Post4VPS Forum | Free VPS Provider
VPS 5 Review - Printable Version

+- Post4VPS Forum | Free VPS Provider (https://post4vps.com)
+-- Forum: VPS Discussion (https://post4vps.com/Forum-VPS-Discussion)
+--- Forum: VPS Reviews (https://post4vps.com/Forum-VPS-Reviews)
+--- Thread: VPS 5 Review (/Thread-VPS-5-Review--414)

Pages: 1 2

VPS 5 Review - Hagmui - 03-05-2016

Introduction
VPS 5 is hosted by https://cobalthost.net/ and was given to me during the last VPS giveaway. It's located in Canada and uses VMWare as visualization technology, which offers great performance and flexibility. Specs seem fine, especially 50GB diskspace and unlimited traffic.
Specs in detail:
  • Disk Space 50 GB
  • RAM: 2 GB RAM
  • IP Addresses: 1x IPv4
  • Virtualization: VMWare
  • Monthly Traffic: Unlimited
  • Location:  Canada
  • Control Panel: Cobalt Panel
  • Connection: 100 MBit/s
Detailed Specs
The VPS has 2 Xeon Cores
Code:
sysctl hw.model
hw.model: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU           E5335  @ 2.00GHz
Xeon looks awesome on first glance, but if you look it up, it is a 9 year old CPU and that shows, as we will see in later benchmarks.
http://ark.intel.com/products/28443/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5335-8M-Cache-2_00-GHz-1333-MHz-FSB

Installation
cobalthost is using their own Panel, which fulfills the basic needs, shows cpu/ram/hdd usage and offers the usual suspects like reboot/reinstall etc.
CPU Usage is always wrong in the panel, mobil version does not work. Installation works, which is most important.
One can choose to install on DC-2 or DC-3, since nowhere i can see the utilization of either node or see what hardware is in it it's is a gamble.
I first chose DC-3, which was a mistake. It is so slow that there can be only 2 reasons for it. a) it has like hundreds of VMs running, or b) the hw is dying (as in faulty), possible the hdds.
Booting a VM takes up to 5 minutes, installing ~30 minutes.
So i reinstalled on DC-2, which works better, boot and install times are normal. Installation went without issues. Their install script leaves a /bin/npasswd script back and a non working rc.local entry in case of debian. On FreeBSD i could not find any artifacts but 2 installed packages.
There is a slight installation bug with FreeBSD, which i already reported. (swap missing), also it installs on UFS2 instead of ZFS, which is a bummer but should do for most tasks.
One cool with with cobalthost is that you can have as many VPSs as you have resources for, so with 2 cores you can do 2 VPSs. Very cool.

Benchmark
Since i am running FreeBSD the usually FreeVPS benchmark script won't work, so i had to improvise and used unixbench. 
Unixbench:
Code:
BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 4.1.0)
 System -- cobalt
 Start Benchmark Run: Sat Mar  5 14:18:55 CST 2016
  1 interactive users.
  2:18PM  up 18:48, 1 user, load averages: 0.32, 0.24, 0.17
 -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  142208 Mar  4 19:21 /bin/sh
 /bin/sh: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (FreeBSD), dynamically linked, interpreter /libexec/ld-elf.so.1, for FreeBSD 10.2, stripped
 /dev/da0p2    49589108 3605016 42016964     8%    /
Dhrystone 2 using register variables     10248240.4 lps   (10.0 secs, 10 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone                 1581.4 MWIPS (11.5 secs, 10 samples)
System Call Overhead                     352145.8 lps   (10.0 secs, 10 samples)
Pipe Throughput                           90979.2 lps   (10.0 secs, 10 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching               5820.0 lps   (10.0 secs, 10 samples)
Process Creation                            293.4 lps   (30.0 secs, 3 samples)
 ecl Throughput                            127.2 lps   (29.8 secs, 3 samples)
File Read 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks    337529.0 KBps  (30.0 secs, 3 samples)
File Write 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks    21709.0 KBps  (30.0 secs, 3 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks     20583.0 KBps  (30.0 secs, 3 samples)
File Read 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks      107441.0 KBps  (30.0 secs, 3 samples)
File Write 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks      24680.0 KBps  (30.0 secs, 3 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks       19831.0 KBps  (30.0 secs, 3 samples)
File Read 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks    731668.0 KBps  (30.0 secs, 3 samples)
File Write 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks    20279.0 KBps  (30.0 secs, 3 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks     20593.0 KBps  (30.0 secs, 3 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                341.4 lpm   (60.1 secs, 3 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                 55.8 lpm   (60.1 secs, 3 samples)
Shell Scripts (16 concurrent)                25.9 lpm   (60.1 secs, 3 samples)
Arithmetic Test (type = short)                1.0 lps   (0.0 secs, 3 samples)
Arithmetic Test (type = int)                  1.0 lps   (0.0 secs, 3 samples)
Arithmetic Test (type = long)                 1.0 lps   (0.0 secs, 3 samples)
Arithmetic Test (type = float)                1.0 lps   (0.0 secs, 3 samples)
Arithmetic Test (type = double)               1.0 lps   (0.0 secs, 3 samples)
Arithoh                                       1.0 lps   (0.0 secs, 3 samples)
C Compiler Throughput                     12610.5 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places          12301.0 lpm   (30.1 secs, 3 samples)
Recursion Test--Tower of Hanoi           111125.6 lps   (20.0 secs, 3 samples)


