Any idea of how many IOPS would be needed for hosting a decent srcds with replays enabled!? I've had one host offering me 100 but I'm not really sure how is that converted to latency. I know it isn't a direct relation, but I think it might depend on the hardware specs.
Anyways, I just wonder if 100 IOPS is bad, regular or good. _pilger On 10 April 2014 11:34, Yun Huang Yong <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > SSD might help, but only might. > > If you think about the underlying machines they are limited on the > dimensions of CPU, RAM, and disk. If the provider uses SSD that would > generally improve the disk performance but if that means they then cram > more customers onto the box because they have more IOPs to share you might > then bump into the limits of shared CPU. > > The virtualisation tech may be correlated to overselling but isn't the > root cause. You can get horribly oversold Xen/KVM same as you can get > horribly oversold OpenVZ. It comes down to price:performance and provider's > desired profit margin. > > In my conversations with VPS providers I generally ask what hardware > they're running, and ask if it's reasonable to expect X level of > performance from the service. i.e. I specifically ask if they monitor IO > latency, and how much they oversell the CPUs if the VPS does not come with > dedicated cores. Having these pre-sales conversations also gives you a good > opportunity to evaluate the provider's competence & attitude to customer > service. > > > On 10/04/2014 11:16 PM, Rick Dunn wrote: > >> Wow that's some pretty ridiculous I/O lag. It's pretty obvious the VPS >> you >> have isn't intended for anything I/O intensive (or has too much I/O >> intensive stuff on it already). I'd recommend moving to a VPS provider >> that has fully virtualized containers rather than the para-virtualized >> ones >> you have now. Most places advertise these as "cloud" VPS servers, and >> most >> providers of them that I've seen have much better I/O times from higher >> performance SANs. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 8:37 AM, pilger <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Did a ioping instead. I believe it does the trick of measuring. >>> >>> Here's what I got: >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *4.0 kb from . (ext4 /dev/ploop48624p1): request=1 time=283 us4.0 kb >>>> from >>>> . (ext4 /dev/ploop48624p1): request=2 time=540 us 4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=3 time=421 us4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=4 time=429 us4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=5 time=7.5 ms4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=6 time=30.7 ms 4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=7 time=483 us4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=8 time=619 us4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=9 time=47.2 ms4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=10 time=13.8 ms 4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=11 time=12.7 ms4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=12 time=519 us4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=13 time=456 us4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=14 time=327 us 4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=15 time=17.8 ms4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=16 time=37.4 ms4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=17 time=178.2 ms4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=18 time=288 us 4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=19 time=20.9 ms4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=20 time=1.1 ms4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=21 time=41.9 ms4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=22 time=32.7 ms 4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=23 time=20.2 ms4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=24 time=12.9 ms4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=25 time=123.6 ms4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=26 time=36.4 ms 4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=27 time=38.3 ms4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=28 time=670 us4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=29 time=55.7 ms4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=30 time=19.1 ms 4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=31 time=220 us4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=32 time=43.1 ms4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=33 time=33.2 ms4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=34 time=31.0 ms 4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=35 time=58.7 ms4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=36 time=577 us4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=37 time=26.6 ms4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=38 time=586.4 ms 4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=39 time=41.4 ms4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=40 time=17.5 ms4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=41 time=254 us4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=42 time=102.0 ms 4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=43 time=212.3 ms4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=44 time=33.6 ms4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=45 time=434.5 ms4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=46 time=360.5 ms 4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=47 time=40.4 ms4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=48 time=132.2 ms4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=49 time=141.2 ms^[4.0 kb from . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1): request=50 time=26.9 ms ^C--- . (ext4 >>>> /dev/ploop48624p1) ioping statistics ---50 requests completed in 52.1 s, >>>> >>> 16 >>> >>>> iops, 65.0 kb/smin/avg/max/mdev = 220 us / 61.5 ms / 586.4 ms / 113.3 >>>> ms* >>>> >>> >>> >>> A couple of them were way above 15ms. I still couldn't link a stutter to >>> I/O lag yet. With that I mean that I didn't experience a "hiccup" while >>> noticing the I/O increase at the same time. I tried disabling replays and >>> logs yesterday but it hat little effect since the system was behaving >>> better than usual. Looks like it depends on the neighbours noise, indeed. >>> >>> Is that a solid evidence to go to the host and ask to move or get an >>> SSD!? >>> And, repeating myself a bit, would SSD help!? >>> >>> >>> Thanks guys! >>> >>> _pilger >>> _______________________________________________ >>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >>> please visit: >>> https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >> please visit: >> https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
