As you can see, apart from the RAM and disk space, the rest of the benchmarks weren’t that impressive. But like, it’s free! So I can’t really complain

1. Insane amount of RAM
   
2. Insane amount of disk space
   
3. And of course, it’s free!
   

1. CPU is not that impressive
   
2. The network speed was slow, hence why the speedtest was taking forever (quite odd considering the 1Gbps shown on the specs).
   
3. No control panel (However, this is something you are made well aware of before applying for the VPS).
   
4. Ubuntu didn’t work as of last month, not sure if they got it fixed now.
   

(12-09-2019, 12:03 PM)deanhills Wrote: Excellent review @ikk157!  Enjoyed reading it.  You have a gift of the gab as they say.  A way with words.

Am very happy to hear that the VPS performed OK from the moment CentOS was loaded.  And apologies for the misunderstanding before.

If I may ask - did you disable Selinux before you started to use CentOS 7, or did everything work straight off the bat?  In other words did you need to make any modifications before you were able to use CentOS successfully?

Your VPS 9 (Seattle) was one of the first two VPSs that the technicians at Virmach upgraded from OpenVZ 6 to KVM, hence why I am asking the question, because looks as though they must have done a real good job with the first 2 post4vps VPS 9 upgrades - Seattle and Chicago, whereas in later upgrades of the other 6 VPSs, they started to skip steps to speed the process.  Mine was the very last VPS 9 that got upgraded, and I've been having serious issues with it.

I'm particularly thinking of what @fChk had commented in another thread that if the sponsor had properly put the upgraded VPSs together the issue with Selinux should not have occurred.  It is a sign that possibly the reconfiguration of the later upgrades didn't go as detailed and with the same care as the first two VPSs - Chicago and Seattle had been.

In the meanwhile I'm happy VPS 9 Seattle is performing well in spite of not having been able to work with Ubuntu on it.

(12-09-2019, 07:40 PM)Hidden Refuge Wrote: Great review so far. What a bummer to hear that the network speed was so low. Maybe an alternative way to take a few speed tests for you is to use the Speedtest.net CLI client and perform tests from various different servers (locations)? I'm curious to know why the speed is so bad.

Official CLI app: https://www.speedtest.net/apps/cli
Speedtest-CLI by Sivel: https://github.com/sivel/speedtest-cli


The CPU used is clearly not made for highest peformance per core but rather for multicore applications or hosting of many VMs that don't require high clocks. Generally though the E5s are great CPUs. Many cores and threads plus usually they are dual socket systems meaning dual amount of cores and threads. If a higher performance is necessary one is better off with a Intel Xeon E3 though due to its much higher clock speeds but you pay with reduced amount of cores, threads and less overall RAM support.

To actually show off how well/bad the CPU is a few benchmarks are necessary. For such things there is software like Geekbench or Byte Unixbench. This is something that could be added to actually give some value to the review and the statement about the CPU.

Quote:High CPU: Customer’s Service cannot burst to 95-100% usage for more than five (5) minutes and cannot average higher than 50% usage within any two (2) hour period. Packages advertised to include dedicated CPU, Services with the high CPU option, and any customized Service plans that include high CPU option may burst to 100% at all times.

High Load: Customer’s Service cannot have a 15-minute load average higher than the number of full logical cores assigned and cannot have a 1-day load average higher than 70% of the number of full logical cores assigned.

(12-09-2019, 10:06 AM)ikk157 Wrote: I also wanted to go with Geekbench to perform a benchmark. However, Geekbench isn’t free so that’s not an option. So I went on with ....

(12-09-2019, 10:06 AM)ikk157 Wrote: I haven’t tried VPS9 back when it was on OVZ. So I can’t make the comparison between that and KVM. However, I don’t like the nature of OVZ, I absolutely HATE how the resources are shared and how your “noisy neighbors” could affect the performance of your VPS, which also resulted into many companies utilizing strict resource policies. However, with KVM, you get your own dedicated resources. Which solves all of the issues that OVZ has.

(05-07-2020, 06:00 PM)fChk Wrote: I was planning to do a meta-review of Virmach VPS-9 offerings -especially CPU wise- (a review of reviews), thus when I was going through the available threads on the subject, it appeared that @ikk157 was the only one who did run a Unixbench test :-)

Not only that, he did it in double-test mode!.. Kudos! and +1Rep for your courage :-)

Did you know that you most probably broke Virmarsh's ACCEPTABLE USAGE POLICY while doing it ? Both the high CPU and high load clauses:


I knew that for a fact because I was planning to run both the simple and double tests my self on the Phoenix-based VPS, but ended up doing the simple test only as it was the only one who can finish within Virmarch's rules, ie a load of 6.18 (1') 3.65 (5') 1.88 (15') and a CPU usage of 56% for most of the test duration and ending at 95.83% .

For the meta-review thing I did cancel it as there is not enough data in the published reviews for KVM-VPS-9 while others are still missing!

You can still use it in its trial mode-like everybody I would guess and it's more than enough. By the way, it doesn't abuse the CPU the way UnixBench does.



The “noisy neighbours” effect can still be felt within KVM's VMs; it shows up CPU-wise in the steal time statistic when querying your CPU usage.

When the steal time gets above 10%, your vCPU's performance drop as it's struggling to get its fair share of the real CPU from the hypervisor.

Container's VM (like OVZ) vCPU performance suffers most from the IOWait time statistic which can jump to levels above 30% making everything crawl to a halt.

It's all relative, and the main culprit in both cases is usually the overselling of servers' resources.

(05-07-2020, 08:28 PM)youssefbasha Wrote: Awesome review!
About the speedtest i think that you can open a topic for it but for my side i see it acceptable.

(05-07-2020, 09:44 PM)ikk157 Wrote: VirMach’s High CPU policy was back when the VPSs were on OVZ6. Since with OVZ, if you burst into a significantly high CPU usage you will affect your “neighbors”.

With KVM, on the other hand, it doesn’t really affect your neighbors much at all (sure, just like you’ve described, there is still a minor effect).

(05-07-2020, 09:44 PM)ikk157 Wrote: But again, the benchmark only ran for an extremely short amount of time so things should be fine.

(05-07-2020, 09:44 PM)ikk157 Wrote: As for Unixbench, thank you very much for your great comment! I wanted to avoid Geekbench altogether as the trial mode is not as in depth... Unixbench should do the trick.

(05-08-2020, 12:08 PM)fChk Wrote: No!.. It's not a minor effect!.. CPU contention between VMs is as real as it is between Containers, as I've tried to explain previously.

That's not what your posted image says!.. ie 28m 17sec.

Unixbench is a system benchmark (not CPU only) and it generally take 20+ minutes, well above the 5min limitation.

Given that I've never heard of Virmach before joining this forum, I'm not quite sure of their reputation and how well they enforce their AUP, if at all. But I would rather stay on the safe side of the bargain.


The point is that Geekbench in trial mode was USED in other reviews, hence its scores should be another point of comparisons between VPS's CPUs. That's all.