                    INDEX VALUES            
TEST                                        BASELINE     RESULT      INDEX

Dhrystone 2 using register variables        116700.0 10248240.4      878.2
Double-Precision Whetstone                      55.0     1581.4      287.5
Execl Throughput                                43.0      127.2       29.6
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks         3960.0    20583.0       52.0
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks           1655.0    19831.0      119.8
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks         5800.0    20593.0       35.5
Pipe Throughput                              12440.0    90979.2       73.1
Pipe-based Context Switching                  4000.0     5820.0       14.6
Process Creation                               126.0      293.4       23.3
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                     6.0       55.8       93.0
System Call Overhead                         15000.0   352145.8      234.8
                                                                =========
    FINAL SCORE                                                      80.3

Now that looks kind of horrible. As a small comparison a FreeBSD VM on an older core i3 under load in production had a Final Score of "231". FreeBSD VM in an older Xeon also in production with load on it did "362".
ioping:
Code:
ioping .
4 KiB from . (ufs /dev/da0p2): request=1 time=11.1 ms
4 KiB from . (ufs /dev/da0p2): request=2 time=2.89 ms
4 KiB from . (ufs /dev/da0p2): request=3 time=2.71 ms
4 KiB from . (ufs /dev/da0p2): request=4 time=142.8 ms
4 KiB from . (ufs /dev/da0p2): request=5 time=268.2 ms
4 KiB from . (ufs /dev/da0p2): request=6 time=13.5 ms
4 KiB from . (ufs /dev/da0p2): request=7 time=388.9 ms
4 KiB from . (ufs /dev/da0p2): request=8 time=2.34 ms
4 KiB from . (ufs /dev/da0p2): request=9 time=47.9 ms
4 KiB from . (ufs /dev/da0p2): request=10 time=4.28 ms
4 KiB from . (ufs /dev/da0p2): request=11 time=7.67 ms
4 KiB from . (ufs /dev/da0p2): request=12 time=17.1 ms
4 KiB from . (ufs /dev/da0p2): request=13 time=21.1 ms
4 KiB from . (ufs /dev/da0p2): request=14 time=2.03 ms
4 KiB from . (ufs /dev/da0p2): request=15 time=2.55 ms
4 KiB from . (ufs /dev/da0p2): request=16 time=132.4 ms

As you can see, it is worse than on a raspberry pi on sdcards, the 300ms+ peaks are especially bad.
dd:
Code:
dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=1M count=1024
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
1073741824 bytes transferred in 232.203143 secs (4624149 bytes/sec)

Now that is also right up the raspberry pis disks speed as well. In all fairness, doing the test during different hour yield better results at around 12-30MB/s

