Vultr vs. OVH vs. Ramnode vs. Linode vs. Digitalocean?

wpspeedster

Well-known member
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
102
Best answers
0
Ratings
3
Points
0
#1
I heard of these VPS hosting companies but not tried all their services.

Vultr, OVH, Ramnode, Linode and Digitalocean? which one can give you best price, specs...for a strong VPS?
 

VirtuBox

Global Mod
Joined
May 3, 2016
Messages
1,400
Best answers
3
Ratings
314 5
Points
83
#2
Vultr - Not bad, not to expensive, cool features but oriented more for dev than hosting with pay per hour
OVH - YES YES and YES - 3$ for a VPS which can run a faster web server if you don't use a control panel (yes I know, I hope you love SSH :) )
Ramnode - No experience myself, but i'm currently moving a customer from their vps offer because it's how to say that. Too expensive and really slow. But I don't know what are their other offer, anyway for me it's not the best
Linode - Better than Vultr in perf, but cost most
DigitalOcean - Like linode, good level of service, but expensive

You have not list the all new in the hosting war : Scaleway : 3$ for 2core 2GB RAM and 50GB SSD. Up to 800mbps unmetered. Better network than ovh, less powerful cpu. But a good choice anymore. with some baremetal (small dedicated) from 12$ with 8GB RAM and up to 2.5GB network

133238qvq.jpg

So I will recommand you OVH in production, really reliable hosting, 3x less expensive than others. And to make some test try scaleway as you can pay per hour any server. Even the bigger which cost 25$ for 32GB RAM. They haven't a big cpu but fast enough to run what you want
 

fwh

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 8, 2012
Messages
633
Best answers
0
Ratings
249
Points
43
#3
Vultr - Not bad, not to expensive, cool features but oriented more for dev than hosting with pay per hour
Right, I am having one VPS with Vultr, everything just fine but just a thing, 1 or 2 months your VPS can be downed that you don't know the reason, you have to restart the VPS and it works as well back. Maybe by their network.

OVH - YES YES and YES - 3$ for a VPS which can run a faster web server if you don't use a control panel (yes I know, I hope you love SSH )
Why it runs faster when don't use a hosting control panel?

Ramnode - No experience myself, but i'm currently moving a customer from their vps offer because it's how to say that. Too expensive and really slow. But I don't know what are their other offer, anyway for me it's not the best
I used, its pretty good but expensive and you have to use KVM SSD and this type of VPS is pretty expensive if you don't have a good budget.
Linode - Better than Vultr in perf, but cost most
I have not used Linode before.
Better than Vultr? what features?

DigitalOcean - Like linode, good level of service, but expensive
I don't know but DigitalOcean loaded pretty slow for me at 2GB Memory, 2 Core Processor.
 

VirtuBox

Global Mod
Joined
May 3, 2016
Messages
1,400
Best answers
3
Ratings
314 5
Points
83
#4
Right, I am having one VPS with Vultr, everything just fine but just a thing, 1 or 2 months your VPS can be downed that you don't know the reason, you have to restart the VPS and it works as well back. Maybe by their network.
Vultr have less one click-apps available, and with exactly the same price than digitalOcean. For me that's too expensive for web hosting, because you will not use hourly billing.

Why it runs faster when don't use a hosting control panel?
Because a control panel try to have the less impact on websites performances, not to be the fastest hosting solution. Using a light web server (LAMP or LEMP) you will always have better performances than a control panel. But to manage several websites, it could be hard sometimes, and for security, you have to know what you are doing.
For WordPress websites, some tools like easyengine or centminmod make the command line easy to use, even for several websites. One of my VPS handle 35k visitors daily with 4GB RAM and the load average is under 5%.

I have not used Linode before.
Better than Vultr? what features?
Linode is two times less expensive, for similar or better performances (from some benchmarks I have run on the 3 providers).


I don't know but DigitalOcean loaded pretty slow for me at 2GB Memory, 2 Core Processor.
No issue with DigitalOcean but like Vultr, expensive for web hosting.
 

