A dedicated server or a virtual server
These are my notes on choosing between Hetzner's Dedicated Server EQ 4 and Virtual Private Server VQ 19. This was written in 2011 so this may not reflect the current similarities and differences between the two server types.
Introduction
I've been running catza.net on Hetzner's dedicated server EQ 4 and have been very satisfied with the server and the service. EQ 4 offers plenty of CPU power, memory and disk and has a low price tag. I've had no issues. But there were several factors that made me thinking of downgrading to a VPS:
- 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 service's usage statistics against the specs of both EQ 4 and VQ 19 and it should run fine on both. The service is not a high traffic service and the technical architecture is lightweight including a multi-level caching scheme. It requires some RAM but with that should run smoothly even on a VPS.
- 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 and fast disk IO they should be interpreted the server level in mind. The enterprise stuff is a different story. At my day job we have ordered a database server that can run disk IO at level of 4 gigabytes per second (approximately 40 gigabits per second). As you might quess the server is not Hetzner's EQ or VQ series.
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's offerings as of 2011-07-24.
| 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's good reputation. But this whole comparison is really not fair since EQ costs 2,5 times the VQ. VQ's lower price is very tempting. |
| 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 catza.net even when on a high load. |
| 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's S3 or similar internet storage solution and this adds to the price tag. |
| CPU | Intel i7-920 4 cores | Single virtual core | Intel i7 makes catza.net fly. Single virtual core is sufficient since it is a guaranteed share (not dependent on other VPS's that run on the same host). |
| 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 catza.net from EQ's backup space.
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's unit tests complete in 153 wall clock seconds with EQ 4 and in 193 wall clock seconds with VQ 19.
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=/dev/zero of=test bs=2M count=2000 | 4194304000 bytes (4.2 GB) copied, 30.1258 s, 139 MB/s | 4194304000 bytes (4.2 GB) copied, 241.968 s, 17.3 MB/s |
| dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=2M count=2000 | 4194304000 bytes (4.2 GB) copied, 32.5151 s, 129 MB/s | 4194304000 bytes (4.2 GB) copied, 298.434 s, 14.1 MB/s |
| dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=385K count=7000 | 2759680000 bytes (2.8 GB) copied, 13.7199 s, 201 MB/s | 2759680000 bytes (2.8 GB) copied, 149.822 s, 18.4 MB/s |
| dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync | 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 11.4975 s, 93.4 MB/s | 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 30.2424 s, 35.5 MB/s |
| dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=32k count=32k | 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 1.06718 s, 1.0 GB/s | 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 19.782 s, 54.3 MB/s |
| 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)
System: Catz: GNU/Linux
OS: GNU/Linux -- 2.6.32-5-amd64 -- #1 SMP Tue Jun 14 09:42:28 UTC 2011
Machine: x86_64 (unknown)
Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="UTF-8", collate="UTF-8")
CPU 0: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (5346.9 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
CPU 1: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (5346.3 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
CPU 2: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (5346.3 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
CPU 3: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (5346.3 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
CPU 4: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (5346.3 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
CPU 5: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (5346.3 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
CPU 6: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (5346.3 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
CPU 7: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (5346.3 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
12:47:28 up 19 days, 9:58, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.04, 0.08; runlevel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 27380319.9 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 3514.0 MWIPS (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 2350.5 lps (29.8 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 997464.6 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 275827.6 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 2008339.0 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 2389575.4 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 111529.9 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 9869.8 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 5207.8 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 3838.8 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 4065280.4 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 27380319.9 2346.2
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 3514.0 638.9
Execl Throughput 43.0 2350.5 546.6
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 997464.6 2518.8
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 275827.6 1666.6
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 2008339.0 3462.7
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 2389575.4 1920.9
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 111529.9 278.8
Process Creation 126.0 9869.8 783.3
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 5207.8 1228.3
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 3838.8 6397.9
System Call Overhead 15000.0 4065280.4 2710.2
========
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 118476442.5 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 22621.1 MWIPS (9.9 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 25881.9 lps (29.8 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 770590.3 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 207984.5 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 1917802.5 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 10128644.1 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 2158629.6 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 78972.4 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 37648.5 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 4931.6 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 13513932.8 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 118476442.5 10152.2
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 22621.1 4112.9
Execl Throughput 43.0 25881.9 6019.0
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 770590.3 1945.9
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 207984.5 1256.7
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 1917802.5 3306.6
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 10128644.1 8142.0
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 2158629.6 5396.6
Process Creation 126.0 78972.4 6267.7
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 37648.5 8879.4
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 4931.6 8219.3
System Call Overhead 15000.0 13513932.8 9009.3
========
System Benchmarks Index Score 5173.9
VQ 19
========================================================================
BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.3)
System: catz: GNU/Linux
OS: GNU/Linux -- 2.6.32-5-amd64 -- #1 SMP Tue Jun 14 09:42:28 UTC 2011
Machine: x86_64 (unknown)
Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="UTF-8", collate="UTF-8")
CPU 0: QEMU Virtual CPU version 0.12.3 (5614.1 bogomips)
x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET
12:49:25 up 9:35, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.07, 0.63; runlevel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 24018510.7 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 3249.5 MWIPS (9.6 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 3626.4 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 869488.0 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 281563.1 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 1935461.3 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 2321830.6 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 402036.6 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 14754.2 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 6023.6 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 753.1 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 3682241.3 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 24018510.7 2058.1
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 3249.5 590.8
Execl Throughput 43.0 3626.4 843.3
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 869488.0 2195.7
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 281563.1 1701.3
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 1935461.3 3337.0
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 2321830.6 1866.4
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 402036.6 1005.1
Process Creation 126.0 14754.2 1171.0
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 6023.6 1420.7
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 753.1 1255.2
System Call Overhead 15000.0 3682241.3 2454.8
========
System Benchmarks Index Score 1493.3
Web access
Apache ab was used with a typical catza.net page that is of dynamic nature but due to multi-level caching is served from Memcached without any disk IO.