Summary: Disk speeds and latency are bad.
CPU:
I tested CPU speed with openssl speed which every sysem has for comparison:
Code:
openssl speed
Doing mdc2 for 3s on 16 size blocks: 1163607 mdc2's in 3.04s
Doing mdc2 for 3s on 64 size blocks: 324635 mdc2's in 3.01s
Doing mdc2 for 3s on 256 size blocks: 81461 mdc2's in 3.01s
Doing mdc2 for 3s on 1024 size blocks: 18306 mdc2's in 2.99s
Doing mdc2 for 3s on 8192 size blocks: 1650 mdc2's in 3.03s
Doing md4 for 3s on 16 size blocks: 3271393 md4's in 2.99s
Doing md4 for 3s on 64 size blocks: 2790786 md4's in 3.00s
Doing md4 for 3s on 256 size blocks: 1562874 md4's in 3.01s
Doing md4 for 3s on 1024 size blocks: 904403 md4's in 3.01s
Doing md4 for 3s on 8192 size blocks: 120088 md4's in 3.01s
Doing md5 for 3s on 16 size blocks: 1729218 md5's in 3.00s
Doing md5 for 3s on 64 size blocks: 1923173 md5's in 3.02s
Doing md5 for 3s on 256 size blocks: 1734881 md5's in 3.02s
Doing md5 for 3s on 1024 size blocks: 658213 md5's in 3.02s
Doing md5 for 3s on 8192 size blocks: 105286 md5's in 3.01s
Doing hmac(md5) for 3s on 16 size blocks: 2335442 hmac(md5)'s in 3.02s
Doing hmac(md5) for 3s on 64 size blocks: 1940267 hmac(md5)'s in 3.05s
Doing hmac(md5) for 3s on 256 size blocks: 1241445 hmac(md5)'s in 3.00s
Doing hmac(md5) for 3s on 1024 size blocks: 399851 hmac(md5)'s in 3.00s
Doing hmac(md5) for 3s on 8192 size blocks: 76959 hmac(md5)'s in 3.03s
Doing sha1 for 3s on 16 size blocks: 2647621 sha1's in 3.00s
Doing sha1 for 3s on 64 size blocks: 2665564 sha1's in 3.00s
Doing sha1 for 3s on 256 size blocks: 1675455 sha1's in 3.02s
Doing sha1 for 3s on 1024 size blocks: 538815 sha1's in 3.01s
Doing sha1 for 3s on 8192 size blocks: 86528 sha1's in 3.02s
Doing sha256 for 3s on 16 size blocks: 3355346 sha256's in 3.00s
Doing sha256 for 3s on 64 size blocks: 1753528 sha256's in 3.00s
Doing sha256 for 3s on 256 size blocks: 776093 sha256's in 3.00s
Doing sha256 for 3s on 1024 size blocks: 226618 sha256's in 3.02s
Doing sha256 for 3s on 8192 size blocks: 38635 sha256's in 3.02s
Doing sha512 for 3s on 16 size blocks: 2680159 sha512's in 2.97s
Doing sha512 for 3s on 64 size blocks: 2317665 sha512's in 3.00s
Doing sha512 for 3s on 256 size blocks: 1088552 sha512's in 2.98s
Doing sha512 for 3s on 1024 size blocks: 361355 sha512's in 3.02s
Doing sha512 for 3s on 8192 size blocks: 44872 sha512's in 3.02s
That should be enough to get a rough idea and be able to compare with his/her own VPS/Desktop

Network:
Now the specs say 100mbit, but in reality it is connected with gbit, which is nice. Speeds inside Canada are good, ok to the USA and not so good to Europe but that was to be expected.
Code:
Selecting best server based on latency...
Hosted by Rack and Data (Kitchener, ON) [4.61 km]: 50.804 ms
Testing download speed........................................
Download: 261.26 Mbit/s
Testing upload speed..................................................
Upload: 66.44 Mbit/s
Code:
Hosted by Optimum Online (New York City, NY) [614.16 km]: 78.655 ms

Testing download speed........................................
Download: 62.83 Mbit/s
Testing upload speed..................................................
Upload: 46.89 Mbit/s

Code:
Hosted by Vodafone DE (Frankfurt) [6418.82 km]: 250.362 ms
Testing download speed........................................
Download: 20.78 Mbit/s
Testing upload speed..................................................
Upload: 15.82 Mbit/s
upload speeds are worse, why that may be, i think everyone can guess. Generally the speeds are good enough for any personal use, for me at least its enough.
My VPN does 15mbit (compressed) to my home link, which is enough for my VPN related activities. Also enough for mumble/teamspeak or a small private website.

VPS Usage
I mainly use it for playing around with Operatingsystems and run a mumble and an OpenVPN server, both private for myself. Maybe i'll use to backup some stuff, since the 50GB disk space is nice.

Reliability
Can not say much about that yet, for now it has been stable, if it ever goes down i will update this thread.

