# 123systems dd on new node.



## mtwiscool (Nov 25, 2013)

heares the dd done over 1 hour on a new(probluly full) node.

about 10x better then old node.


```
[email protected]:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync
16384+0 records in
16384+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 4.27336 s, 251 MB/s
[email protected]:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync
16384+0 records in
16384+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 3.30443 s, 325 MB/s
[email protected]:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync
16384+0 records in
16384+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 3.43913 s, 312 MB/s
[email protected]:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync
16384+0 records in
16384+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 3.25771 s, 330 MB/s
[email protected]:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync
16384+0 records in
16384+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 4.01326 s, 268 MB/s
[email protected]:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync
16384+0 records in
16384+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 3.20705 s, 335 MB/s
[email protected]:~#
```


----------



## MartinD (Nov 25, 2013)

Not sure what your question/issue/point is?


----------



## mtwiscool (Nov 25, 2013)

MartinD said:


> Not sure what your question/issue/point is?


to show how much the profomence has gone up.


----------



## Jack (Nov 25, 2013)

Probably got SSD Caching with CC if not an array of SSD's.


----------



## mtwiscool (Nov 25, 2013)

Jack said:


> Probably got SSD Caching with CC if not an array of SSD's.


yes ssd caching.

don't know what ssd used.


----------



## lbft (Nov 25, 2013)

MartinD said:


> Not sure what your question/issue/point is?


Come on, Martin, surely you can squeeze out a proper rant about the good old dd test?


----------



## GIANT_CRAB (Nov 25, 2013)

lbft said:


> Come on, Martin, surely you can squeeze out a proper rant about the good old dd test?


DDs aren't exactly accurate, are they?

OP, try dd without cache or post a serverbear benchmark.

I'm curious about the processing core they are using.


----------



## Jack (Nov 25, 2013)

GIANT_CRAB said:


> DDs aren't exactly accurate, are they?
> 
> OP, try dd without cache or post a serverbear benchmark.
> 
> I'm curious about the processing core they are using.


Well what company went bust recently having a shit load of hardware in Dallas with Colocrossing.

http://lowendbox.com/blog/shardhost-13year-20-256mb-ssd-kvm-vps-in-dallas-texas-or-buffalo-ny/

Intel E3 1240v3 and 6 x Intel 520 SSDs with the Raid 10 LSI 9271 8i with Cachevault


----------



## GIANT_CRAB (Nov 25, 2013)

Jack said:


> Well what company went bust recently having a shit load of hardware in Dallas with Colocrossing.
> 
> http://lowendbox.com/blog/shardhost-13year-20-256mb-ssd-kvm-vps-in-dallas-texas-or-buffalo-ny/
> 
> Intel E3 1240v3 and 6 x Intel 520 SSDs with the Raid 10 LSI 9271 8i with Cachevault


Correct me if I'm wrong...

123system seems to be using Limestone Networks - http://bgp.he.net/ip/64.31.58.10

From what I heard, Limestone Networks isn't very bad, support is pretty good and so are their hardware.

From what I know, Boltersdriveer is hosting with Limestone Networks.


----------



## drmike (Nov 25, 2013)

> 123system seems to be using Limestone Networks - http://bgp.he.net/ip/64.31.58.10



Well, from other recent threads on here, 123Systems is moving datacenters.  Limestone is out and CC is where Andrew is going, so it seems.

In the search box up top search all forums for: 123systems 

Look at two most recent threads.



mtwiscool said:


> yes ssd caching.
> 
> don't know what ssd used.


If allocated on CC's network, those for now will be Intel 520's.  Every f'n CC company.


----------



## raindog308 (Nov 25, 2013)

mtwiscool said:


> heares the dd done over 1 hour on a new(probluly full) node.


Probably new, yes.

Probably full, no.

You'll be able to chart the addition of new VPSes to that server by periodically rerunning your test.  When it falls to sub-megabyte/sec, then the node will be considered 80% full


----------



## SrsX (Nov 25, 2013)

I hate to be the asshole here, but could we at least spell probably correctly?


----------



## Deleted (Nov 25, 2013)

Like 'dd' is going to tell you anything...


----------



## drmike (Nov 25, 2013)

Monkburger said:


> Like 'dd' is going to tell you anything...


With SSD cache in mix, tells you even less useful info.

Someone definitely should revise / come up with way to speed test VPS.  Obviously numbers are only good in aggregate over time as load changes.

Unsure who borrowed tests suitable for bare metal for virtual resources...


----------



## Deleted (Nov 25, 2013)

Benchmarking VPS's is utterly silly, interrupts are emulated, containers dont have access to some privileged cpu instructions (and they are emulated), timers are emulated from the host..

