4 ms·
Not necessarily. This article ignores the "neighbor" factor. That is, performance might be highly dependent on what the neighboring VPSes on the same compute no
by timdorr 17y ago
Not 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.
- tsally 17y agoYou should put your hosting company website in your profile. Personally, when a user on HN says something intelligent, I like to check out their company.
- mrkurt 17y agoHe runs http://asmallorange.com http://asmallorange.com. :)
- davidw 17y agoI did some similar benchmarks a while ago: http://journal.dedasys.com/2008/11/24/slicehost-vs-linode http://journal.dedasys.com/2008/11/24/slicehost-vs-linode Looking more at memory and price, and Linode is a winner there, too. It's a pity that Slicehost doesn't offer a 32bit system, as that would negate most of the difference, and they are good people with a good product. But I don't want to pay extra money for fat pointers.
- bumblebird 17y agoMain reason I switched as well. Memory usage on slicehost was immense. Couple that with the huge bandwidth overage costs compared to Linode, and there's no comparison.
- tibbon 17y agoWow, that makes a lot of sense suddenly. I hadn't thought about that, but the 64-bitness is probably why I'm tearing through my 256mb slice so quickly on tasks that shouldn't really take up that much space.
- bumblebird 17y agoIt's a complete killer if you have a large number of smallish objects floating around. (Which was my case).