ARMv7 dedicated servers for 3.40 per month(techcrunch.com) |
ARMv7 dedicated servers for 3.40 per month(techcrunch.com) |
Also, France? Same country that is trying to push privacy-unfriendly laws? Probably not a good idea to use this service for VPN then.
It would probably suffice as a test-box or cheap-static hosting I guess.
They are explicitly advertising VPNs, but even though I live in France I'm not sure whether the situation there is secure enough. France is collecting internet logs, and a server has its own IP, is a VPN then even useful?
> It would probably suffice as a test-box or cheap-static hosting I guess.
More than static. I installed serendipity (a blogging engine, think wordpress) there and it worked good enough for me to assume that it would work fine with medium traffic as well.
Got a pretty good impression otherwise. The thing that bothered me most was that the free test month was not a full month, but till the next accounting period – 14 days for me. Cut my time short to test it. But you can imagine that if that is my sole complain, it was fine otherwise for me. A solid site and their scripts to build images worked fine.
I suggest you look into eastern europe where you can purchase server time in BTC.
As opposed to all those famously Switzerland-based companies such as AWS, Heroku, DigitalOcean...
If you'd like anything in particular running, let me know and I shall oblige when I can!
#Random write
fio --randrepeat=1 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --gtod_reduce=1 --name=test --filename=test --bs=4k --iodepth=128 --size=4G --readwrite=randwrite
#Random Read
fio --randrepeat=1 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --gtod_reduce=1 --name=test --filename=test --bs=4k --iodepth=128 --size=4G --readwrite=randread ~# fio --randrepeat=1 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --gtod_reduce=1 --name=test --filename=test --bs=4k --iodepth=16 --size=4G --readwrite=randread
test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=17457: Thu Sep 3 12:39:10 2015
read : io=0B, bw=115612KB/s, iops=28903, runt= 36279msec
cpu : usr=17.12%, sys=67.12%, ctx=35506, majf=0, minf=39
IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=100.0%, 32=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.1%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
issued : total=r=1048576/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=4096.0MB, aggrb=115612KB/s, minb=115612KB/s, maxb=115612KB/s, mint=36279msec, maxt=36279msec
Disk stats (read/write):
nbd0: ios=55484/53, merge=0/587, ticks=134950/1020, in_queue=135900, util=24.02%
~# fio --randrepeat=1 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --gtod_reduce=1 --name=test --filename=test --bs=4k --iodepth=16 --size=4G --readwrite=randwrite
test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=17460: Thu Sep 3 12:43:54 2015
write: io=0B, bw=15741KB/s, iops=3935, runt=266460msec
cpu : usr=3.97%, sys=25.75%, ctx=544104, majf=0, minf=23
IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=100.0%, 32=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.1%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
issued : total=r=0/w=1048576/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
WRITE: io=4096.0MB, aggrb=15740KB/s, minb=15740KB/s, maxb=15740KB/s, mint=266460msec, maxt=266460msec
Disk stats (read/write):
nbd0: ios=0/1053524, merge=0/106948, ticks=0/4282740, in_queue=4281210, util=100.00%
~# fio --randrepeat=1 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --gtod_reduce=1 --name=test --filename=test --bs=4k --iodepth=128 --size=4G --readwrite=randwrite
test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=17463: Thu Sep 3 12:48:26 2015
write: io=0B, bw=16400KB/s, iops=4100, runt=255749msec
cpu : usr=4.20%, sys=22.28%, ctx=576266, majf=0, minf=23
IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=0.1%, >=64=100.0%
submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.1%
issued : total=r=0/w=1048576/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
WRITE: io=4096.0MB, aggrb=16400KB/s, minb=16400KB/s, maxb=16400KB/s, mint=255749msec, maxt=255749msec
Disk stats (read/write):
nbd0: ios=0/1047606, merge=0/56, ticks=0/32543280, in_queue=32545150, util=100.00%
~# fio --randrepeat=1 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --gtod_reduce=1 --name=test --filename=test --bs=4k --iodepth=128 --size=4G --readwrite=randread
test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=9439: Thu Sep 3 12:48:32 2015
read : io=0B, bw=28594KB/s, iops=7148, runt=146685msec
cpu : usr=8.60%, sys=31.77%, ctx=591701, majf=0, minf=138
IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=0.1%, >=64=100.0%
submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.1%
issued : total=r=1048576/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=128
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: io=4096.0MB, aggrb=28593KB/s, minb=28593KB/s, maxb=28593KB/s, mint=146685msec, maxt=146685msec
Disk stats (read/write):
nbd0: ios=1047291/4, merge=0/1, ticks=18660030/50, in_queue=18659150, util=100.00%bonnie++ would be great
What do they gain from giving everything the most confusing names possible?
