4 ms·
Yeah, like I said, I from what I hear, linode is managing disk I/O well. Have you ever gotten a warning about using too much IO from linode? ok, so let's go b
by lsc 16y ago
Yeah, like I said, I from what I hear, linode is managing disk I/O well.
Have you ever gotten a warning about using too much IO from linode?
ok, so let's go back and see the math again... so there were 14 systems or so on that 32GiB system, so if everyone was going at the disk, you'd get what, 3.5MB/sec- about what you were seeing.
I'm just pointing out, when you 'virtualize' a hard drive, you are sharing a resource that really doesn't share very well. you were getting your 'fair share' of the server at slicehost; it sounds like linode just does a much better job of keeping everyone from trying to use all available disk at all times.
- code_duck 16y agoOur i/o isn't really very high. It is under 1 mb/s on average, actually! So I have no idea what the issue is. You're right, 3 MB/S SHOULD be enough because according to our Linode graph, the i/o hasn't been over 2 mb/s in the past week. I can only imagine that certain times at Slicehost must have been providing less than at the times I tested it. That's what is frustrating for me. We don't have a demanding application. It's well written and tuned, but I was having these problems, and as far as I knew I was paying enough to not have such problems. Maybe we're on a spacious server at Linode or were graced with idle neighbors... all I know is, the system load on Linode is muuuch more stable, (and low!) even though our system is doing twice as much. And, it costs half as much.
- lsc 16y agoI didn't say 3MB/sec was enough... just that it was fair. there's a difference, you know. I suspect the differences you saw after moving had to do with how active the other users of the disk were. this may have been chance, or it may have been Linode's policy of pro actively doing things about heavy disk users.
- code_duck 16y agoThanks for your insights on this.