5 ms·
I forgot to benchmark the disk before I upgraded but here are some simple disk benchmarks on an upgraded linode (the $20 plan, now with SSD) $ dd bs=1M count
by kyrra 13y ago
I forgot to benchmark the disk before I upgraded but here are some simple disk benchmarks on an upgraded linode (the $20 plan, now with SSD)
$ dd bs=1M count=1024 if=/dev/zero of=test conv=fdatasync
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 1.31593 s, 816 MB/s
$ hdparm -tT /dev/xvda
/dev/xvda:
Timing cached reads: 19872 MB in 1.98 seconds = 10020.63 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 2558 MB in 3.00 seconds = 852.57 MB/sec
Upgraded cpuinfo model: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2680 v2 @ 2.80GHz
Old cpuinfo model: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU L5520 @ 2.27GHz
CPUs compared: http://ark.intel.com/compare/75277,40201 http://ark.intel.com/compare/75277,40201
- kawsper 13y agoThis is mine old $20 located in London, doing exactly nothing, I just created it last week, it seems very slow in comparison: dd bs=1M count=1024 if=/dev/zero of=test conv=fdatasync 1024+0 records in 1024+0 records out 1073741824 bytes (1,1 GB) copied, 13,6791 s, 78,5 MB/s hdparm -tT /dev/xvda /dev/xvda: Timing cached reads: 3580 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1794.00 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 336 MB in 3.01 seconds = 111.75 MB/sec
- cbull 13y agoDallas data center, not upgraded, faster than London, slower than upgrade. ;) $> dd bs=1M count=1024 if=/dev/zero of=test conv=fdatasync 1024+0 records in 1024+0 records out 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 2.19598 s, 489 MB/s $> hdparm -tT /dev/xvda /dev/xvda: Timing cached reads: 12446 MB in 1.98 seconds = 6273.29 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 1768 MB in 3.00 seconds = 589.00 MB/sec
- KamiNuvini 13y agoHere's mine, with SSD upgrade: dd bs=1M count=1024 if=/dev/zero of=test conv=fdatasync 1024+0 records in 1024+0 records out 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 2.17496 s, 494 MB/s hdparm -tT /dev/xvda /dev/xvda: Timing cached reads: 18560 MB in 1.98 seconds = 9358.78 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 2510 MB in 3.00 seconds = 836.61 MB/sec`
- growt 13y agoHere is my $5 digitalocean slice (created a few months ago): # dd bs=1M count=1024 if=/dev/zero of=test conv=fdatasync 1024+0 records in 1024+0 records out 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 3.7375 s, 287 MB/s # hdparm -tT /dev/disk/by-label/DOROOT /dev/disk/by-label/DOROOT: Timing cached reads: 16394 MB in 2.00 seconds = 8205.62 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 868 MB in 3.00 seconds = 289.17 MB/sec
- saltcod 13y agoJust ran this on my 1GB droplet at Digital Ocean: $ dd bs=1M count=1024 if=/dev/zero of=test conv=fdatasync 1024+0 records in 1024+0 records out 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 5.83509 s, 184 MB/s
- drzaiusapelord 13y ago287 MB/s vs 816 MB/s is huge. Linode is really doing a good job here. I have 4 VMs with them and am very happy. Can't wait to make this move.
- chacham15 13y agoParallelizability isnt always possible, but you should normalize the speed you get per dollar. 287 MB/sec / $5 ~ 57 MB/sec/dollar 816 MB/sec / $20 ~ 40 MB/sec/dollar
- Thaxll 13y agoThose benchmarks are pointless on VM because of the memory caching...
- kyrra 13y agoYou're probably right. Do you think it's cache at the VM level before writing to disk. Would writing more data out help at all? $ dd bs=1M count=40960 if=/dev/zero of=test conv=fdatasync 40960+0 records in 40960+0 records out 42949672960 bytes (43 GB) copied, 48.455 s, 886 MB/s
- mindslight 13y agoThe VM should always pass through proper fsync() semantics, so probably not that layer. But they mention battery-backed raid controllers, and it would be appropriate for fsync() to complete after the data has gotten into battery-backed memory, but before it gets to the actual disks. (Okay Linode, you've finally done it. I'll get rid of my oddball $30/mo plan sometime soon. That extra $10 used to get me a necessary 180MB of extra RAM!)
- Nux 13y agoThroughput speed is not everything, in many situations latency is more important. Can you give results for this? dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=512 count=1500 oflag=dsync I'm getting "6.40264 s, 120 kB/s" on my laptop's SSD, but on a proper server with a RAID card and cache enabled I get "0.187033 s, 4.1 MB/s".
- kbrower 13y agodd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=512 count=1500 oflag=dsync 768000 bytes (768 kB) copied, 0.3325 s, 2.3 MB/s
- ausjke 13y agodd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=512 count=1500 oflag=dsync 768000 bytes (768 kB) copied, 0.45329 s, 1.7 MB/s
- kyrra 13y agoI did 7 runs of your test and the average time is: 0.424795s. Example run: $ dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=512 count=1500 oflag=dsync 1500+0 records in 1500+0 records out 768000 bytes (768 kB) copied, 0.427272 s, 1.8 MB/s
- lloeki 13y agoDO @5$/mo: $ dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=512 count=1500 oflag=dsync 1500+0 records in 1500+0 records out 768000 bytes (768 kB) copied, 1.64471 s, 467 kB/s
- diorray 13y agoDO @$40-AMS1 1500+0 records in 1500+0 records out 768000 bytes (768 kB) copied, 1.17399 s, 654 kB/s
- kbrower 13y agoNot a scientific benchmark, but I have a linode that has 8 cores before and after that just finished its upgrade. Previously it was consistently using just under 5/8 CPUs and is now using a ~2/8 CPUs with the same in/out traffic.
- seunosewa 13y agoHow did you upgrade? I can't find any upgrade link, even after switching to a 64-bit kernel.
- castis 13y agoIf your machines are eligible, there will be an upgrade button in the right nav when looking at one of your linodes.