13 ms·
Performance comparison between EC2, Slicehost, Linode, Rackspace Cloud, Prgmr
- lsb 17y agoTo be fair, you can get the small EC2 down to $30/mo if you prepay, and Slicehost can go down 20% too.
- atambo 17y agoLinode also has a 10% discount for 1/yr prepay or 15% discount for 2/yr prepay.
- patio11 17y agoSlicehost goes down 20%? I was aware of the 10% payment credit for paying max(monthly_bill * 6, 240) in advance, which works out to be a 9.1% discount. Is there an option I'm missing? I wouldn't mind putting a few hundred in my pocket over the next year.
- lsb 17y ago10%, my mistake. Does bingo card creation require a lot of CPU, and, if not, why not move to EC2? I'm also on Slicehost, looking for better deals.
- cloudhead 17y agoSummary: Time to switch to Linode.
- poutine 17y agoI switched from Slicehost to Linode and haven't looked back. Their management GUI is complicated but way more powerful.
- callmeed 17y agoHow so? (I've only used SH) Do they have good DNS tools like SH?
- atambo 17y agoYou can get a good look at the linode control panel at http://www.linode.com/features.cfm http://www.linode.com/features.cfm
- dshah 17y agoThe fact that they still have pages running in ColdFusion surprises me.
- poutine 17y agoThe DNS tools are considerably better IMHO. Take a look at the screenshots on their site. It's pretty cheap so if you have a significant amount of hosts with Slicehost it's worth picking up a linode for a month just to test yourself.
- stingraycharles 17y agoOne thing scares me about Linode: I can not find any information with regards to availability guarantees at all. Even when they talk about their "datacenter availability", they're talking about which image slots are available in which datacenter. EDIT: Ok, I just found some availability information in their FAQ: http://www.linode.com/faq.cfm http://www.linode.com/faq.cfm "What we can boast about is our commitment to resolving these issues in the quickest fashion possible. Most customers will tell you the last time they rebooted was to take advantage of a plan upgrade. 99.9% uptime, or your lost time is refunded back to your account. " This essentially means it's worthless: they're only backing it up with paying you back the time your server was down (they'd better do that!). Looks like they don't have much confidence in themselves in that area.
- etherealG 17y agosorry, but I don't think I've ever seen any virtual server hosting provider that went further than this. most don't even mention paying you back for lost time, and instead will just give a 99.9% figure without saying what the rolling time on that % is. To be fair, neither are linode, but at least they offer your money back, most don't.
- martey 17y agoSlicehost's "SLA" is even sillier than the 99.9 percenters: Here’s our SLA: we’ll do our best to keep your machines running smoothly for as long as possible and get them up ASAP should something go wrong.
- mrkurt 17y agoSLA's are pretty silly and useless, as a rule. :) They're really only worth caring about if they can get you out of some long term contract. They'll never be good enough to counteract the losses you'll suffer from downtime.
- wisty 17y agoSLA's are not useless, they are just useless for commodity hosting. If (say) the NYSE was negotiating for a host, they would make sure they had an SLA that gave massive damages if the host failed. But for commodity hosting, the provider writes the contract. There is no way they are going to expose themselves to your losses other than a fixed refund for the time you lost. Not just because of the costs, but because the costs would be a PITA to calculate. If Twitter goes down and alienates its customers, how would you calculate the damage?
- timdorr 17y agoNot necessarily. This article ignores the "neighbor" factor. That is, performance might be highly dependent on what the neighboring VPSes on the same compute node and storage node are doing. It could very well be that on Linode he was placed into a underloaded system that did not have other active VPSes on it or even have been filled out to capacity yet. It's not possible to tell. It may just reflect a better allocation system than the other providers, assigning compute nodes in a round robin fashion, not in order. So, it's a little unfair to do a benchmark when 95% of the system's resources are taken up by an unknown factor. (Note: I don't host with any of these guys, so I'm not defending Slicehost or anyone else. In fact, I run my own hosting company and I'm working on our own cloud offerings right now.)
