Server advice. Which one would you choose?
Hi
For this usage, which server do you suggest/choose?
I just need 100gb disk atm. The fist one is SAS and has 16Gb Ram and the second is SSD and has 8Gb Ram.
My average apps usage is near 5,5Gb. Would 8Gb be enough?
# ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #
# Yet-Another-Bench-Script #
# v2020-12-29 #
# https://github.com/masonr/yet-another-bench-script #
# ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #
Thu Feb 25 17:54:09 WET 2021
Basic System Information:
---------------------------------
Processor : Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6140 CPU @ 2.30GHz
CPU cores : 4 @ 2294.598 MHz
AES-NI : ✔ Enabled
VM-x/AMD-V : ❌ Disabled
RAM : 15.5 GiB
Swap : 2.0 GiB
Disk : 458.6 GiB
fio Disk Speed Tests (Mixed R/W 50/50):
---------------------------------
Block Size | 4k (IOPS) | 64k (IOPS)
------ | --- ---- | ---- ----
Read | 1.66 MB/s (415) | 20.98 MB/s (327)
Write | 1.69 MB/s (423) | 21.50 MB/s (336)
Total | 3.35 MB/s (838) | 42.48 MB/s (663)
| |
Block Size | 512k (IOPS) | 1m (IOPS)
------ | --- ---- | ---- ----
Read | 85.21 MB/s (166) | 141.34 MB/s (138)
Write | 89.73 MB/s (175) | 150.75 MB/s (147)
Total | 174.95 MB/s (341) | 292.10 MB/s (285)
iperf3 Network Speed Tests (IPv4):
---------------------------------
Provider | Location (Link) | Send Speed | Recv Speed
| | |
Clouvider | London, UK (10G) | 811 Mbits/sec | 951 Mbits/sec
Online.net | Paris, FR (10G) | 890 Mbits/sec | 945 Mbits/sec
Clouvider | NYC, NY, US (10G) | 644 Mbits/sec | 600 Mbits/sec
iperf3 Network Speed Tests (IPv6):
---------------------------------
Provider | Location (Link) | Send Speed | Recv Speed
| | |
Clouvider | London, UK (10G) | 877 Mbits/sec | 934 Mbits/sec
Online.net | Paris, FR (10G) | 803 Mbits/sec | 659 Mbits/sec
Clouvider | NYC, NY, US (10G) | 610 Mbits/sec | 644 Mbits/sec
Geekbench 5 Benchmark Test:
---------------------------------
Test | Value
|
Single Core | 651
Multi Core | 1865
Full Test | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/6688056
# ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #
# Yet-Another-Bench-Script #
# v2020-12-29 #
# https://github.com/masonr/yet-another-bench-script #
# ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #
Thu 25 Feb 2021 07:32:39 PM CET
Basic System Information:
---------------------------------
Processor : AMD EPYC 7702P 64-Core Processor
CPU cores : 2 @ 1996.250 MHz
AES-NI : ✔ Enabled
VM-x/AMD-V : ❌ Disabled
RAM : 7.8 GiB
Swap : 0.0 KiB
Disk : 157.4 GiB
fio Disk Speed Tests (Mixed R/W 50/50):
---------------------------------
Block Size | 4k (IOPS) | 64k (IOPS)
------ | --- ---- | ---- ----
Read | 172.46 MB/s (43.1k) | 1.87 GB/s (29.3k)
Write | 172.91 MB/s (43.2k) | 1.88 GB/s (29.4k)
Total | 345.37 MB/s (86.3k) | 3.76 GB/s (58.8k)
| |
Block Size | 512k (IOPS) | 1m (IOPS)
------ | --- ---- | ---- ----
Read | 3.63 GB/s (7.0k) | 3.63 GB/s (3.5k)
Write | 3.82 GB/s (7.4k) | 3.87 GB/s (3.7k)
Total | 7.46 GB/s (14.5k) | 7.50 GB/s (7.3k)
iperf3 Network Speed Tests (IPv4):
---------------------------------
Provider | Location (Link) | Send Speed | Recv Speed
| | |
Clouvider | London, UK (10G) | 1.73 Gbits/sec | 2.37 Gbits/sec
Online.net | Paris, FR (10G) | 1.69 Gbits/sec | 2.37 Gbits/sec
Clouvider | NYC, NY, US (10G) | 735 Mbits/sec | 1.81 Gbits/sec
iperf3 Network Speed Tests (IPv6):
---------------------------------
Provider | Location (Link) | Send Speed | Recv Speed
| | |
Clouvider | London, UK (10G) | 1.36 Gbits/sec | 2.32 Gbits/sec
Online.net | Paris, FR (10G) | 1.19 Gbits/sec | 2.32 Gbits/sec
Clouvider | NYC, NY, US (10G) | 802 Mbits/sec | 1.56 Gbits/sec
Geekbench 5 Benchmark Test:
---------------------------------
Test | Value
|
Single Core | 1045
Multi Core | 2079
Full Test | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/6688557
Thanked by (1)Ganonk
Comments
I would go with AMD definitely. Much better single core, way more faster disk speeds
Would 8Gb be enough for my usage?