Sockets LGA1155, LGA1150, LGA1151. CPUs only differentiated by a jumble of digits anymore.
Something is seriously wrong with your product naming strategy when it needs to be clarified that ARM7 != ARMv7.
And given that they are even advertising 'Seedboxes' and VPN servers [0] hosted in the same network, it makes me doubt the quality of network even more.
[0] https://blog.scaleway.com/2015/09/02/we-are-slashing-the-c1-...
Also, for non-corporate customers in Europe, VAT should be added.
The VAT-inclusive price is €3.59 (for 4 ARM cores, 2 GB RAM, 50 GB SSB disk, and one IP with 200 Mbps unmetered bandwidth). This is the VAT-inclusive number from the site, which is using French VAT (20%). Here in Sweden it'd be 25%, it seems. :|
/proc/cpuinfo hints at Armada XP so I thought mv_cesa crypto would be available but alas, no:
# zcat /proc/config.gz | grep -i cesa
CONFIG_CRYPTO_DEV_MV_CESA=y
# grep -i cesa /proc/crypto
#
edit: it's definitely marvell, dmesg references 370_xp clocksource, armada xp pincontrol and aurora L2 cache controller.
* Users recognise that piracy harms artistic creation.
For my own projects, I wish I could buy this hardware!
- No IPv6 -- sucks, but I can live with that
- No IPv4 -- WTF? NAT on a server?!
- A credit card is required. I can't pay them. Asked via support, they confirm credit card is the only way.
- I still haven't found where the instances are physically located. (Edit: it's in the "General FAQ", not in the "Server FAQ".)
I really, really like the idea, but they have a long way to go.
Read https://www.scaleway.com/docs/create-an-image-from-scratch/ and ideally set up a server and look at what exactly is going on.
Unfortunately the script on that page has some errors (it references missing files and it's missing some files that are required), they should really go over it and fix them.
No need to worry about our infrastructure. Our datacenters are well connected: http://www.iliad-datacenter.fr/infrastructure/connectivite
It's pretty much a VPS, not dedicated.
Online.net's total network capacity is in the realm of 1Tbps.
They would have to dedicated anywhere from 20-40% of their network capacity if they were to guarantee 200mbit
It's definitely not random, at least not with Intel. ARM is confusing as hell though. Part of the issue is that there is the ARM Instruction Set Architecture (ISA) that has different versions, and then there are different ARM CPU architectures, but those two don't necessarily need to correspond.
Their scheme may be somewhat internally consistent (until they change it again next year). The information it conveys remains completely useless.
Nobody cares about the number of pins on a socket or which "generation" a CPU belongs to.
We want to know which CPU is compatible to which socket, and how CPUs compare on their key metrics.
So here's a useful naming scheme: Sockets should be called S1, S2, S3 [...]
CPUs should be called: S1-8-40W-PM15000
That would be an 8 core CPU for Socket S1 that draws 40W and scores PassMark 15000.
If Intel & co insist on making us sift through hostile numeric identifiers then they should at least make them useful.