- jasonwatkinspdx 17y agoOne thing a lot of people have seen with Amazon is high instance to instance variation. Generally if one starts up a batch job of 10-100 odd instances all doing the same work, you'll see up to a 10x difference in throughput between best and worst instances. I'd speculate amazon has many different generations of hardware deployed and the EC2 Compute Units do not really capture the differences between these, particularly when it comes to memory bandwidth.
- uggedal 17y agoAs a matter of fact I ran the benchmarks on one instance in EU and one in US before I started a week long run on one US instance. I simply could not believe the numbers I was getting from what should be a larger share of physical CPUs compared to the other providers and many times more RAM.
- lsc 17y agoI think you might want to go back and run a web application benchmark like you did last time; the benchmarks you used this time apparently do not benefit from having more ram, and this is, uh, rather different from most (but not all) real-world loads.
- 17y ago
- tybris 17y agoVery low storage, poor memory/$, unestablished company, but good results in a less than scientific performance comparison by a blogger. Yeah, lets switch right away. (Linode is awesome, but the reasoning is poor)
- lsc 17y agounestablished company? uh, Linode has been around longer than I have. (And I've been around longer than slicehost.) If any of us VPS providers are established, Linode is. (johncompanies has also been around a while.)
- charlesmarshall 17y agoDo you believe everything you read on the internet? I'm not saying the figures are out but before you jump ship you should really try things out for yourself. Many other posters have said Linode has a 7 day trial period; maybe try that with one of your sites before switching completely (I probably will). edit: Sorry, someone below has said similar thing.. should of read the entire thread first!
- bumblebird 17y agoThey also have seriously good support #linode on irc.oftc.net
- ryanwaggoner 17y agoThis is kind of disappointing for fans of Slicehost :( Any reason that we shouldn't switch?
- uggedal 17y agoBenchmarks is benchmarks, you should take them with a grain of salt. Sign up for a Linode account and test how it fares on HTTP requests (siege/ab) or test suite for your own application.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- patio11 17y agoAny reason that we shouldn't switch? I'm not switching because they meet my needs, my customers are happy, and switching would take me lots of time that I can more profitably use promoting my software. I don't get paid for doing work, I get paid for solving problems. Slicehost is not a problem for me. Your mileage may vary.
- ryanwaggoner 17y agoWell put :) I asked the question because server admin is probably the area where we're weakest and I don't want to waste time trying to solve problems that could easily be solved by switching to another hosting provider.
- 17y ago
- dangrossman 17y agoThis is an apples to oranges comparison. Amazon's "small" instance is far slower than any other instance type they offer. A medium instance, for example, costs twice as much but is much more than twice as fast. He also compared it to all x64 instances; why not use a 64-bit Amazon instance? If he put an Amazon medium or large instance up against those others, it would have fared much, much better.
- uggedal 17y agoIf you read the article I ran the benchmarks on both i686 and x86_64 on Linode (which gives you a choice). And paying more than $120/month for one instance is not within my budget for http://wasitup.com http://wasitup.com which I did the comparison for.
- phpappe 17y agoyep. as good as 10x better. the article is a joke.
- barmstrong 17y agoWow...very disappointing for Slicehost since I'm running most of my stuff on there. Would love to see what their response to this is (if any).
- jwr 17y agoIf I remember correctly, Xen will give your instance more CPU if other VMs on the same physical host do not need it at the moment. If that is indeed the case, then your CPU performance comparison isn't very useful, as it only shows that you were lucky to get an otherwise idle machine with some providers, while others were loaded.
- atambo 17y agoIt would have probably been better if these tests were run on different host machines. An easy way to have accomplished this would have been using the migration feature to switch data centers, etc.
- jwr 17y agoI skimmed through the comments again. I find it funny how people jump to conclusions, focusing on providers, and thinking about switching. In my humble opinion, at least some of these benchmarks (the CPU ones) do not represent anything, as they depend on the load of neighbor instances on the same physical host. Once you see that, how can you possibly make business decisions based on these benchmarks? Color me surprised.