Mujkanovic

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
160
Best answers
0
Ratings
3
Points
18
#5
Vultr have less one click-apps available, and with exactly the same price than digitalOcean. For me that's too expensive for web hosting, because you will not use hourly billing.
What click-apps are you talking about?

One of my VPS handle 35k visitors daily with 4GB RAM and the load average is under 5%.
If so you could need to optimize your VPS more on configurations. I could think to 50% or higher load average for this case.

Linode is two times less expensive, for similar or better performances (from some benchmarks I have run on the 3 providers).
No issue with DigitalOcean but like Vultr, expensive for web hosting.
yeah you are right, I checked both providers and Linode is really cheaper but not sure it can be better.

Linode pricing
Linode-pricing.png

Vultr pricing
vultr-pricing.jpg

While we only pay $20 to have 4GB RAM Linode but need to pay $40 to have same configs with Vultr and DigitalOcean. I think its also a factor affect to customers before purchasing a hosting plan.
 

VirtuBox

Global Mod
Joined
May 3, 2016
Messages
1,400
Best answers
3
Ratings
314 5
Points
83
#6
What click-apps are you talking about?
Screenshot7.jpg

If so you could need to optimize your VPS more on configurations. I could think to 50% or higher load average for this case.
That's already an optimized configuration, with a control panel I will probably have higher load average

Screenshot8.jpg


yeah you are right, I checked both providers and Linode is really cheaper but not sure it can be better.
While we only pay $20 to have 4GB RAM Linode but need to pay $40 to have same configs with Vultr and DigitalOcean. I think its also a factor affect to customers before purchasing a hosting plan.
You can check my benchmark if you want to compare the performances of Linode, DO & Vultr : https://forumweb.hosting/13131-benchmark-top-hosting-providers-vps-update-07-16.html
 

HostXNow

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Messages
374
Best answers
0
Ratings
24 1
Points
18
#7
I prefer OVH and find it evens runs fine with cPanel, too.
 

Maxoq

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2015
Messages
265
Best answers
0
Ratings
27
Points
28
#8
Maxoq
All run fine with cPanel mate!

I have ever used all these providers, in my point of view, OVH and Digitalocean is better than the rest (Ramnode, Vultr, Linode)

OVH - slowly support but also because they are unmanaged hosting providers.
Digitalocean - Load slowly for 1 CPU core, if you want your websites load faster, you need to choose the droplets that having more than 2 CPUs.
Ramnode - suspend your VPS if you exceed RAM usage without any reports
Vultr, Linode - when your VPS has any problems, they will email you but if you don't reply them for 24 hours, they can suspend your VPS.

Just 0.02 my cents!
 

Luxin Host

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 26, 2016
Messages
544
Best answers
0
Ratings
102
Points
0
#9
Prices are more or less the same in my opinion, the hardware is also more or less the same, its the support that makes a difference and non of the big companies offer support at the level which they should.
I personally think Digitalocean does a little better when it comes to the support part.
 

UH-Peter

Active member
Joined
Dec 4, 2016
Messages
79
Best answers
0
Ratings
3
Points
0
#10
I agree, most big companies forget about support which is the biggest push for customers. That's what happens when you get famous and forget how you became famous in the first place!
 

jwn

Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2016
Messages
60
Best answers
0
Ratings
2
Points
0
#11
Support from vultr also good, i have one with vultr. No have any problem until 7mo previously in ovh. Ovh performance good but some time network slow for my VPS SSD 1, so i moved to vultr.
 

Gecko

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2016
Messages
364
Best answers
0
Ratings
24
Points
0
#12
Gecko
I've been thinking about trying one of these out from OVH but now I am not sure that I should. How often did you experience the slow period, was it once or multiple times?
 

wpspeedster

Well-known member
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
102
Best answers
0
Ratings
3
Points
0
#13
Support from vultr also good, i have one with vultr. No have any problem until 7mo previously in ovh. Ovh performance good but some time network slow for my VPS SSD 1, so i moved to vultr.
You are right about this, I have same issues with VPS SSD 2 and VPS SSD 3, sometimes it loaded slowly and I can not know why causes that.
But with VPS SSD 1, you are at lowest and minimum configurations for a VPS at OVH, I am sure you will have this problem happened many times

If I am not wrong, you are using this plan from OVH.