The only true way to benchmark a 'VPS' is to run stuff on the host node, when it's under load..


----------



## elohkcalb (Nov 27, 2013)

I for one, still can't figure out why dd result matters when it comes to VPS. Unless I'm doing a lot of writes to the disk all day long, I'm not going to do this dd test any time. However, if I'm doing that much of I/O to the HDD, most likely I will get an abuse warning before anything.


----------



## DomainBop (Nov 27, 2013)

Monkburger said:


> Benchmarking VPS's is utterly silly, interrupts are emulated, containers dont have access to some privileged cpu instructions (and they are emulated), timers are emulated from the host..
> 
> The only true way to benchmark a 'VPS' is to run stuff on the host node, when it's under load..


All true BUT there are some providers whose marketing strategy revolves around targetting the "VPS Benchmark junkies" segment of the market (_wow, look at the dd on that baby, where do I sign up!_) so VPS benchmarks may not give an accurate indication of performance but they do have some value as a marketing tool.


----------



## vRozenSch00n (Nov 28, 2013)

drmike said:


> Well, from other recent threads on here, 123Systems is moving datacenters.  Limestone is out and CC is where Andrew is going, so it seems.


I use their $10/year VPS for NS, just yesterday they informed me about my new IP that changes from 64.31.xxx.xxx by Limestone to 192.227.xxx.xxx by CC.


----------



## Aldryic C'boas (Nov 28, 2013)

He's bailed on his bills before to switch DCs.  I wonder if Limestone finally got tired of being lenient on his owed dues.


----------



## mtwiscool (Nov 28, 2013)

Aldryic C said:


> He's bailed on his bills before to switch DCs.  I wonder if Limestone finally got tired of being lenient on his owed dues.


do you have any proof of this?

@123andrews


----------



## Aldryic C'boas (Nov 28, 2013)

mtwiscool said:


> do you have any proof of this?
> 
> @123andrews


Yes, actually.  As I mentioned in another thread, that is _exactly_ what he did with us.  We hosted his business at no cost for quite some time - and when it finally came time to start paying rent, he racked up a tab and bailed.


----------



## MartinD (Nov 28, 2013)

Pun intended, Aldryic?


----------



## Aldryic C'boas (Nov 28, 2013)

Perhaps :3


----------



## drmike (Dec 7, 2013)

mtwiscool said:


> heares the dd done over 1 hour on a new(probluly full) node.
> 
> about 10x better then old node.


Can you post the output from:


cat /proc/cpuinfo

Thanks!


----------



## jarland (Dec 8, 2013)

SrsX said:


> I hate to be the asshole here, but could we at least spell probably correctly?


Noope


----------



## mtwiscool (Dec 9, 2013)

drmike said:


> Can you post the output from:
> 
> 
> cat /proc/cpuinfo
> ...




```
[email protected]:~# cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor       : 0
vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
cpu family      : 6
model           : 60
model name      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1240 v3 @ 3.40GHz
stepping        : 3
cpu MHz         : 1696.095
cache size      : 8192 KB
fpu             : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level     : 13
wp              : yes
flags           : fpu de tsc msr pae cx8 sep cmov pat clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2                                                                                         ss ht syscall nx lm rep_good aperfmperf unfair_spinlock pni pclmulqdq ssse3 fma                                                                                         cx16 sse4_1 sse4_2 x2apic movbe popcnt tsc_deadline_timer aes avx f16c rdrand hy                                                                                        pervisor lahf_lm abm arat epb xsaveopt pln pts dts fsgsbase bmi1 hle avx2 bmi2 e                                                                                        rms rtm
bogomips        : 6784.38
clflush size    : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes   : 39 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management:

processor       : 1
vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
cpu family      : 6
model           : 60
model name      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1240 v3 @ 3.40GHz
stepping        : 3
cpu MHz         : 1696.095
cache size      : 8192 KB
fpu             : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level     : 13
wp              : yes
flags           : fpu de tsc msr pae cx8 sep cmov pat clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2                                                                                         ss ht syscall nx lm rep_good aperfmperf unfair_spinlock pni pclmulqdq ssse3 fma                                                                                         cx16 sse4_1 sse4_2 x2apic movbe popcnt tsc_deadline_timer aes avx f16c rdrand hy                                                                                        pervisor lahf_lm abm arat epb xsaveopt pln pts dts fsgsbase bmi1 hle avx2 bmi2 e                                                                                        rms rtm
bogomips        : 6784.38
clflush size    : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes   : 39 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management:

[email protected]:~#
```


----------



## drmike (Dec 9, 2013)

mtwiscool said:


> [email protected]:~# cat /proc/cpuinfo
> processor : 0
> vendor_id : GenuineIntel
> cpu family : 6
> ...