- bdr 17y agoWatch out for the bad Y-axis labels on this post: they go from min to max instead of 0 to max. This doesn't change the ranking, of course, but exaggerates the relative difference.
- uggedal 17y agoBad form? It was hard to represent the data with a 0 to max Y-axis. Should I make a note of it?
- icey 17y agoThe labels seemed clear to me; I don't think it's a big deal personally.
- barrkel 17y agoIt makes it hard to draw conclusions like 1x vs 4x scaling for hosts with 1 VCPU vs 4 VCPUs.
- bdr 17y agoI think so. It's an easy-to-miss detail that really changes your perception of the data. Ideally the graph would indicate this itself by having a broken axis, but that's probably a pain to do.
- uggedal 17y agoI included a note at the top of the article. The graphs are from Google's API and were a pain to get in the state they are now. Not going to change them in this lifetime;-)
- bdr 17y agoYep. For Python there's a good-enough client for the graph API called "graphy", I think it's on Google Code.
- 17y ago
- hop 17y agoThe linode and slicehost affiliate links at the bottom gives this less credibility.
- pavs 17y agoWhy? He also has slicehost affiliate link at the bottom. Edit: I think you should point out, when you edit your original post, where you only mentioned Linode not slicehost. Thanks.
- hop 17y agoWhen you knock 4 other companies and promote one, then make money off people buying the service based on your analysis, you create an impression of being non-objective.
- pavs 17y agoHe is not giving you his opinion, he is giving you results of his benchmark. You can even download logs to check and run the patched benchmark util yourself to compare. I (and most others hopefully) already knew about prgmr and EC2 has horrible performance, even before I saw this benchmark, the only one new to me is Rackspace performance numbers (BTW Rackspace owns slicehost). I don't see any logic behind your objection.
- gojomo 17y agoThe overall presentation convinces me this is a good-faith effort, but such a financial interest in the results would ideally be disclosed prominently up front. Even with no conscious/devious intent, this sort of interest can bias the results. For example, what if the relative results could vary arbitrarily from week to week (especially possible with the neighboring load on VPS nodes)? If you get a plausible result that shows the companies pay commissions do best, you are incented to publish right away. If you get a result that shows the non-commission-paying companies on top, you will dig deeper: maybe there are ways the commission-payers are better, in a longer analysis. (It's similar to the publication bias in other research, which also requires no scheming intent, just natural behavior in response to incentives which are each alone reasonable.)
- pavs 17y agoI have used slicehost for a long time it served me well. I don't use them anymore. One of my favorite option was the ability to increase the size of slice whenever I needed it and get charged only for the time it was used. Is it possible to do the same with Linode? As often, quickly and easily as I want? If so, I can see myself getting Linode for my next project. Heard a lot of good things about them in the past. In defense of slicehost, they have a no-bs interface with good reading resources to setup machines and very fast and helpful customer service. I was once more than 10 days late in payment because I had problem transferring my money to the account I exclusively use only for online payment and they were very reasonable with me.
- atambo 17y agoLinode will charge you at the beginning of your billing cycle and if you ever resize, which you can do automatically through the control panel, you will receive a credit for how much you didn't use.
- docmach 17y agoWhy does Prgmr offer so much more memory/$ compared to the other providers? Is there something about the usual workloads that makes RAM less important or is it based on hardware capabilities?
- stingraycharles 17y agoWell, judging by the SLA of Prgmr over here: http://book.xen.prgmr.com/mediawiki/index.php/SLA http://book.xen.prgmr.com/mediawiki/index.php/SLA it seems like Prmgr is ran by a single person, with a 99.5% uptime guarantee. I bet this reduces costs quite a little.
- etherealG 17y ago99.5% seems bad until you realise the rolling period is a month. that's pretty good actually, since most will roll over a year, or not mention roll over at all, leaving them fine to say 99.9% covers 3.65 days in a 10 year period if they want. can you imagine your site being down for 1 day and they say it's within contract :)
- docmach 17y agoIf cost reduction is the reason then CPU resources should be higher as well, but they don't seem to be.