VPS SSD 1
OpenStack KVM
1 vCore
2.4 GHz
2 GB RAM
10 GB SSD
Local RAID 10
If so, you should consider using higher plans, as VPS SSD 3 or VPS CLOUD 3 of OVH which can give you good speed and more stable.

VPS CLOUD 3
OpenStack KVM
99.99% SLA
4 vCores
3.1 GHz
8 GB RAM
100 GB
High Availability (Ceph)
I've been thinking about trying one of these out from OVH but now I am not sure that I should.
You should try VPS SSD 3 or VPS CLOUD 3, if you have a decent budget, you can go with a dedicated server.
Since I asked this question, I tried some in them and had some experience or knew which ones are better.

I can order their position based on quality/price/specs as follows

OVH > Vultr > Digitalocean > Linode > Ramnode
 

Gecko

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2016
Messages
364
Best answers
0
Ratings
24
Points
0
#15
Gecko
This is actually the one that I would like to get because I can use it for several of my sites. I have never tried them before which is why I was considering using their bottom package, just to try out their services. The VPS SSD 3 has some really good specs for the price based on what I have seen in my research so that's more than likely going to be one that I will end up with.

Thanks for your input and information, I always appreciate good help. :)
 

eva2000

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
146
Best answers
0
Ratings
34
Points
0
#14
Linode for VPS hands down beats all the others for performance + cloud based features like cloning disks and vps and snapshot backups. OVH VPS is the worst as it's disk I/O is very bad and capped.

Order would be

1. Linode
2. Ramnode
3. DigitalOcean
4. Vultr
5. OVH

I have lots of comparative benchmark reviews for Linode, DigitalOcean, and Vultr and individual OVH Cloud VPS reviews I have done and posted on my own forums. Not sure if I can link to them here ?
 

eva2000

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
146
Best answers
0
Ratings
34
Points
0
#17
have comparative benchmarks but it's against forum rules to link to them (self promotion) and they're long and detailed

example of one of dozens of benchmark results this is for disk FFIO benchmarks back in August 2015

benchmarks1.jpg

and OpenSSL - of particular interest is for SSL certificates and HTTPS via RSA 2048bit and ECC 256bit ECDSA

benchmarks2.jpg

OVH Public Cloud EG-7 instance from Jan 2016 benchmarks raw disk FFIO in comparison
Code:
-------------------------------------------
disk FIO tests
-------------------------------------------

FIO random reads:
randomreads: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=64
fio-2.0.9
Starting 1 process
randomreads: Laying out IO file(s) (1 file(s) / 1024MB)

randomreads: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3984: Thu Dec 31 19:49:25 2015
  read : io=1024.3MB, bw=8004.4KB/s, iops=2001 , runt=131033msec
  cpu          : usr=1.82%, sys=6.32%, ctx=246575, majf=0, minf=83
  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=0.1%, >=64=0.0%
     issued    : total=r=262207/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0

Run status group 0 (all jobs):
   READ: io=1024.3MB, aggrb=8004KB/s, minb=8004KB/s, maxb=8004KB/s, mint=131033msec, maxt=131033msec

Disk stats (read/write):
  vda: ios=262045/73, merge=0/26, ticks=8374297/371, in_queue=8375702, util=100.00%

FIO random writes:
randomwrites: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=64
fio-2.0.9
Starting 1 process

randomwrites: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=4002: Thu Dec 31 19:51:41 2015
  write: io=1024.3MB, bw=7727.4KB/s, iops=1931 , runt=135729msec
  cpu          : usr=1.39%, sys=6.26%, ctx=220032, majf=0, minf=18
  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=0.1%, >=64=0.0%
     issued    : total=r=0/w=262207/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0

Run status group 0 (all jobs):
  WRITE: io=1024.3MB, aggrb=7727KB/s, minb=7727KB/s, maxb=7727KB/s, mint=135729msec, maxt=135729msec

Disk stats (read/write):
  vda: ios=0/261960, merge=0/0, ticks=0/8649441, in_queue=8650299, util=100.00%
OpenSSL
Code:
-------------------------------------------
OpenSSL System Benchmark
-------------------------------------------

