3 ms·
The queue time for x64 appears to vary quite a bit still. But you are correct that it is much better than what it was a few weeks back, when the analysis was wr
by crohr 2y ago
The queue time for x64 appears to vary quite a bit still. But you are correct that it is much better than what it was a few weeks back, when the analysis was written (it was not unusual to see 60s+ spikes).
Also note that I specifically mentioned that "all third-parties are good on that front, expected [sic] Ubicloud (but that may change)."
Also agree that now that you removed the outdated CPUs (was still active end of May), the analysis should mention that you have OK CPUs by now. I will fix it.
For providers that are on this page, do not hesitate to write to me if you find the analysis outdated for your specific service.
[edit] page is now up to date with new analysis
- ozgune 2y agoHey there, thank you for this update. It's your analysis, so you're free to mention Ubicloud as you'd like. Still, you updated the above statement to, "Be aware that Ubicloud has a slightly lower CPU speed and somewhat variable queue times for x64 (but improving)." Could you clarify what you meant by variable queue times? According to the benchmarks, Ubicloud queue times for x64 were 18|44 secs at p50|p95 over the past month. I agree that our p95 number is higher. At the same time, RunsOn's AWS numbers are 31|36 secs. So I feel that driving a conclusion based on our p95 variance number for x64 is a bit unfair to Ubicloud. Thank you for compiling this benchmark btw. Now, we'll follow it closely.
- crohr 2y agoRunsOn is the only on-premise solution of the bunch, so it is single tenant, and as such it cannot easily have pools of 10s of machines on standby to start within 10s. So on queue time I’m comparing Ubicloud against the other SaaS providers, and anything higher than 20s is not especially great in that case. Plus you have high variance, which I personally consider an issue. Once this improves I’ll be sure to update it.