Dual locations Contabo benchmark & review

First some general remarks not specifically about this particular review:
As soon as one does connectivity benchmarking one meets an ugly beast, namely the fact that the internet is far less perfect than one off testing would suggest and a target host that usually is fast and fine suddenly needs an eternity (as in > half an hour) to respond to a ping or a https request. The result - until now and not any more - was that providers sometimes could look worse than they actually are; even worse they often were innocent victims of some target server going awol.
Well noted I always chose the target servers carefully and in fact they usually worked fine, but not always. Occasionally some LET user would suggest to use other test target because he considered mine (e.g. Softlayer) poor, and trust me, I did try and test many target alternatives. The sad truth seems to be that every test target server occasionally PMSes.

So I thought about a better solution and finally it struck me and I stopped my attempt to find more reliable target servers but rather simply ignored those few bad results (and it's always just a few, less then about 5%). This review is the first one where I applied the new result compiling and calculating method which will be used for all my reviews from now on.

But at the same time one should note that that problem only arose from what actually is a significant advantage of my way of testing and my software; one gets to see things the other benchmarks almost always miss plus the candidate (VPS under test) is tested for multiple days (minimum) and during all times, day and night with the timing being unpredictable.



Now the results of 2 Contabo locations, one in DE the other one in the USA. First the german one, based on over 200 result sets/runs:

Machine: amd64, Arch.: amd64, Model: AMD EPYC 7282 16-Core Processor
OS, version: FreeBSD 12.2, Mem.: 7.982 GB
CPU - Cores: 4, Family/Model/Stepping: 23/49/0
Cache: 64K/64K L1d/L1i, 512K L2, 16M L3
Std. Flags: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat
pse36 cflsh mmx fxsr sse sse2 htt sse3 pclmulqdq ssse3 fma cx16
sse4_1 sse4_2 popcnt *aes* xsave osxsave avx f16c rdrnd hypervisor
Ext. Flags: syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt pdpe1gb rdtscp lm lahf_lm cmp_legacy
cr8_legacy lzcnt sse4a misalignsse 3dnowprefetch osvw perfctr_core

ProcMem SC [MB/s]: avg 286.5 - min 207.8 (72.5 %), max 326.6 (114.0 %)
ProcMem MC [MB/s]: avg 879.1 - min 536.5 (61.0 %), max 1023.9 (116.5 %)

--- Disk - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 320.60 - min 74.16 (23.1%), max 483.13 (150.7%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 986.30 - min 651.45 (66.0%), max 2234.96 (226.6%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 1802.08 - min 707.83 (39.3%), max 3377.26 (187.4%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 5355.50 - min 2528.76 (47.2%), max 7874.74 (147.0%)
--- Disk - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 120.56 - min 106.74 (88.5%), max 156.15 (129.5%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 110.59 - min 108.07 (97.7%), max 129.26 (116.9%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 1357.27 - min 550.03 (40.5%), max 3049.95 (224.7%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 5589.39 - min 2221.76 (39.7%), max 7791.22 (139.4%)

--- Network ---
US LAX lax.download.datapacket.com
DL [Mb/s]: avg 32.02 - min 18.18 (56.8%), max 44.80 (139.9%)
Ping [ms]: avg 150.2 - min 143.4 (95.5%), max 167.1 (111.3%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 151.7 - min 146.8 (96.8%), max 175.7 (115.8%)

NO OSL speedtest.osl01.softlayer.com
DL [Mb/s]: avg 30.10 - min 7.35 (24.4%), max 141.08 (468.8%)
Ping [ms]: avg 35.2 - min 32.8 (93.3%), max 44.9 (127.7%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 35.9 - min 32.8 (91.4%), max 74.3 (207.1%)

US SJC speedtest.sjc01.softlayer.com
DL [Mb/s]: avg 16.21 - min 0.18 (1.1%), max 737.23 (4547.4%)
Ping [ms]: avg 150.3 - min 149.3 (99.3%), max 163.6 (108.8%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 162.0 - min 149.4 (92.2%), max 671.7 (414.7%)

JP TOK speedtest.tokyo2.linode.com
DL [Mb/s]: avg 10.39 - min 3.86 (37.1%), max 27.44 (264.0%)
Ping [ms]: avg 258.1 - min 256.3 (99.3%), max 268.4 (104.0%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 259.7 - min 256.3 (98.7%), max 295.8 (113.9%)

IT MIL speedtest.mil01.softlayer.com
DL [Mb/s]: avg 54.89 - min 14.33 (26.1%), max 178.68 (325.5%)
Ping [ms]: avg 14.4 - min 13.5 (93.8%), max 27.3 (189.6%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 23.6 - min 13.5 (57.2%), max 745.4 (3158.0%)

FR PAR speedtest.par01.softlayer.com
DL [Mb/s]: avg 77.57 - min 16.74 (21.6%), max 180.00 (232.0%)
Ping [ms]: avg 14.5 - min 13.2 (91.1%), max 25.1 (173.3%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 24.6 - min 13.2 (53.7%), max 561.8 (2287.4%)