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: 10
Time taken for tests: 18.275 seconds
Complete requests: 300
Failed requests: 0
Write errors: 0
Total transferred: 4450500 bytes
HTML transferred: 4350900 bytes
Requests per second: 16.42 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 609.168 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 60.917 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate: 237.82 [Kbytes/sec] received
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 55 60 3.8 59 84
Processing: 178 536 49.7 541 581
Waiting: 60 292 130.7 296 562
Total: 240 596 49.6 601 642
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
100% 642 (longest request)
From another Hetzner server: ab -n 1000 -c 10 …
Concurrency Level: 10
Time taken for tests: 1.856 seconds
Complete requests: 1000
Failed requests: 0
Write errors: 0
Total transferred: 14786000 bytes
HTML transferred: 14454000 bytes
Requests per second: 538.73 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 18.562 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 1.856 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate: 7778.96 [Kbytes/sec] received
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 0 3 1.7 3 20
Processing: 4 15 5.3 16 33
Waiting: 0 11 5.0 10 31
Total: 5 18 4.8 18 35
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
100% 35 (longest request)
From another Hetzner server: ab -n 2000 -c 20 …
Concurrency Level: 20
Time taken for tests: 3.187 seconds
Complete requests: 2000
Failed requests: 0
Write errors: 0
Total transferred: 29572000 bytes
HTML transferred: 28908000 bytes
Requests per second: 627.59 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 31.868 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 1.593 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate: 9062.01 [Kbytes/sec] received
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 0 6 3.9 6 26
Processing: 6 25 9.6 24 72
Waiting: 2 16 8.0 14 69
Total: 12 31 8.3 31 78
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
100% 78 (longest request)
From another Hetzner server: ab -n 2000 -c 100 …
Concurrency Level: 100
Time taken for tests: 3.135 seconds
Complete requests: 2000
Failed requests: 0
Write errors: 0
Total transferred: 29572000 bytes
HTML transferred: 28908000 bytes
Requests per second: 637.86 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 156.773 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 1.568 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate: 9210.42 [Kbytes/sec] received
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 0 34 15.8 33 87
Processing: 10 91 39.3 89 341
Waiting: 7 51 26.6 48 266
Total: 29 125 44.1 127 390
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
100% 390 (longest request)
From the same server: ab -n 2000 -c 100 …
Concurrency Level: 100
Time taken for tests: 1.242 seconds
Complete requests: 2000
Failed requests: 0
Write errors: 0
Total transferred: 29572000 bytes
HTML transferred: 28908000 bytes
Requests per second: 1609.87 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 62.117 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 0.621 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate: 23245.69 [Kbytes/sec] received
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 0 0 0.8 0 6
Processing: 7 60 8.8 61 80
Waiting: 7 60 8.8 60 80
Total: 12 61 8.2 61 80
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
100% 80 (longest request)
From the same server: ab -n 50000 -c 500 …
Concurrency Level: 500
Time taken for tests: 43.283 seconds
Complete requests: 50000
Failed requests: 793
(Connect: 0, Receive: 0, Length: 793, Exceptions: 0)
Write errors: 0
Non-2xx responses: 793
Total transferred: 727832890 bytes
HTML transferred: 711377326 bytes
Requests per second: 1155.18 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 432.835 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 0.866 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate: 16421.37 [Kbytes/sec] received
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 0 0 1.2 0 16
Processing: 9 316 1466.0 80 33017
Waiting: 9 316 1465.9 80 33017
Total: 25 317 1466.4 80 33027
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
100% 33027 (longest request)
VQ 19
From a remote host in Finland: ab -n 300 -c 10 …
Concurrency Level: 10
Time taken for tests: 19.739 seconds
Complete requests: 300
Failed requests: 0
Write errors: 0
Total transferred: 4450500 bytes
HTML transferred: 4350900 bytes
Requests per second: 15.20 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 657.971 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 65.797 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate: 220.18 [Kbytes/sec] received
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 56 65 13.3 61 161
Processing: 176 579 93.3 562 975
Waiting: 61 326 153.6 310 909
