7 ms·
Nginx Requests/Second – RaspberryPi vs Amazon EC2
- mocko 14y agoI get "502 Bad Gateway". Oh the irony.
- dragontamer 14y agoHe is running his site on an Amazon Micro Instance. He probably should switch over to his Raspberry Pi so that he can handle 50% more load.
- CJefferson 14y agoThis is interesting. One obvious question, although a little tricky to test. Did the raspberry pi get an advantage by being in the same room as you?
- planckscnst 14y agoIt would be interesting to try to use netem [1] to match the network characteristics of the link to his EC2 instance and run the test again. [1] http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/networking/netem http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/networ...
- damian2000 14y agoIf I'm not mistaken the performance test software used is running on each machine locally and just hammers the web server with local requests?
- jvc26 14y agoGoogle Cache link - http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.evilsoapbox.com/?p=1607 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://... currently main content not working for me.
- FiloSottile 14y agoAlready down with 502. <joke> Was the blog hosted on the RPi? </joke>
- Amfy 14y agoYea, I thought the same :)
- foxbunny 14y agoSo it isn't a joke. Too bad, I thought it was funny.
- StavrosK 14y agoEven worse, EC2! :p
- stesch 14y agoWorse: nginx/0.8.53
- pbhjpbhj 14y agoWhy is that, why are Amazon running it on that server, is it their choice? http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://evilsoapbox.com http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://evilsoapb...
- bhauer 14y agoMore importantly, viewing the source from the Google cached version: src='.../wp-content/...' Surprised?
- cbg0 14y agoThere is a bit of overhead since you are in a virtualized environment on EC2, plus the "micro" instance does not really give you a dedicated processor core - you're sharing CPU time with other instances.
- jkat 14y agoWe just finished doing some video encoding testing on a few different platform and EC2 (along with EC2-based offerings) are considerably slower and more expensive. Although 10x more expensive than a 3930K, a cc2.8xlarge instance was only 1.75x faster.
- chaz 14y agoI think EC2 is almost always going to be more expensive than bare metal servers, unless you are taking advantage of the ability to pay by the hour, or leveraging flexible pricing. Reserved instances will save quite a bit of money, but spot pricing can do you even better. Check out this post from a few months ago from someone who is using spot instances for core services, and estimates 70% savings vs on demand pricing. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4662644 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4662644
- davestheraves 14y agoWhere does the 10x more expensive come from? Not questioning just want to understand.
- cjg_ 14y agoComparing cost of a cpu vs price of running an EC2 instance (and over what time)? Bit strange...
- dragontamer 14y agoHow about comparing EC2 to a Virtual Private Server? Thats a bit more of an apples-to-apples comparison. Serverbear notes that Amazon 7.5GB Large instances (which cost $180+ / month) benchmark at ~650 on Unixbench... with 30 MB/s for its disk. In comparison, a 8GB VM from Digital Ocean only costs $80/month. I don't have the numbers for the 8GB VM, but the smaller $20/month 2GB instance has a UnixBench of ~1900 with over 300MB/s I/O from its solid state drive. (I presume the larger instances have more CPU power / priority in the VM scales) That is half the cost for triple the CPU performance and 10x better disk performance. Other smaller providers, such as RamNode, offer extremely fast I/O with RAID 10 Solid State Drives in their Virtual Private Servers (500+ MB/s). Amazon vs Digital Ocean serverbear.com/239-large-amazon-web-services serverbear.com/1990-2gb-ssd--2-cpu-digitalocean To be fair though, Amazon's CPUs are more consistent... consistently bad, but consistent. VPS CPUs and I/O are affected by their neighboring VMs, while Amazon seems to have removed that uncertainty. Nonetheless, in practice, you will always get a better performing CPU and I/O from other providers. And if we compare both to bare metal servers, obviously bare metal servers win in price/performance, but are harder to maintain, so its hard to do an apples-to-apples comparison. But Digital Ocean VMs can be spun up/down just like Amazon instances... although Amazon has more load balancers and other infrastructure. (But nothing is stopping you from setting HAProxy on a front-end VM to loadbalance a cluster of VMs from Digital Ocean. Even then, other VPS providers like Linode offer Load Balancers as part of their infrastructure now) Its hard for me to see the case for Amazon's cloud offerings. They don't have very much price/performance at all. At all ends of the spectrum, low end to high end, VPS providers such as Digital Ocean offers more vertical scalability as well as a cheaper price on all of Amazon's offerings. Unless you need some specialized VM from Amazon (ie: GPU compute), or are locked into their vendor-specific API (oh I feel sorry for you), there is no reason to use Amazon's services IMO.
