Hi everyone,
So I bought this dedicated server in Atlanta a few days ago and it was provisioned yesterday. Because I always search for information here before buying I though I could leave my small contribution.
So I got the server, and tried to reinstall the OS...
I used the control panel to do so and I choose Debian 8 (sda), fill up my root password and didn't create a regular user. After 4 times reinstalling (it was impossible to connect via ssh using root and the choosen pass) I reinstalled one last time. This time, I created a regular used as well as the root password. Again, impossible to login with the root user via ssh but... I could login with the regular user and then "su root" without problems.
Their control panel says that creating the regular user is optional... so this is something to be aware as I lost quite some time until I thought that this information might have been wrong.
So I installed some packages and this are some results:
First, using Phoronix Test Suite:
Hardware:
2 x Intel Xeon E5420 @ 2.50GHz (8 Cores),
Motherboard: HP ProLiant BL260c G5,
Chipset: Intel 5100 MCH + ICH9R,
Memory: 16 Gb MB DDR2-667MHz,
Disk: 120GB Samsung SSD 850, (on a SATA II port, 3 Gbps)
Graphics: AMD ES1000 128MB,
Network: Broadcom NetXtreme BCM5715S Gigabit
NGINX Benchmark 1.0.11:
pts/nginx-1.1.0
Average: 13729.14 Requests Per Second
PHPBench 0.8.1:
pts/phpbench-1.1.0
Average: 63595 Score
x264 2015-11-02:
pts/x264-2.0.0
Average: 111.14 Frames Per Second
And a network test:
wget freevps.us/downloads/bench.sh -O - -o /dev/null|bash
Benchmark started on Sat Jan 2 12:39:41 GMT 2016
Full benchmark log: /root/bench.log
System Info
-----------
Processor : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5420 @ 2.50GHz
CPU Cores : 8
Frequency : 2500.030 MHz
Memory : 16081 MB
Swap : 4671 MB
Uptime : 18:09,
OS : Debian GNU/Linux 8
Arch : x86_64 (64 Bit)
Kernel : 3.16.0-4-amd64
Hostname : atl
Speedtest (IPv4 only)
---------------------
Your public IPv4 is 199.233.xxx.xxx
Location Provider Speed
CDN Cachefly 99.2MB/s
Atlanta, GA, US Coloat 92.4MB/s
Dallas, TX, US Softlayer 71.9MB/s
Seattle, WA, US Softlayer 29.7MB/s
San Jose, CA, US Softlayer 28.3MB/s
Washington, DC, US Softlayer 51.7MB/s
Tokyo, Japan Linode 15.1MB/s
Singapore Softlayer 8.09MB/s
Rotterdam, Netherlands id3.net 16.9MB/s
Haarlem, Netherlands Leaseweb 91.4MB/s
Disk Speed
----------
I/O (1st run) : 38.3 MB/s
I/O (2nd run) : 38.2 MB/s
I/O (3rd run) : 38.1 MB/s
Average I/O : 38.2 MB/s
Now, you could enable write back cache (hdparm -W1 /dev/sda) and reach I/O of around 200 MB/s however, this can cause data loss, specially on databases in case of a crash, power failure, etc. (Read: http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Features/Tune-Your-Hard-Disk-with-hdparm)
And unixbench (with write back cache enabled):
Benchmark Run: Sat Jan 02 2016 19:38:58 - 20:07:23
8 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 23883541.6 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 2638.9 MWIPS (9.9 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 2226.4 lps (29.9 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 686142.5 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 198858.7 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 976378.0 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 1371526.3 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 137746.2 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 4429.9 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 5092.4 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 2203.5 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 1897195.0 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 23883541.6 2046.6
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 2638.9 479.8
Execl Throughput 43.0 2226.4 517.8
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 686142.5 1732.7
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 198858.7 1201.6
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 976378.0 1683.4
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 1371526.3 1102.5
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 137746.2 344.4
Process Creation 126.0 4429.9 351.6
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 5092.4 1201.0
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 2203.5 3672.5
System Call Overhead 15000.0 1897195.0 1264.8
========
System Benchmarks Index Score 1023.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Run: Sat Jan 02 2016 20:07:23 - 20:35:58
8 CPUs in system; running 8 parallel copies of tests