- lsc 17y agomy cpu is probably worse 'cause I only give you 1 VCPU. I don't know for sure this is the right decision, but the idea is that the fewer VCPUs each instance has, the less often you have context switches, and the better your system performs when there is a lot of contention for CPUs.
- lsc 17y agowe're between 2 and 3 people, but yeah, only I'm full-time, and yes, that reduces costs. Also, I build my own servers, which saves me some bucks, but it's not orders of magnitude. uh, also, compare my SLAs to the other providers before you start saying it's weak. (I mean, my sla is weak, I agree, but so is everyone else's.)
- trunnell 17y agoI would like to see a comparison of the APIs provided by these companies. My understanding is that Amazon is competing on developer and sysadmin productivity with the depth of their API and focus on manageability-- not on performance. Is that correct?
- docmach 17y agoI think the big advantage of Amazon is that you can scale up and down quickly so that you aren't paying for services you don't need. They also have the advantage of better integration with their other services since you don't pay for transfers within the same region and the transfers are fast since it's all on their network.
- jedsmith 17y agoWell, for Linode: http://www.linode.com/api/ http://www.linode.com/api/ JSON REST goodness.
- rphlx 17y agoSomebody please do this for the low-end dedicated providers. You can get Atom systems for $30-$50/mo now, which should solve the performance variance (especially on disk IO) that affect cloud/VPSes. Provide network latency/tput data also, please. :-)
- boundlessdreamz 17y ago50$ and you are getting only Atom servers?? Checkout http://www.hetzner.de/en/hosting/produktmatrix/rootserver-produktmatrix-ds/Produktmatrix http://www.hetzner.de/en/hosting/produktmatrix/rootserver-pr... I'm a happy customer
- riobard 17y agoThe price for dedicated servers in Germany is just crazy ... a friend of mine is using this one too and I also have an account. If price is a concern (for testing and personal purposes), find a friend or two to share a baseline dedicated server is usually much better than using a cheap VPS.
- Janzert 17y agoI've been quite happy with corenetworks; $30 for their dual core 1.6GHz Celeron. https://corenetworks.net/dedicated/ https://corenetworks.net/dedicated/
- MicahWedemeyer 17y agoYou're in much greater danger of having poor performance and downtime from your own code rather than anything to do with your host. So, before you jump ship from one to another based on benchmarks, think about how much time and effort such a move will take and ask yourself what you could spend it on. If you're running a web app, my bet is you'll get a much better ROI on time if you pick an expensive DB query you're running and try to analyze/optimize it. All that said, if you haven't yet picked a host, this does offer some interesting insights. Still, I would rank APIs, GUIs, management panels, and helpful support as way, way more important than raw performance.
- bumblebird 17y agoDefinitely. Look at the other points as well, like bandwidth. From what I know linode is also cheapest for bandwidth overage. Far far cheaper than slicehost.
- iamdanw 17y agoAny idea if the amazon one used EBS for the database? Or the new shiny RDS?
- uggedal 17y agoI did not use EBS for the database for the same reason I did not configure the database according to the amount of RAM on each node.
- moe 17y agoI'm sorry but this seems to be one of the many flaws in this benchmarks. Kudos for your efforts but the graphs are almost meaningless, all things considered. For example the EC2 instance storage is known to be dog slow. I assume that's the main reason for it looking so bad in your graphs - the picture might change with EBS. As others have pointed out, synthetic benchmarks are a tricky beast generally. For fairness you should have optimized each host to their max potential - because that's what a regular user would do. But still, the variance in cloud-hosting makes it difficult to obtain representative figures. Slicehost might just have looked awesome in a different week...
- jarsj 17y agoI wish your study accounted for the elasticity. I end up using 20-30 machines (sometimes 100) for couple of hours every day. Normally, I would use 3-4 large instances. I wonder how EC2 compares with others in scenarios similar to above.
- uggedal 17y agoThis was a performance comparison (with a price undertone). If you need elasticity I would just stick with EC2.