Conclussion
Well that is a mixed bag, it is very old, dying hardware and probably over sold into oblivion. So if you are looking for a VPS where you actually have to run something that needs power or disk speeds from this century you are out of luck. A quad core CPU for half their customers(DC-3 has 6 cores i think) is simply not enough, also the apparent lack of a storage for the VMs other than the included HDDs on the old server shows, very much so. If you are looking for a VPS to do some private stuff, test your code, learn linux, run some small daemons or anything similar like that it does its job, after all it's free and for free it's good, can't really complain. For anyone looking to invest their own money i would suggest to look for another hoster.

greetings

p.s. redid all test with debian, same result, does not seem to be OS related.

RE: VPS 5 Review - Sagnik - 03-06-2016

Didn't you have any lag-related issue?
Cobalt's hardware really sucks...they are so slow that a cPanel installation takes more than 1 hour.

RE: VPS 5 Review - RickB - 03-06-2016

(03-06-2016, 10:16 AM)Sagnik Wrote: Didn't you have any lag-related issue?
Cobalt's hardware really sucks...they are so slow that a cPanel installation takes more than 1 hour.

As far as I know, they use Cloud At Cost's servers...

RE: VPS 5 Review - Hagmui - 03-06-2016

They do, i suspect they over sell the resources so much. 9 year old Xeon does not have to be bad, but when you put a gazillion VMs on it even the most up to date Xeon will crawl.

Well lag related issues, yes and no, I am from Europe, so some lag to half way around the globe is expected, nothing too bad so far.

RE: VPS 5 Review - Sagnik - 03-06-2016

(03-06-2016, 10:30 AM)RickB Wrote:
(03-06-2016, 10:16 AM)Sagnik Wrote: Didn't you have any lag-related issue?
Cobalt's hardware really sucks...they are so slow that a cPanel installation takes more than 1 hour.

As far as I know, they use Cloud At Cost's servers...

Yes... you're right. C@C and vps-hosting.(vps-hosting also uses C@C)

RE: VPS 5 Review - Mr.Monkey - 03-06-2016

How good is Cobalt's compared towards C@C? I know that someone said that you can use C@C to setup VMs inside of one, what is this?

RE: VPS 5 Review - RickB - 03-07-2016

(03-06-2016, 05:36 PM)Mr.Monkey Wrote: How good is Cobalt's compared towards C@C? I know that someone said that you can use C@C to setup VMs inside of one, what is this?

Haha, I tried myself. running openvz on my cloudatcost server. (You can add 3 additional IPs, so I use main IP for the VM, but then I used the other 3 for the boxes. Quite funny to try out, but the quality sucks...

RE: VPS 5 Review - Hagmui - 03-07-2016

(03-06-2016, 05:36 PM)Mr.Monkey Wrote: How good is Cobalt's compared towards C@C? I know that someone said that you can use C@C to setup VMs inside of one, what is this?

Do you mean nested visualization? Running vmware inside vmware?
https://communities.vmware.com/docs/DOC-8970

RE: VPS 5 Review - Mr.Monkey - 03-08-2016

(03-07-2016, 11:19 PM)Hagmui Wrote:
(03-06-2016, 05:36 PM)Mr.Monkey Wrote: How good is Cobalt's compared towards C@C? I know that someone said that you can use C@C to setup VMs inside of one, what is this?

Do you mean nested visualization? Running vmware inside vmware?
https://communities.vmware.com/docs/DOC-8970

Well, I mean someone mentioned that Cobalt does that. Uses a VM to hosts many other VMs on some doubtfull hardware, would that just affect speed and stability especially if its oversold as it is?

RE: VPS 5 Review - Hagmui - 03-09-2016

(03-08-2016, 01:56 AM)Mr.Monkey Wrote:
(03-07-2016, 11:19 PM)Hagmui Wrote:
(03-06-2016, 05:36 PM)Mr.Monkey Wrote: How good is Cobalt's compared towards C@C? I know that someone said that you can use C@C to setup VMs inside of one, what is this?

Do you mean nested visualization? Running vmware inside vmware?
https://communities.vmware.com/docs/DOC-8970

Well, I mean someone mentioned that Cobalt does that. Uses a VM to hosts many other VMs on some doubtfull hardware, would that just affect speed and stability especially if its oversold as it is?

Could be, but i doubt it, since it does not make sense for them other than being even slower. Would only make sense if they sold vmware hosts, which they don't.

Edit:
Looked it up, the Xeon does not support it. So no, they are not doing it. I think they are just putting to many VMs on their 2 hosts. Plus the TE Mining they offer on top does not make it any better.