Total: 235 643 99.5 626 1036
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
100% 1036 (longest request)
From another Hetzner server: ab -n 1000 -c 10 …
Concurrency Level: 10
Time taken for tests: 19.916 seconds
Complete requests: 1000
Failed requests: 4
(Connect: 0, Receive: 0, Length: 4, Exceptions: 0)
Write errors: 0
Non-2xx responses: 1
Total transferred: 14773515 bytes
HTML transferred: 14441702 bytes
Requests per second: 50.21 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 199.161 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 19.916 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate: 724.40 [Kbytes/sec] received
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 0 1 0.6 0 9
Processing: 4 199 1408.9 45 14391
Waiting: 3 188 1408.7 35 14389
Total: 5 199 1408.9 46 14391
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
100% 14391 (longest request)
From another Hetzner server: ab -n 2000 -c 20 …
Concurrency Level: 20
Time taken for tests: 9.023 seconds
Complete requests: 2000
Failed requests: 0
Write errors: 0
Total transferred: 29576000 bytes
HTML transferred: 28912000 bytes
Requests per second: 221.66 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 90.227 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 4.511 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate: 3201.12 [Kbytes/sec] received
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 0 1 0.5 0 19
Processing: 4 89 48.6 85 262
Waiting: 3 67 38.4 62 227
Total: 5 90 48.7 86 262
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
100% 262 (longest request)
From another Hetzner server: ab -n 2000 -c 100 …
Concurrency Level: 100
Time taken for tests: 9.621 seconds
Complete requests: 2000
Failed requests: 0
Write errors: 0
Total transferred: 29576000 bytes
HTML transferred: 28912000 bytes
Requests per second: 207.87 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 481.065 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 4.811 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate: 3001.97 [Kbytes/sec] received
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 0 55 399.0 0 3004
Processing: 20 422 224.3 374 1386
Waiting: 12 315 165.0 276 1120
Total: 20 477 524.8 376 4389
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
100% 4389 (longest request)
From the same server: ab -n 2000 -c 100 …
Concurrency Level: 100
Time taken for tests: 9.145 seconds
Complete requests: 2000
Failed requests: 0
Write errors: 0
Total transferred: 29576000 bytes
HTML transferred: 28912000 bytes
Requests per second: 218.70 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 457.243 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 4.572 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate: 3158.37 [Kbytes/sec] received
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 0 3 13.6 0 339
Processing: 18 447 283.2 344 1494
Waiting: 3 444 283.0 341 1494
Total: 55 451 281.3 345 1494
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
100% 1494 (longest request)
From the same server: ab -n 50000 -c 500 …
Concurrency Level: 500
Time taken for tests: 154.968 seconds
Complete requests: 50000
Failed requests: 3040
(Connect: 0, Receive: 0, Length: 3040, Exceptions: 0)
Write errors: 0
Non-2xx responses: 3040
Total transferred: 695434200 bytes
HTML transferred: 679387920 bytes
Requests per second: 322.65 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 1549.676 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 3.099 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate: 4382.43 [Kbytes/sec] received
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 0 1 9.3 0 120
Processing: 0 1482 2226.2 439 33053
Waiting: 0 1479 2225.5 436 33053
Total: 0 1483 2229.7 439 33157
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
100% 33157 (longest request)
The decision
VQ 19 appears to be very suitable to run catza.net without performance issues. I would save 30 euros per month if switching to it. Still I decided to keep EQ 4 and let VQ 19 go for several reasons:
- 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, compression). If a Linux process hangs the CPU is fully consumed. These situations have an immediate effect on the application performance. With EQ 4 I can run my tasks, have a hung process and there are still two cores left to serve the web users. I sleep my nights better with multiple cores. I wonder if Hetzner could update the VQ's to have one quaranteed core, four burstable cores?
- Since the application is lightweight VQ 19 could handle all the load catza.net is due to face. But EQ 4 offers more headroom for unforeseen situations, extreme peak times and future expansion. I serve photos and the photos get inline linked around the web. I don't mind since I have plenty of headroom for that.
- 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.