- delano 17y agoWow, I'm really impressed with how stable the performance is with EC2. All straight lines.
- hendler 17y agoDid the amazon pricing consider reserved instances? A small instance is $300 for the year - which changes the price/performance ratio.
- b3b0p 17y agoI use prgmr, but it's only personal use right now. I paid the annual for the 1GB plan. The monthly cost is quite low and it gives me my own little server to deposit all my apps on and what not. I'm very happy with it. The performance is good enough for me. I have had no issues at all. Highly satisfied customer here.
- kylec 17y agoDid you have any setup problems? I tried Prgmr a few months ago and my instance wouldn't boot for some reason. Tried emailing the support but didn't get a response. It was only $6 to give it a shot, but I guess I'm not smart enough to use it.
- lsc 17y agoreally? did we at least get you a refund? we do sometimes drop stuff, but we try to at least refund everyone who we don't get going. (the vast majority of or problems are provisioning-related, as well... we're working on that. But still. If you didn't get the refund email me and I'll see to it.)
- kylec 17y agoNo contact at all I'm afraid. Don't worry about the refund - I've been ignoring the emailed invoices ;-) What I'd really like is to give you another try, so I've sent you an email with the details.
- radu_floricica 17y agoNot responding in time is the worst thing such a company can do. My first slicehost instance didn't start as well. It took 31 minutes from sending an email to getting a "problem solved" response. Stuff always happens, it's how they react that makes the difference.
- b3b0p 17y agoI signed up, emailed Luke my SSH key and said CentOS. He emailed back saying it was ready and off I went to setup it up. Very minor issue when I first signed up, but I hadn't even logged in to the box yet. I emailed Luke and in about an hour I got a response back saying it was fixed. I'm not using it for anything critical, so if something goes down or seems not correct, I might email and ask what's up, but usually I probably won't even notice or care enough. I also follow his twitter, which he seems to keep updated if something is not functioning as it should. https://twitter.com/prgmrcom https://twitter.com/prgmrcom Edit: I've been using it for a few months and there was only been one instance that I noticed where things were not working as they should. I emailed and got a quick response back that he was working on resolving the issue.
- wiprosol 17y agoI wonder if the Slicehost numbers were generated on an older slice? He did note that the writeup was six months in the making. If he was on older Slicehost gear and the latest Linode gear, that would make some difference, at least it seems like it would. At one point I had the Slicehost crew set my account to provision slices in their newest datacenter in Texas. Things seemed snappier after that, though there could be several reasons why and it's hard to know if it was just a matter of newer hardware running the Xen dom0.
- uggedal 17y agoThe Slicehost slice was located at one of the St. Louis data centers.
- wiprosol 17y agoOn a newly provisioned slice in the Texas datacenter, it would be interesting to see how the numbers look.
- uggedal 17y agoWhat does cat /proc/cpuinfo give you?
