | 98% 634 | ||
+ | 99% 637 | ||
+ | | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | From another Hetzner server: ab -n 1000 -c 10 ... | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | Concurrency Level: | ||
+ | Time taken for tests: | ||
+ | Complete requests: | ||
+ | Failed requests: | ||
+ | Write errors: | ||
+ | Total transferred: | ||
+ | HTML transferred: | ||
+ | Requests per second: | ||
+ | Time per request: | ||
+ | Time per request: | ||
+ | Transfer rate: 7778.96 [Kbytes/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | Connection Times (ms) | ||
+ | min mean[+/-sd] median | ||
+ | Connect: | ||
+ | Processing: | ||
+ | Waiting: | ||
+ | Total: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) | ||
+ | 50% 18 | ||
+ | 66% 20 | ||
+ | 75% 22 | ||
+ | 80% 22 | ||
+ | 90% 24 | ||
+ | 95% 26 | ||
+ | 98% 28 | ||
+ | 99% 30 | ||
+ | | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | From another Hetzner server: ab -n 2000 -c 20 ... | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | Concurrency Level: | ||
+ | Time taken for tests: | ||
+ | Complete requests: | ||
+ | Failed requests: | ||
+ | Write errors: | ||
+ | Total transferred: | ||
+ | HTML transferred: | ||
+ | Requests per second: | ||
+ | Time per request: | ||
+ | Time per request: | ||
+ | Transfer rate: 9062.01 [Kbytes/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | Connection Times (ms) | ||
+ | min mean[+/-sd] median | ||
+ | Connect: | ||
+ | Processing: | ||
+ | Waiting: | ||
+ | Total: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) | ||
+ | 50% 31 | ||
+ | 66% 34 | ||
+ | 75% 36 | ||
+ | 80% 37 | ||
+ | 90% 40 | ||
+ | 95% 43 | ||
+ | 98% 48 | ||
+ | 99% 73 | ||
+ | | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | From another Hetzner server: ab -n 2000 -c 100 ... | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | Concurrency Level: | ||
+ | Time taken for tests: | ||
+ | Complete requests: | ||
+ | Failed requests: | ||
+ | Write errors: | ||
+ | Total transferred: | ||
+ | HTML transferred: | ||
+ | Requests per second: | ||
+ | Time per request: | ||
+ | Time per request: | ||
+ | Transfer rate: 9210.42 [Kbytes/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | Connection Times (ms) | ||
+ | min mean[+/-sd] median | ||
+ | Connect: | ||
+ | Processing: | ||
+ | Waiting: | ||
+ | Total: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) | ||
+ | 50% 127 | ||
+ | 66% 141 | ||
+ | 75% 150 | ||
+ | 80% 154 | ||
+ | 90% 168 | ||
+ | 95% 179 | ||
+ | 98% 216 | ||
+ | 99% 301 | ||
+ | | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | From the same server: ab -n 2000 -c 100 ... | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | Concurrency Level: | ||
+ | Time taken for tests: | ||
+ | Complete requests: | ||
+ | Failed requests: | ||
+ | Write errors: | ||
+ | Total transferred: | ||
+ | HTML transferred: | ||
+ | Requests per second: | ||
+ | Time per request: | ||
+ | Time per request: | ||
+ | Transfer rate: 23245.69 [Kbytes/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | Connection Times (ms) | ||
+ | min mean[+/-sd] median | ||
+ | Connect: | ||
+ | Processing: | ||
+ | Waiting: | ||
+ | Total: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) | ||
+ | 50% 61 | ||
+ | 66% 62 | ||
+ | 75% 64 | ||
+ | 80% 64 | ||
+ | 90% 68 | ||
+ | 95% 72 | ||
+ | 98% 75 | ||
+ | 99% 78 | ||
+ | | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | From the same server: ab -n 50000 -c 500 ... | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | Concurrency Level: | ||
+ | Time taken for tests: | ||
+ | Complete requests: | ||
+ | Failed requests: | ||
+ | | ||
+ | Write errors: | ||
+ | Non-2xx responses: | ||
+ | Total transferred: | ||
+ | HTML transferred: | ||
+ | Requests per second: | ||
+ | Time per request: | ||
+ | Time per request: | ||
+ | Transfer rate: 16421.37 [Kbytes/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | Connection Times (ms) | ||
+ | min mean[+/-sd] median | ||
+ | Connect: | ||
+ | Processing: | ||
+ | Waiting: | ||
+ | Total: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) | ||
+ | 50% 80 | ||
+ | 66% 84 | ||
+ | 75% 87 | ||
+ | 80% 89 | ||
+ | 90% 103 | ||
+ | 95% 123 | ||
+ | 98% 5000 | ||
+ | 99% 5008 | ||
+ | | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | === VQ 19 === | ||
+ | |||
+ | From a remote host in Finland: ab -n 300 -c 10 ... | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | Concurrency Level: | ||
+ | Time taken for tests: | ||
+ | Complete requests: | ||
+ | Failed requests: | ||
+ | Write errors: | ||
+ | Total transferred: | ||
+ | HTML transferred: | ||
+ | Requests per second: | ||
+ | Time per request: | ||
+ | Time per request: | ||
+ | Transfer rate: 220.18 [Kbytes/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | Connection Times (ms) | ||
+ | min mean[+/-sd] median | ||
+ | Connect: | ||
+ | Processing: | ||
+ | Waiting: | ||
+ | Total: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) | ||
+ | 50% 626 | ||
+ | 66% 645 | ||
+ | 75% 654 | ||
+ | 80% 657 | ||
+ | 90% 693 | ||
+ | 95% 860 | ||
+ | 98% 975 | ||
+ | 99% 1026 | ||
+ | | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | From another Hetzner server: ab -n 1000 -c 10 ... | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | Concurrency Level: | ||
+ | Time taken for tests: | ||