OpenSSL 1.0.1e-fips 11 Feb 2013
-------------------------------------------
openssl speed rsa4096 rsa2048 ecdsap256 sha256 sha1 md5 rc4 aes-256-cbc aes-128-cbc -multi 2
OpenSSL 1.0.1e-fips 11 Feb 2013
built on: Mon Dec 14 05:15:47 UTC 2015
options:bn(64,64) md2(int) rc4(16x,int) des(idx,cisc,16,int) aes(partial) idea(int) blowfish(idx)
compiler: gcc -fPIC -DOPENSSL_PIC -DZLIB -DOPENSSL_THREADS -D_REENTRANT -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -DKRB5_MIT -m64 -DL_ENDIAN -DTERMIO -Wall -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches   -m64 -mtune=generic -Wa,--noexecstack -DPURIFY -DOPENSSL_IA32_SSE2 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT5 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_GF2m -DSHA1_ASM -DSHA256_ASM -DSHA512_ASM -DMD5_ASM -DAES_ASM -DVPAES_ASM -DBSAES_ASM -DWHIRLPOOL_ASM -DGHASH_ASM
md5             119114.20k   346672.32k   764772.86k  1095572.14k  1256876.71k
sha1            132379.21k   368093.29k   801694.21k  1183186.26k  1474958.68k
rc4             740271.96k  1300585.32k  1520406.95k  1575287.47k  1582809.09k
aes-128 cbc     253559.56k   278434.73k   284982.02k   609188.52k   618599.77k
aes-256 cbc     184280.39k   199743.91k   202872.58k   446723.75k   452149.25k
sha256          100144.66k   221360.19k   392457.05k   473819.14k   499971.41k
                  sign    verify    sign/s verify/s
rsa 2048 bits 0.000590s 0.000018s   1695.0  56349.2
rsa 4096 bits 0.004132s 0.000066s    242.0  15209.3
                              sign    verify    sign/s verify/s
256 bit ecdsa (nistp256)   0.0001s   0.0002s  19419.3   5057.9
-------------------------------------------
openssl speed -evp aes256 -multi 2
OpenSSL 1.0.1e-fips 11 Feb 2013
built on: Mon Dec 14 05:15:47 UTC 2015
options:bn(64,64) md2(int) rc4(16x,int) des(idx,cisc,16,int) aes(partial) idea(int) blowfish(idx)
compiler: gcc -fPIC -DOPENSSL_PIC -DZLIB -DOPENSSL_THREADS -D_REENTRANT -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -DKRB5_MIT -m64 -DL_ENDIAN -DTERMIO -Wall -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches   -m64 -mtune=generic -Wa,--noexecstack -DPURIFY -DOPENSSL_IA32_SSE2 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT5 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_GF2m -DSHA1_ASM -DSHA256_ASM -DSHA512_ASM -DMD5_ASM -DAES_ASM -DVPAES_ASM -DBSAES_ASM -DWHIRLPOOL_ASM -DGHASH_ASM
evp             957220.09k  1007051.93k  1020813.31k  1024438.27k  1015267.33k
-------------------------------------------
openssl speed -evp aes128 -multi 2
OpenSSL 1.0.1e-fips 11 Feb 2013
built on: Mon Dec 14 05:15:47 UTC 2015
options:bn(64,64) md2(int) rc4(16x,int) des(idx,cisc,16,int) aes(partial) idea(int) blowfish(idx)
compiler: gcc -fPIC -DOPENSSL_PIC -DZLIB -DOPENSSL_THREADS -D_REENTRANT -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -DKRB5_MIT -m64 -DL_ENDIAN -DTERMIO -Wall -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches   -m64 -mtune=generic -Wa,--noexecstack -DPURIFY -DOPENSSL_IA32_SSE2 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT5 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_GF2m -DSHA1_ASM -DSHA256_ASM -DSHA512_ASM -DMD5_ASM -DAES_ASM -DVPAES_ASM -DBSAES_ASM -DWHIRLPOOL_ASM -DGHASH_ASM
evp            1258757.73k  1356930.77k  1383251.71k  1390031.87k  1394032.64k
 

HostXNow

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Messages
374
Best answers
0
Ratings
24 1
Points
18
#18
I think OVH SSD VPS 3 plan is really good. Their SSD VPS range is much better compared to their Cloud VPS. Plus OVH offers far better DDoS protection compared to the others, and so the combo of speed & DDoS protection for value for money would go to OVH, IMO.