You are the app user. You'd know better than anyone else.
Now, looking at the graph briefly without knowing what your app does, it seems the app itself uses 6gb and further uses 8gb for caching.
If you grab the second server with 8gb, it will go into swap which is slow and really bad news for SSD of any kind. You need at least 16gb ram just to be safe.
Secure RAM amount first and think about other things. That'd be my take on it.
♻ Amitz day is October 21.
♻ Join Nigh sect by adopting my avatar. Let us spread the joys of the end.
^ Well, sorry that's a crap Windoze luser viewpoint. Linux memory usage is entirely different and 8GB will very likely be sufficient. For some reason your (munin?) graph isn't showing committed RAM, which is a better indicator but your in RAM apps usage will likely shrink, with less available RAM. Swap (not the evil that it's portrayed as) isn't even in the picture just now. The cache usage/availability will grow to fit in with available RAM, though whether it is actually utilised requires different stats.
Here's a f'kin awful Magento installation, running two instances (websites) and @AntFish will attest that it runs nearly instant when asked to view a product..
Here's a multi-site/instance osComerce-derived VPS, which is much more 'normal' for my servers..
lowendinfo.com had no interest.
Could be sufficient. Also may not be.
Linux or not is not the issue. The issue is how the app has been programmed. Until the app is verified, who knows what kind of shitware he may be using.
♻ Amitz day is October 21.
♻ Join Nigh sect by adopting my avatar. Let us spread the joys of the end.
Ain't that the truth.
lowendinfo.com had no interest.
Go for the 8 GB then upgrade when necessary?
AMD
kernal 5.11
set swap 2GB
swappiness = 1
monitor and pray ram isn't oversold
is what I would do
I bench YABS 24/7/365 unless it's a leap year.
Here is the commited memory
I'm running a medium xenforo instance with 3Gb database and elasticsearch.
Innodb buffers are set to 4Gb and Java VM to 512M
Mysql uses 5Gb, Java 1Gb and the other processes the remain.
I just set innodb buffers to 3Gb. Whenever I set innodb buffers to a value bellow 4Gb mysqltuner suggest >= 3Gb, but that shouldn't be a problem I guess.
Is 3Gb or 2Gb a problem?
The specs aside, how busy is your server? You may also need to pay more to ensure that you get dedicated CPU and RAM resources. Otherwise, no matter how good the specs look on paper, the actual performance will stutter.
Deals and Reviews: LowEndBoxes Review | Avoid dodgy providers with The LEBRE Whitelist | Free hosting (with conditions): Evolution-Host, NanoKVM, FreeMach, ServedEZ | Get expert copyediting and copywriting help at The Write Flow
Not that much. The sites have 5k requests day average.
Those are Netcup servers. Both cost the same. The SAS is a RS2000G8 SAS and the SSD is the new RS1000G9 SSD.
The commited memory is now 8Gb with innodb buffers with 3Gb.
I.just run the queries bellow and will monitor for somes days.
Eventually I can reduce innodb buffers to 2Gb
https://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/27328/how-large-should-be-mysql-innodb-buffer-pool-size
I would appear that 8GB RAM will suffice, for now, especially if you do tuning.
You should also monitor I/O though, to ensure the server isn't disc bound, if using SAS.
lowendinfo.com had no interest.
Obv the SSD server. No-brainer.