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 186367148.7 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 21101.8 MWIPS (9.9 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 14247.4 lps (29.9 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 411832.1 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 111876.4 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 1041605.9 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 10809656.9 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 2285579.7 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 29502.2 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 23905.4 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 3310.2 lpm (60.1 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 1963023.9 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 186367148.7 15969.8
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 21101.8 3836.7
Execl Throughput 43.0 14247.4 3313.3
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 411832.1 1040.0
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 111876.4 676.0
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 1041605.9 1795.9
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 10809656.9 8689.4
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 2285579.7 5713.9
Process Creation 126.0 29502.2 2341.4
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 23905.4 5638.1
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 3310.2 5517.0
System Call Overhead 15000.0 1963023.9 1308.7
========
System Benchmarks Index Score 3213.6
==========
In regard of support, I contacted them for several questions and they replied quickly (within 1 to 2 hours). The only thing I wasn't so happy with, was when today I asked for a refund and they told me to read the TOS (no refunds, no trials, etc). Nothing to complaint here, but be aware that there are no refunds from them if you're not happy.
My verdict: Overall is an old server, with only SATA II and a good network attached to it. Their network although not top of the line, is great for the value. If you're not planning to run databases or other data loss sensitive apps there, you could enable write back cache and enjoy higher disk write speed.
Comparing this with a VPS SSD 3 that I have with OVH (11.99 eur) it's very disapointing. While the network (1 Gbit) with Delimiter is so much better than the VPS on OVH, the 8 core dedicated server performs roughly 40% worst than my 2 core VPS, except for x264 encoding (because there are more cores to use).
However, the dedicated server costs $30 while the OVH VPS is less than $15... Considering cost per value, I would say the OVH VPS wins big time.
If you need a regular web server, go with the OVH VPS. If you need a seedbox (not allowed), convert x264 files or to do some network intensive tasks (backups, storage, etc) then go with the dedicated, however you could go with other european providers such as Hetzner, Onine, etc for a faster server for roughly the same price.
Below you can see the same benchmark on the VPS SSD 3 from OVH.
As you might notice, unixbench is higher on the dedicated but I care more for nginx and php benchmarks, because I need a web server and not just something with a better unixbench.
==========
First, using Phoronix Test Suite:
Hardware:
Processor: 2 x Intel Xeon E312xx (Sandy Bridge) @ 2.39GHz (2 Cores),
Motherboard: OpenStack Foundation Nova v2014.2.3,
Memory: 1 x 8000 MB RAM,
Disk: 40GB SSD with Local RAID 10
Network: 100 Mbit
NGINX Benchmark 1.0.11:
pts/nginx-1.1.0
Average: 21522.91 Requests Per Second
PHPBench 0.8.1:
pts/phpbench-1.1.0
Average: 101637 Score
x264 2015-11-02:
pts/x264-2.0.0
Average: 50.99 Frames Per Second
And a network test:
wget freevps.us/downloads/bench.sh -O - -o /dev/null|bash
Benchmark started on Sat Jan 2 13:07:53 UTC 2016
Full benchmark log: /root/bench.log
System Info
-----------
Processor : Intel Xeon E312xx (Sandy Bridge)
CPU Cores : 2
Frequency : 2394.442 MHz
Memory : 7813 MB
Swap : 0 MB
Uptime : 63 days, 23:33,
OS : Debian GNU/Linux 8
Arch : x86_64 (64 Bit)
Kernel : 3.16.0-4-amd64
Hostname : nyc
Speedtest (IPv4 only)
---------------------
Your public IPv4 is 51.254.xxx.xxx
Location Provider Speed
CDN Cachefly 11.4MB/s
Atlanta, GA, US Coloat 4.65MB/s
Dallas, TX, US Softlayer 10.1MB/s
Seattle, WA, US Softlayer 8.80MB/s
San Jose, CA, US Softlayer 3.36MB/s
Washington, DC, US Softlayer 10.5MB/s
Tokyo, Japan Linode 6.29MB/s
Singapore Softlayer 2.02MB/s
Rotterdam, Netherlands id3.net 11.7MB/s
Haarlem, Netherlands Leaseweb 11.9MB/s
Disk Speed
----------
I/O (1st run) : 253 MB/s
I/O (2nd run) : 285 MB/s
I/O (3rd run) : 271 MB/s
Average I/O : 269.667 MB/s
And unixbench:
Benchmark Run: Sat Jan 02 2016 14:43:49 - 15:11:57
2 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 28847114.0 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 3707.4 MWIPS (9.8 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 1959.1 lps (29.7 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 959293.8 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 257987.4 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 1933979.8 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 1924697.8 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 348671.4 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 4776.6 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 5834.7 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1555.7 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 3546841.5 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 28847114.0 2471.9