+ | Complete requests: | ||
+ | Failed requests: | ||
+ | | ||
+ | Write errors: | ||
+ | Non-2xx responses: | ||
+ | Total transferred: | ||
+ | HTML transferred: | ||
+ | Requests per second: | ||
+ | Time per request: | ||
+ | Time per request: | ||
+ | Transfer rate: 724.40 [Kbytes/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | Connection Times (ms) | ||
+ | min mean[+/-sd] median | ||
+ | Connect: | ||
+ | Processing: | ||
+ | Waiting: | ||
+ | Total: | ||
+ | WARNING: The median and mean for the initial connection time are not within a normal deviation | ||
+ | These results are probably not that reliable. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) | ||
+ | 50% 46 | ||
+ | 66% 60 | ||
+ | 75% 71 | ||
+ | 80% 81 | ||
+ | 90% 111 | ||
+ | 95% 140 | ||
+ | 98% 248 | ||
+ | 99% 13440 | ||
+ | | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | From another Hetzner server: ab -n 2000 -c 20 ... | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | Concurrency Level: | ||
+ | Time taken for tests: | ||
+ | Complete requests: | ||
+ | Failed requests: | ||
+ | Write errors: | ||
+ | Total transferred: | ||
+ | HTML transferred: | ||
+ | Requests per second: | ||
+ | Time per request: | ||
+ | Time per request: | ||
+ | Transfer rate: 3201.12 [Kbytes/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | Connection Times (ms) | ||
+ | min mean[+/-sd] median | ||
+ | Connect: | ||
+ | Processing: | ||
+ | Waiting: | ||
+ | Total: | ||
+ | WARNING: The median and mean for the initial connection time are not within a normal deviation | ||
+ | These results are probably not that reliable. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) | ||
+ | 50% 86 | ||
+ | 66% 106 | ||
+ | 75% 121 | ||
+ | 80% 131 | ||
+ | 90% 157 | ||
+ | 95% 180 | ||
+ | 98% 203 | ||
+ | 99% 218 | ||
+ | | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | From another Hetzner server: ab -n 2000 -c 100 ... | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | Concurrency Level: | ||
+ | Time taken for tests: | ||
+ | Complete requests: | ||
+ | Failed requests: | ||
+ | Write errors: | ||
+ | Total transferred: | ||
+ | HTML transferred: | ||
+ | Requests per second: | ||
+ | Time per request: | ||
+ | Time per request: | ||
+ | Transfer rate: 3001.97 [Kbytes/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | Connection Times (ms) | ||
+ | min mean[+/-sd] median | ||
+ | Connect: | ||
+ | Processing: | ||
+ | Waiting: | ||
+ | Total: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) | ||
+ | 50% 376 | ||
+ | 66% 458 | ||
+ | 75% 526 | ||
+ | 80% 600 | ||
+ | 90% 726 | ||
+ | 95% 830 | ||
+ | 98% 1263 | ||
+ | 99% 3994 | ||
+ | | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | From the same server: ab -n 2000 -c 100 ... | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | Concurrency Level: | ||
+ | Time taken for tests: | ||
+ | Complete requests: | ||
+ | Failed requests: | ||
+ | Write errors: | ||
+ | Total transferred: | ||
+ | HTML transferred: | ||
+ | Requests per second: | ||
+ | Time per request: | ||
+ | Time per request: | ||
+ | Transfer rate: 3158.37 [Kbytes/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | Connection Times (ms) | ||
+ | min mean[+/-sd] median | ||
+ | Connect: | ||
+ | Processing: | ||
+ | Waiting: | ||
+ | Total: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) | ||
+ | 50% 345 | ||
+ | 66% 378 | ||
+ | 75% 468 | ||
+ | 80% 548 | ||
+ | 90% 827 | ||
+ | 95% 1356 | ||
+ | 98% 1434 | ||
+ | 99% 1441 | ||
+ | | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | From the same server: ab -n 50000 -c 500 ... | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | Concurrency Level: | ||
+ | Time taken for tests: | ||
+ | Complete requests: | ||
+ | Failed requests: | ||
+ | | ||
+ | Write errors: | ||
+ | Non-2xx responses: | ||
+ | Total transferred: | ||
+ | HTML transferred: | ||
+ | Requests per second: | ||
+ | Time per request: | ||
+ | Time per request: | ||
+ | Transfer rate: 4382.43 [Kbytes/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | Connection Times (ms) | ||
+ | min mean[+/-sd] median | ||
+ | Connect: | ||
+ | Processing: | ||
+ | Waiting: | ||
+ | Total: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) | ||
+ | 50% 439 | ||
+ | 66% 537 | ||
+ | 75% 3362 | ||
+ | 80% 3406 | ||
+ | 90% 3575 | ||
+ | 95% 5002 | ||
+ | 98% 6579 | ||
+ | 99% 9209 | ||
+ | | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== The decision ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | VQ 19 appears to be very suitable to run [[https:// | ||
+ | * VQ 19 is a single core server. While the core performs excellent the single core solution has its potential to become a bottleneck. When I run unit tests the CPU is fully consumed. When I check database integrity the CPU is fully consumed. When I make a backup the CPU is fully consumed (encryption, | ||
+ | * Since the application is lightweight VQ 19 could handle all the load [[https:// | ||
+ | * VQ 19 has no backup space. EQ 4 has and it works fine (have tried both making backups and restoring them). External backup space adds to VQ 19's price. | ||
+ | * For a casual web service admin VQ 19 is a Mercedes Benz. EQ 4 is a Rolls-Royce. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{tag>IT 2012 Catz catza.net Hetzner server dedicated_server virtual_server benchmark server_benchmark}} | ||