- chaz 14y agoEC2 micro instances throttle down very heavily if you use CPU for more than a few seconds at a time. Other instances allow you to burn 100% CPU all day, but not the micros. http://gregsramblings.com/2011/02/07/amazon-ec2-micro-instance-cpu-steal/ http://gregsramblings.com/2011/02/07/amazon-ec2-micro-instan...
- recuter 14y agoAlso, with spot pricing you could run a micro instance for 18 months for the price of a Pi and you don't need to wait for it to be shipped to you. :)
- ck2 14y agoFile-System: ext4 Why would you use a journaling file system on a sd card? Actually I take that back, I was not aware ext4 performance has been improved over ext3 and even ext2 and apparently in ext4 you can even turn journaling off entirely.
- raverbashing 14y agoYes, you can turn the journaling off. You can do that in ext3 as well (ending up with 'ext2') But maybe JFFS2 or similar 'flash file systems' can be better depending on the use, not sure how the state of these kind of file systems are
- simcop2387 14y agoGenerally you never want to use JFFS2 or other flash file systems on a flash device that has a separate controller. this is because their own wear leveling will usually confuse the hell out of the controller and can sometimes cause it to either slow down or to lower the life because the controller will not level things properly. Whether ext4 or not is better than say XFS for this, no clue though.
- bencevans 14y agoText only Cached Version: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:JCuNKYQ8IGkJ:www.evilsoapbox.com/%3Fp%3D1607&hl=en&tbo=d&gl=uk&strip=1 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:JCuNKYQ...
- simontabor 14y agoVery unfair to be using a t1.micro instance, they're only meant to give very short bursts of power and don't give any dedicated hardware (so giving the hardware specs is pointless). Do a new benchmark comparison vs a m1.small and it'd be interesting. I bet the small wins by an absolute mile.
- CCs 14y agoThe blog is called Evil Soapbox. Why do you expect it to be fair? :)
- loeg 14y agoFwiw, CascadeLink is a high-speed apartment building ISP in the Seattle area (or at least, I that's why I recognize the name). Some of my friends get 30/30 for $40/mo.
- mariusbutuc 14y agoGuess what, 502 Bad Gateway!
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- Nikkau 14y agoA blog is nearly a read-only webapp, it's the easiest type of website to scale. If you can't avoid 502s with trafic HN can make, you should'nt do benchmarks about hosting matter.
- marcuskaz 14y agothe benchmark said the Pi can handle 500 requests/sec, which shows that benchmarks and real world are very different
- Groxx 14y agoWhile true, it generally means buying bigger hosting / moving to a new provider / some significantly-manual step. If they haven't done it before, it could be hours before it's completed, if they're even aware of it yet.
- antihero 14y agoNo, because a static content blog can be served directly from memory. You could probably handle HN traffic on anything.
- Groxx 14y ago"Can be" does not mean "is". Unless it is built to do so, why expect it to? You have no idea what they're running, nor on what kind of machine or bandwidth allotment, why are you making these huge assumptions and insulting people who don't meet them?
- antihero 14y agoWell if you have a blog about performance, you'd think their site was performant.
- Groxx 14y agoWhy? Maybe they optimized for their own performance (put words online) instead of (buying, configuring, and) over-building their server. What if they're not a sysadmin? What if they hate sysadmin work? Seriously, it's a wordpress site.
- mememememememe 14y agoWhy are we trying to benchmark PI? Give up on using Pi as a real server. Even if EC2 sucks, you still can't beat its the ability to fall over and scale. The first thing about hosting is picking bandwidth. Serving 500 heavy requests per second in your home network will probably mean dying router at some pointer.
- feralmoan 14y agoCan you turn off rate limiting so we can read the story
- Hengjie 14y agoOr just put it on EC2 instances. :P
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]