- wiprosol 17y agofrom my slice in Slicehost's DFW-1 datacenter: ---- processor : 0 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 16 model : 2 model name : Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2350 HE stepping : 3 cpu MHz : 1994.999 cache size : 512 KB fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 5 wp : yes flags : fpu de tsc msr pae cx8 apic cmov pat clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt lm 3dnowext 3dnow constant_tsc rep_good nonstop_tsc pni cx16 popcnt lahf_lm cmp_legacy extapic cr8_legacy abm sse4a misalignsse 3dnowprefetch bogomips : 3993.30 TLB size : 1024 4K pages clflush size : 64 cache_alignment : 64 address sizes : 48 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: ts ttp tm stc 100mhzsteps hwpstate processor : 1 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 16 model : 2 model name : Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2350 HE stepping : 3 cpu MHz : 1994.999 cache size : 512 KB fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 5 wp : yes flags : fpu de tsc msr pae cx8 apic cmov pat clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt lm 3dnowext 3dnow constant_tsc rep_good nonstop_tsc pni cx16 popcnt lahf_lm cmp_legacy extapic cr8_legacy abm sse4a misalignsse 3dnowprefetch bogomips : 3993.30 TLB size : 1024 4K pages clflush size : 64 cache_alignment : 64 address sizes : 48 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: ts ttp tm stc 100mhzsteps hwpstate processor : 2 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 16 model : 2 model name : Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2350 HE stepping : 3 cpu MHz : 1994.999 cache size : 512 KB fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 5 wp : yes flags : fpu de tsc msr pae cx8 apic cmov pat clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt lm 3dnowext 3dnow constant_tsc rep_good nonstop_tsc pni cx16 popcnt lahf_lm cmp_legacy extapic cr8_legacy abm sse4a misalignsse 3dnowprefetch bogomips : 3993.30 TLB size : 1024 4K pages clflush size : 64 cache_alignment : 64 address sizes : 48 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: ts ttp tm stc 100mhzsteps hwpstate processor : 3 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 16 model : 2 model name : Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2350 HE stepping : 3 cpu MHz : 1994.999 cache size : 512 KB fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 5 wp : yes flags : fpu de tsc msr pae cx8 apic cmov pat clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt lm 3dnowext 3dnow constant_tsc rep_good nonstop_tsc pni cx16 popcnt lahf_lm cmp_legacy extapic cr8_legacy abm sse4a misalignsse 3dnowprefetch bogomips : 3993.30 TLB size : 1024 4K pages clflush size : 64 cache_alignment : 64 address sizes : 48 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: ts ttp tm stc 100mhzsteps hwpstate
- lazyant 17y agoFor people like me who don't need a lot of performance is more important other issues like support (quality and response time), backups, documentation, provisioning, uptime etc. I'd like to see a more complete comparison. I personally use Rimuhosting and Rackspace, I'm happy with both.
- khangtoh 17y agoLinode has been awesome since I got a VPS through RailsRumble with them 2 years ago. Till this day, I still use Linode and they have the best price for VPS as well as features that you get FOC unlike slice host. And you know what's great about them, they have been quietly supporting the Rails Rumble community and it's time we show them our support for being best at what they do!
- cmelbye 17y agoYeah, what they do for the RailsRumble competition is awesome. They set aside hundreds of instances for competitors during the competition (which is a wonder on its own), and they give out several large instances as one of the prizes for the winners.
- kellishaver 17y agoI switched from slicehost to Linode after this year's Rails Rumble. It was seamless and I've had great performance. The one time I had to contact tech support, my issue was resolved in 7 minutes.
- oomkiller 17y agoMy first observation was the standard deviation on some of these measurements, Zed Shaw would have a heart attack on some of these measurements, and I don't believe they should be trusted. The best way to measure performance is to run your app on it, as synthetic benchmarks mean next to nothing compared to your actual application benchmarks. Finally, if you are this worried about performance, you should probably be looking at running real hardware anyways, like GitHub now is.
- npk 17y agoThe standard deviation is simply a measure of the spread of a distribution. There's nothing wrong or right about high standard deviations. In fact, the high standard deviation means that you should expect highly variant performance. Look at the figures. The performance of Slicehost follows a sawtooth like pattern. The quantity standard deviation is useful because it quantifies what to expect. Plus or minus one standard deviation means that ~ 2/3 of the time you will fall in that range. If you think about the problem a little bit, you might be more worried about the standard deviation of the standard deviation. This, in fact, would be a useful quantity, but hard to measure. EDIT below this line ------- Several comments below have commented that SD is somehow less useful if it's "large" (or large relative to the mean, or whatever). The reason people think large SDs are indicative of a poor experiment is that in school lab classes one calculates the SD and call it the "error". The standard deviation is a measure of spread, if it's large then the spread is large. Knowing the spread has value. In this case, under the parent's experimental conditions EC2's performance is more constant than that of slicehost's. A fair critique of the blog posting is that the error on the standard deviation may be large, depending on the experimental conditions. It is _not_ a fair critique to say that the SD is too high to make a prediction, you just have larger performance spread. Note that the performance spread described is not necessarily "error". The spread is inherit to either the server (as implied by the article) or the method (in which case it is an error).