*CONGRATULATIONS!*

You are the proud new owner of a 123Systems VPS.

Your VPS is on a *SLABBED* server.

This means, that E3 server has a base virtualization of (my guess) Xen.   Then within that, 123Systems has carved the server up into multiple OpenVZ instances.  So you are getting virtualization within virtualization. Probably based on typical CC boxes, 8GB~ slabs and 4 of them.

Each server = 4 servers.   We are high rollers.  I have 100 servers, wait, only 25 real servers.

So much for upgrading and running things right on this move.

Silly kids, slabbing is for enterprise servers, not E3's with 32GB of RAM and no disk IO.  Hurry up, add SSD caching.


----------



## Magiobiwan (Dec 10, 2013)

drmike, out of curiosity, what flags it as a slabbed server to you?


----------



## mtwiscool (Dec 10, 2013)

drmike said:


> *CONGRATULATIONS!*
> 
> You are the proud new owner of a 123Systems VPS.
> 
> ...


that would make no sense as you would get less vps's on a node.


----------



## drmike (Dec 10, 2013)

It's true folks... Slabbed server.   

Folks slab them because of simultaneous process limits / related performance under OpenVZ.  Once you get to a certain several thousand process running total, OpenVZ slugs along, slowly.. Performance goes poof.  Slabbing gets around this with multiple process pools.

I'm not going to spill the beans   But it's old school knowledge.   The parent virtualization (both KVM and Xen) leave an identifiable fingerprint that is identical.


----------



## DomainBop (Dec 11, 2013)

drmike said:


> The parent virtualization (both KVM and Xen) leave an identifiable fingerprint that is identical.



What is the fingerprint?

The cat /proc/cpuinfo info below is from an openvz VPS running inside KVM.  The provider uses 2 KVM VPS's per dedicated server. (see here)



> ```
> cat /proc/cpuinfo
> processor	: 0
> vendor_id	: GenuineIntel
> ...


----------



## drmike (Dec 11, 2013)

DomainBop said:


> What is the fingerprint?
> 
> The cat /proc/cpuinfo info below is from an openvz VPS running inside KVM.  The provider uses 2 KVM VPS's per dedicated server. (see here)


It sure looks like that isn't nested virtualization @DomainBop


----------



## NodePacket (Dec 11, 2013)

Here is what I don't understand. Why don't these guys just sell their company for a dirt cheap price rather than just shut it down? Kids these days just piss everyone off. Was he a registered company?


----------



## Aldryic C'boas (Dec 11, 2013)

NodePacket said:


> Kids these days just piss everyone off.


Oh, you'll love this, then.  He's a "Community Liason" (formerly a Content Curator) on WHT.


----------



## AndrewM (Dec 11, 2013)

NodePacket said:


> Here is what I don't understand. Why don't these guys just sell their company for a dirt cheap price rather than just shut it down? Kids these days just piss everyone off. Was he a registered company?


Pretty sure you're on the wrong thread, we did not close nor have we expressed intent or desire to do so. We have been in business for going on 4 years now.


----------



## AndrewM (Dec 11, 2013)

Aldryic C said:


> Oh, you'll love this, then.  He's a "Community Liason" (formerly a Content Curator) on WHT.


I find your responses in this thread to be less intelligent each time I visit. Had you taken the time to read his post, you could have only came up with two conclusions; He posted in the wrong thread, or he didn't read it. 

Furthermore, I fail to understand what your point is to begin with. What does being a volunteer moderator at WHT have to do with the topic at hand again? I'm sorry if I missed something (which I didn't), but I'm willing to allow you to entertain me for a short period of time.


----------



## drmike (Dec 11, 2013)

Hey @123Andrew, care to entertain my "YOU ARE SLABBING" comments?


----------



## DomainBop (Dec 29, 2013)

What's up with the additional info message the BBB has on 123systems report?

http://www.bbb.org/north-east-florida/business-reviews/internet-web-hosting/123systems-solutions-in-douglas-ga-235960749



> Additional Information
> top
> BBB file opened: January 09, 2012
> 
> ...


----------



## Coastercraze (Dec 29, 2013)

DomainBop said:


> What's up with the additional info message the BBB has on 123systems report?
> 
> http://www.bbb.org/north-east-florida/business-reviews/internet-web-hosting/123systems-solutions-in-douglas-ga-235960749


Yeah I saw that on SlickDeals. I'm interested in hearing what he says about that too.


----------