I would still choose the 16gb server. Xeonforo hardly uses a physical disk if it has RAM. You don't need a SSD for it if there is enough RAM.
For future proof, I'd have extra ram.
♻ Amitz day is October 21.
♻ Join Nigh sect by adopting my avatar. Let us spread the joys of the end.
@AlwaysSkint this is the weekly IO os the SAS Vps.
On the 25th I moved one of the main site to another server
I would probably choose the SSD machine if you are sure your memory usage will not grow, although does your program really benefit from the faster disks?
At the moment I use the RS2000G8 SAS and it's doing fine. This is a great server that I got in 2019 BF for ~ 11€, the same price for the RS1000G9 SSD now.
If I let the SAS go, I'll never be able to get one for this price.
Beside Xenforo, I have some custom python sites.
All use mysql and redis and XF search uses elasticsearch. Ram is a great value for this setup, but SAS disks are slow as we can see.
Performance are great atm.
Catch-22. Redis requires a lot of RAM to get any real benefit, IME. I removed it from my NVMe setup, as it was making a negligible performance improvement but swallowed up RAM. MySQL cache can make substantial improvements and easily offset losing redis, though your mileage may vary. Likewise, memcache can substantially offset the slower SAS disc.
lowendinfo.com had no interest.
Pay more and get both 16gb and ssd then.
It's like killing one ant with 2 stones.
♻ Amitz day is October 21.
♻ Join Nigh sect by adopting my avatar. Let us spread the joys of the end.
Don’t kill Ant. We like Ant.
Nexus Bytes Ryzen Powered NVMe VPS | NYC|Miami|LA|London|Netherlands| Singapore|Tokyo
Storage VPS | LiteSpeed Powered Web Hosting + SSH access | Switcher Special |
5k requests as in hits/pages or rather visits?
I have xenforo (without elasticsearch) running with less than 1.5 GB and that already includes clamav and mysqld... 2k visits / 30k pages (requests). I don't think you'll benefit much from that large innodb buffer, though not sure how heavily elastisearch might rely on that. I use 1GB, so I am very confident you won't see a difference between 4G right now or maybe only 2GB later.
The 8GB for sure will be sufficient and those disks give much better IO. if that helps or you need it at all?
no idea, depends on you really seeing iowait and that becoming a problem (does not really look like it). you'll also trade on the size 480 vs 160, but I guess that doesn't matter at all.
cpu-wise I'd usually prefer rather 4 cores/thread vs 2 for webhosting, however the AMD cores are obviously potent enough.
TL;DR; probably not worth the trouble of migrating everything.
Hi @Falzo o travel niche... mostly dead atm.
I eventually will wait and won't get rid of the Xeon since the AMD is stock price and Xeon is 2019 BF for 11€
I know I don't need elasticsearch, just got it for fun. It uses at most 1Gb
I would really stick with the old box then. lots of RAM can't be wrong and the CPU power should be sufficient. while everyone is nowadays used to high IOps because of SSD or even NVMe I think the given numbers are easily sufficient for what you do and you won't have any real benefit from changing other than finally idling IO more hardcore ;-)
rather wait for easter and try to grab something below 10€ then ...
That's the wrong mindset. When a product is 25% on sale for €75, you didn't save €25. You spent €75. But that's from an economic perspective. If you leave that aside, you should just base your decision on your usage and if you prioritize disk or ram.
The stock price for the RS10000 SSD will be the same today , next month or in the next six months.
If I let the BF SAS go away now, I can't get it again.
The stock price for RS2000 SSD is ~ 50% more.
In April we have the Netcup Easter promotions, eventually I can grab a new one with a discount.
All specs count, but RAM is very important since I can fit more cache.
Honestly, if you don't really NEED the performance of the SSDs, I'd go with the SAS box. More RAM and more storage. It really depends on your application and your needs.
do up have a fio on SAS box you use? interested to know numbers.
Thanks in advance
ehab
Only you know what you need. Personally, I think money is the 1st bottleneck and IO is the second.
Action and Reaction in history
Reading yabs results, with a block size 4k I get 415 read and 423 write.
Looking at munin IO/sec I'm at an average of 100 IOPs, so in my understanding I have some margin, not big but acceptable atm.