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 3707.4 674.1
Execl Throughput 43.0 1959.1 455.6
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 959293.8 2422.5
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 257987.4 1558.8
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 1933979.8 3334.4
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 1924697.8 1547.2
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 348671.4 871.7
Process Creation 126.0 4776.6 379.1
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 5834.7 1376.1
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 1555.7 2592.8
System Call Overhead 15000.0 3546841.5 2364.6
========
System Benchmarks Index Score 1363.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Run: Sat Jan 02 2016 15:11:57 - 15:40:06
2 CPUs in system; running 2 parallel copies of tests
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 57297588.4 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 7396.8 MWIPS (9.7 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 9248.8 lps (29.7 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 1117505.1 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 291963.0 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 2886097.2 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 3816311.4 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 677556.0 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 16892.9 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 11528.1 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1772.8 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 5007988.9 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 57297588.4 4909.8
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 7396.8 1344.9
Execl Throughput 43.0 9248.8 2150.9
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 1117505.1 2822.0
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 291963.0 1764.1
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 2886097.2 4976.0
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 3816311.4 3067.8
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 677556.0 1693.9
Process Creation 126.0 16892.9 1340.7
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 11528.1 2718.9
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 1772.8 2954.6
System Call Overhead 15000.0 5007988.9 3338.7
========
System Benchmarks Index Score 2520.5
EDIT:
Some people commented saying that it's not fair to compare old hardware to new, that it's not fair for the dedicated Sata 2 to be compared to Sata 3 RAID 10, etc...
Well, the purpose of this review was not to compare one against the other, but rather to review this specific Delimiter server. Later I though, why not run the same thing on my cheap vps and see how does it all stack up?
Some people might disagree, but I care not if it's a old dedicated server vs a new vps, or if one has different specs than the other.
I need a stable, average LEMP stack (Linux, Nginx, Maria DB, PHP) to run a small site with around 50.000 unique users a day (it's a jobs site). My options are, to continue using a virtual host on my i7 3770 in europe (so far so good), or get another second server in USA for this (therefore, my Delimiter choice).
But ultimately for me, the main point is to find out if I can do more with less (money). Should I stick to a cheap dedicated (old server) or go with a even cheaper, new hardware, stable vps? Because both choices fit my needs, I care not about comparing old against new hardware as long as I save money and get more performance.
When I run those benchmarks and found out that the VPS is much faster than this dedicated, I thought it's a waste. Even though it's an old server, it has 8 cores, it's a dedicated server, has a SSD... so they should be at advantage against just two cores on some cheap vps.
In the end, my opinion is more like: Why should I pay $30 in one place, when I can pay half on another and almost double the performance? For my workload, it makes perfect sense to compare the two because both systems get the job done. I don't care about it being fair or not, because I care about the end results for my workload.
If the dedicated server was about the same price, then maybe I would consider keeping that dedicated... but for double the price and less performance I don't think so.
Sure, Delimiter Network of 1 Gbit is much, much better, but when am I going to use that for a normal LEMP server? And I don't need to blast those cores to 100%, 24h a day so a VPS is still ok.
Might as well, pay less, get more and stick with a stable VPS. In the end, i care more about finding the best deal (price/quality) for my needs.