SG SGP mirror.sg.leaseweb.net
DL [Mb/s]: avg 8.85 - min 0.00 (0.0%), max 26.06 (294.4%) - (http error: -1)
Ping [ms]: avg 346.8 - min 264.6 (76.3%), max 374.3 (107.9%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 351.7 - min 264.6 (75.2%), max 374.6 (106.5%)

BR SAO speedtest.sao01.softlayer.com
DL [Mb/s]: avg 10.34 - min 0.00 (0.0%), max 31.40 (303.5%) - (http error: -10)
Ping [ms]: avg 192.8 - min 191.5 (99.3%), max 209.5 (108.6%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 195.3 - min 191.6 (98.1%), max 375.8 (192.4%)

IN CHN speedtest.che01.softlayer.com
DL [Mb/s]: avg 7.97 - min 2.91 (36.5%), max 23.24 (291.5%)
Ping [ms]: avg 273.2 - min 110.1 (40.3%), max 287.9 (105.4%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 281.0 - min 260.1 (92.6%), max 471.2 (167.7%)

GR UNK speedtest.ftp.otenet.gr
DL [Mb/s]: avg 128.45 - min 127.11 (99.0%), max 129.79 (101.0%)
Ping [ms]: avg 40.0 - min 39.9 (99.9%), max 40.0 (100.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 40.5 - min 40.4 (99.6%), max 40.7 (100.4%)

US WDC mirror.wdc1.us.leaseweb.net
DL [Mb/s]: avg 19.22 - min 5.73 (29.8%), max 62.07 (322.9%)
Ping [ms]: avg 99.9 - min 91.7 (91.8%), max 119.1 (119.2%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 100.2 - min 91.8 (91.6%), max 119.1 (118.8%)

DE FRA speedtest.fra02.softlayer.com
DL [Mb/s]: avg 114.39 - min 34.71 (30.3%), max 188.38 (164.7%)
Ping [ms]: avg 5.3 - min 4.4 (83.6%), max 20.9 (396.9%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 7.9 - min 4.5 (56.6%), max 360.2 (4532.8%)

RU MOS speedtest.hostkey.ru
DL [Mb/s]: avg 35.95 - min 2.98 (8.3%), max 139.10 (387.0%)
Ping [ms]: avg 41.5 - min 35.9 (86.5%), max 60.5 (145.8%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 43.7 - min 38.7 (88.6%), max 82.0 (187.7%)

US DAL speedtest.dal05.softlayer.com
DL [Mb/s]: avg 18.32 - min 3.46 (18.9%), max 49.89 (272.4%)
Ping [ms]: avg 130.9 - min 125.1 (95.6%), max 144.2 (110.2%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 131.6 - min 125.2 (95.2%), max 159.5 (121.2%)

UK LON speedtest.lon02.softlayer.com
DL [Mb/s]: avg 99.94 - min 5.88 (5.9%), max 180.83 (180.9%)
Ping [ms]: avg 13.7 - min 11.0 (80.3%), max 20.9 (152.6%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 18.7 - min 11.0 (58.9%), max 596.8 (3194.0%)

US NYC nyc.download.datapacket.com
DL [Mb/s]: avg 53.74 - min 26.71 (49.7%), max 171.97 (320.0%)
Ping [ms]: avg 81.6 - min 12.4 (15.2%), max 96.0 (117.6%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 82.4 - min 12.4 (15.0%), max 118.9 (144.3%)

RO BUC 185.183.99.8
DL [Mb/s]: avg 51.18 - min 12.45 (24.3%), max 141.53 (276.6%)
Ping [ms]: avg 37.7 - min 32.2 (85.3%), max 45.6 (120.9%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 39.8 - min 32.7 (82.1%), max 68.6 (172.2%)

CN_HK mirror.hk.leaseweb.net
DL [Mb/s]: avg 11.00 - min 0.19 (1.7%), max 26.74 (243.1%)
Ping [ms]: avg 282.4 - min 250.6 (88.7%), max 768.2 (272.0%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 282.6 - min 253.9 (89.9%), max 768.2 (271.9%)


4 (!) vCores of a current Epyc! 8 GB memory and 200 GB (!) SSD!

The processor performance is really nice; the only processor achieving a better result so far is Ryzen 39xx/59xx which is about 20% faster. I'm also quite happy with the multi-core result. Really, really nice hardware which isn't brutally oversold.

Regarding the disk I'm a bit split. On the one hand both peak and average performance is really decent, even good, but on the other hand the spread indicates a controller with poor caching and/or to many users per disk. I'd love to see the load being spread over more disk devices (yes, I'm talking about hardware devices). Normally I wouldn't mention that because the performance is certainly with a region normal for low to mid end VPS, but with such a nice system I' a bit disappointed to see what highly likely a few large devices instead of many smaller ones. (Remember: With Epyc PCIe lanes are not scarce but Sata/Sas 6Gb is a limit).

As for the network I'm happy with what I see; I'd call that solid mid range. Keep in mid that (at least officially) that VPS is limited to 200 Mb/s - which is plenty enough for most users, especially in the low end segment. The spread seems to be a bit on the higher end though and I'd like to see a bit more consistency.

(... part 2 ...)

Top News