- oomkiller 17y agoI understand the performance variance characteristics, what concerns me about these tests is that the graphs of them are not continuous, they seem to be immediate dips instead of gradual curves. This indicates to me that the sample size wasn't large enough, or at least the graph needs a higher resolution if data exists to support it. Also, at the bottom, the article gives the numerical data, with the mean and standard deviation. However, the mean for the hosts with high standard deviations are essentially useless, because the standard deviation is so high. If we are going to compare average performance between cloud hosts, lets at least have useful averages to base our opinion on.
- antirez 17y agoI'm using a small EC2 instance to run a service that used to run in a very small real computer. This instance is unbelievable slow. I'll switch ASAP. Benchmarks are benchmarks but EC2 is slow and overpriced.
- blackstag 17y agoI have a problem going to a service provider who's website doesn't even load.... http://www.prgmr.com/ http://www.prgmr.com/
- johndevor 17y agoIt loads for me!
- blackstag 17y agoodd. I've tried three browsers and nothing and I am having no problems with other websites... strange.
- lsc 17y agoweird. can you ping it?
- blackstag 17y agoping works, but my browsers just say connecting or loading.... forever. [edit] lol. forever must = 3 minutes in my world... loads afterwards.
- veemjeem 17y agoSounds like a problem with your internet connection :-) I think too often we lay blame on websites when usually it's a user error.
- johndevor 17y agoBefore anybody goes and switches hosts, be sure to consider the cost of actually moving servers. It does take quite a bit of time to move servers, and while it may be worth it in the long term, it may not benefit very many people in the immediate future (I'm not saying definitely don't do it).
- coolestuk 17y agoIf you are running a site that is used by others and you don't have a system to automatically rebuild your server on another host, I'd say you have bigger problems than the relative performance of your provider's architecture.
- carbocation 17y agoThis is tremendous. I am considering switching from MediaTemple to VPS.net right now and I would love to have seen them put to this test!
- spot 17y agoi have two linodes, one for high bandwidth (v2d7c.sheepserver.net) and one for low (electricsheep.org and scottdraves.com etc). the admin tools are awesome, there is hardly any (if any) downtime, performance is great, and prices are low. two thumbs up.
- cadwag 17y agoI signed up with Slicehost a few months ago. It was my first experience with VPS hosting and Unix. As a beginner, Slicehost was really great. The control panel is really straight forward and easy to use, their support is quick and helpful, and their how-to articles are really great for beginners. To quickly compare the how-to's in a similar category: http://articles.slicehost.com/ubuntu-hardy http://articles.slicehost.com/ubuntu-hardy vs http://library.linode.com/lamp-guides/ http://library.linode.com/lamp-guides/ So they both have articles for the absolute beginners, but it still seems like Linode slightly favors the more intermediate to advanced users in their how-to's. Purely subjective, but Slicehost's seem a bit easier to read / follow. That being said, this article was incredibly interesting. Now that I have a bit more experience with VPS's and Unix, I am very tempted to head over to Linode. I am still developing my web app on Slicehost but I have not seen any performance problems since I have very little traffic. I am now considering setting up the production server over at Linode when I'm ready to go live. Thanks for the great article.
- phpappe 17y agoThe article is a joke. Amazon of course allows 64-bit. In general it all depends (big time) on the app you benchmark: http://php-app-engine.com/static/cloudbench.html http://php-app-engine.com/static/cloudbench.html
- Concours 17y agowell, I guess I don't need to try to do anything similar to have the results, I'm considering a switch to Linode now.
- sh1mmer 17y agoI'd also be really interest to see network performance tested too. Instance->Instance, Cloud colo->cloud colo, cloud->user and cloud->other clouds/web services. People are already starting to do the cloud->user (http://www.apparentnetworks.com/CPC/scorecard.aspx http://www.apparentnetworks.com/CPC/scorecard.aspx) but I think the other stuff is equally important/interesting.