undefined

points

by stingraycharles9 hours ago |

comments

by faangguyindia7 hours ago|

[-]

i was just curious so i tested this actually.

Using fio

Hetzner (cx23, 2vCPU, 4 GB) ~3900 IOPS (read/write) ~15.3 MB/s avg latency ~2.1 ms 99.9th percentile ≈ ~5 ms max ≈ ~7 ms

DigitalOcean (SFO1 / 2 GB RAM / 30 GB Disk) ~3900 IOPS (same!) ~15.7 MB/s (same!) avg latency ~2.1 ms (same!) 99.9th percentile ≈ ~18 ms max ≈ ~85 ms (!!)

using sequential dd

Hetzner: 1.9 GB/s DO: 850 MB/s

Using low end plan on both but this Hetzner is 4 euro and DO instance is $18.

by yard20106 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I love Hetzner so much. I'm not affiliated I'm a really happy customer these guys just do everything right.

by ratg133 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

As long as you never have to interact with them. If you run into issues they have caused themselves, you'll find yourself dealing with a unique mix of arrogance and incompetence.

by drcongo3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I've been using Hetzner for ~20 years and every single support interaction I've ever had with them has been top tier. Never AI bots, always humans who are helpful, courteous and prompt. I can't think of a single company, let alone hosting company, whose customer service has been so consistently good.

by Aeolun2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It certainly helps the service never does anything wonky that requires a support interaction in the first place.

by zuhsetaqi6 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Just for comparison I use the cheapest netcup root server:

RS 1000 G12 AMD EPYC™ 9645 8 GB DDR5 RAM (ECC) 4 dedicated cores 256 GB NVMe

Costs 12,79 €

Results with the follwing command:

fio --name=randreadwrite \ --filename=testfile \ --size=5G \ --bs=4k \ --rw=randrw \ --rwmixread=70 \ --iodepth=32 \ --ioengine=libaio \ --direct=1 \ --numjobs=4 \ --runtime=60 \ --time_based \ --group_reporting

IOPS Read: 70.1k IOPS Write: 30.1k IOPS ~100k IOPS total

Throughput Read: 274 MiB/s Write: 117 MiB/s

Latency Read avg: 1.66 ms, P99.9: 2.61 ms, max 5.644 ms Write avg: 0.39 ms, P99.9: 2.97 ms, max 15.307 ms

by yread5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Nice, on Hetzner AX41-nvme (~50 eur, from 2020) non-raid I get:

IOPS: read 325k, write 139k

Throughput: read 1271MB/s, write 545MB/s

Latency: read avg 0.3ms, P99.9 2.7ms, max 20ms; write: 0.14ms, P99.9 0.35ms max 3.3ms

so roughly 100 times iops and throughput of the cloud VMs

by Medowar5 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

That is a bit of a unfair comparison. The Hetzner and DO instances are shared hosting, you are using dedicated ressources.

Using a Netcup VPS 1000 G12 is more comparable.

read: IOPS=18.7k, BW=73.1MiB/s

write: IOPS=8053, BW=31.5MiB/s

Latency Read avg: 5.39 ms, P99.9: 85.4 ms, max 482.6 ms

Write avg: 3.36 ms, P99.9: 86.5 ms, max 488.7 ms

by Nnnes4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Hetzner has dedicated resources too, but they also have 2 levels of shared resources, "Cost-Optimized" and "Regular Performance". The 3900 IOPS CX23 above is "Cost-Optimized".

Here are some "Regular Performance" shared resource stats

Hetzner CPX11 (Ashburn, 2 CPUs, 2GB, 5.49€ or $6.99/month before VAT)

read: IOPS=36.7k, BW=144MiB/s, avg/p99.9/max 2.4/6.1/19.5ms

write: IOPS=15.8k, BW=61.7MiB/s, avg/p99.9/max 2.4/6.1/18.7ms

Hetzner CPX22 (Helsinki, 2 CPUs, 4GB, 7.99€ or $9.49/month before VAT)

read: IOPS=48.2k, BW=188MiB/s, avg/p99.9/max 1.9/5.7/10.8ms

write: IOPS=20.7k, BW=80.8MiB/s, avg/p99.9/max 1.8/5.8/10.9ms

Hetzner CPX32 (Helsinki, 4 CPUs, 8GB, 13.99€ or $16.49/month before VAT)

read: IOPS=48.3k, BW=189MiB/s, avg/p99.9/max 1.9/6.2/36.1ms

write: IOPS=20.7k, BW=81.0MiB/s, avg/p99.9/max 1.8/6.3/36.1ms

by trvz2 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Storage performance is practically always a shared resource, and that's what y'all are talking about here...

by 7 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

deleted

by torginus6 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

>3000 IOPS

If that's true, I wonder if this is a deliberate decision by cloud providers to push users towards microservice architectures with proprietary cloud storage like S3, so you can't do on-machine dbs even for simple servers.

by AnthonyMouse5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It's probably a combination of high density storage nodes getting I/O bound and SSDs having finite write endurance. Anything that improves the first problem costs them money to improve it and then makes the second problem worse, and the second one costs them money again, so why would they want to make the default something that costs then more twice if most people don't need it?

Instead they make the default "meager IOPS" and then charge more to the people who need more.

by sroussey8 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Many cloud vendors have you pay through the nose for IOPS and bandwidth.

Edit: I posted this before reading, and these two are the same he points out.

by stingraycharles7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Yes, but you can’t directly compare SAN-style storage with a local NVMe. But I agree that it’s too expensive, but not nearly as insane as the bandwidth pricing. If you go to a vendor and ask for a petabyte of storage, and it needs to be fully redundant, and you need the ability to take PIT-consistent multi-volume snapshots, be ready to pay up. And this is what’s being offered here.

And yes, IO typically happens in 4kb blocks, so you need a decent amount of IOPS to get the full bandwidth.

by amluto37 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

Sure, but a petabyte of block storage with redundancy and PIT backups is a poor abstraction to build on, in large part because it’s not a thing that can be built without either paying an wild amount of money or taking a huge performance hit or both. If you do your PIT recovery at a higher layer, you have to work a bit harder but you get far better cost, perf and recovery.

That latter part is a big deal, too. If I buy 1PB of block storage, I’m decently likely to be running a fancy journaled or WAL-ed or rollback-logged thing on top, and that thing might be completely unable to read from a read only snapshot. So actually reading from a PIT snapshot is a pain regardless of what I paid for it. Even using EBS or similar snapshots is far from being an amazing experience.

by fragmede7 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

> Cloud vendor pricing often isn't based on cost.

Business 101 teaches us that pricing isn't based on cost. Call it top down vs bottom up pricing, but the first principles "it costs me $X to make a widget, so 1.y * $X = sell the product for $Y is not how pricing works in practice.

by jeffrallen6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Just to spell this out more clearly for the back row.of the classroom:

The price is what the customer will pay, regardless of your costs.

by barrkel6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Economics teaches us that a big difference between cost and price attracts competition which should make the price trend towards the cost.

by _bohm32 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

A big difference between cost and price is often won at the expense of many years of concerted R&D, though

by dns_snek4 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Practice taught me that that "should" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here and it's often not the case, even across long time periods (years) that should allow competitors to emerge.

For example I calculated the cost of a solar install to be approximately: Material + Labour + Generous overhead + Very tidy profit = 10,000€

In practice I keep getting offers for ~14,000€, which will be reduced to 10,000€ with a government subsidy and my request for an itemized invoice is always met with radio silence.

by ncruces5 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Only if the barrier of entry is low.

Which it won't be, if at every turn you choose the hyperscaler.

by conductr1 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Economics has a lot of other lessons teaching us why prices of major clouds have remained somewhat expensive relative to cost

by stingraycharles4 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

If this is the case, cheap bandwidth for AWS, when?

by _el1s76 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Exactly.

by _el1s76 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

That's not a business 101.

by lelanthran5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> That's not a business 101.

It kinda is, but obscured by GP's formula.

More simply; if it costs you $X to produce a product and the market is willing to pay $Y (which has no relation to $X), why would you price it as a function of $X?

If it costs me $10 to make a widget and the market is happy to pay $100, why would I base my pricing on $10 * 1.$MARGIN?

by carefree-bob5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Exactly. The mechanism by which the price ends up as X plus margin is just competition. Others enter the market and compete with you until the returns are driven down to the rental rate of capital. Any barriers to entry result in higher margins.

But that is an equilibrium result, and famously does not apply to monopolies, where elasticity of substitution will determine the premium over the rental rate of capital.