I had a VPS with Vultr with their 10Gbps DDoS protected IP which didn't help whatsoever, whereas OVH DDoS protection did. But then this topic seems to be more about performance than DDoS protection, so I'll try not to go off-topic. Though if your VPS can't even handle 5Gbps DDoS attack then it doesn't matter how much Disk IO you have as performance will be affected either way and so in that sense OVH would win.
 

eva2000

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
146
Best answers
0
Ratings
34
Points
0
#19
eva2000
maybe someone with OVH SSD VPS3 plan can run these openssl benchmarks for comparison

Where -multi value is number of cpu threads you server has
Code:
openssl speed rsa4096 rsa2048 ecdsap256 sha256 sha1 md5 rc4 aes-256-cbc aes-128-cbc -multi 2
openssl speed -evp aes256 -multi 2
openssl speed -evp aes128 -multi 2
 

HostXNow

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Messages
374
Best answers
0
Ratings
24 1
Points
18
#22
HostXNow
Code:
[email protected] [~]# openssl speed rsa4096 rsa2048 ecdsap256 sha256 sha1 md5 rc4 aes-256-cbc aes-128-cbc -multi 2
Forked child 0
Forked child 1
+DT:md5:3:16
+DT:md5:3:16
+R:9093144:md5:3.000000
+R:9060555:md5:3.000000
+DT:md5:3:64
+DT:md5:3:64
+R:6646363:md5:3.000000
+R:6673289:md5:3.000000
+DT:md5:3:256
+DT:md5:3:256
+R:3607752:md5:3.000000
+R:3551888:md5:3.000000
+DT:md5:3:1024
+DT:md5:3:1024
+R:1306786:md5:3.000000
+R:1304321:md5:3.000000
+DT:md5:3:8192
+DT:md5:3:8192
+R:186781:md5:3.000000
+R:186966:md5:3.000000
+DT:sha1:3:16
+DT:sha1:3:16
+R:10085967:sha1:3.000000
+R:10130107:sha1:3.000000
+DT:sha1:3:64
+DT:sha1:3:64
+R:6688119:sha1:3.000000
+DT:sha1:3:256
+R:6209694:sha1:3.000000
+DT:sha1:3:256
+R:3703478:sha1:3.000000
+R:3601996:sha1:3.000000
+DT:sha1:3:1024
+DT:sha1:3:1024
+R:1389015:sha1:3.000000
+DT:sha1:3:8192
+R:1385219:sha1:3.000000
+DT:sha1:3:8192
+R:212241:sha1:3.000000
+DT:sha256:3:16
+R:209551:sha1:3.000000
+DT:sha256:3:16
+R:7586701:sha256:3.000000
+DT:sha256:3:64
+R:7583900:sha256:3.000000
+DT:sha256:3:64
+R:4260006:sha256:3.000000
+R:4269472:sha256:3.000000
+DT:sha256:3:256
+DT:sha256:3:256
+R:1840700:sha256:3.000000
+DT:sha256:3:1024
+R:1844416:sha256:3.000000
+DT:sha256:3:1024
+R:562572:sha256:3.000000
+DT:sha256:3:8192
+R:512059:sha256:3.000000
+DT:sha256:3:8192
+R:74274:sha256:3.000000
+DT:rc4:3:16
+R:72532:sha256:3.000000
+DT:rc4:3:16
+R:53677829:rc4:3.000000
+R:53684347:rc4:3.000000
+DT:rc4:3:64
+DT:rc4:3:64
+R:24476693:rc4:3.000000
+DT:rc4:3:256
+R:24618710:rc4:3.000000
+DT:rc4:3:256
+R:7214303:rc4:3.000000
+DT:rc4:3:1024
+R:7212875:rc4:3.000000
+DT:rc4:3:1024
+R:1862555:rc4:3.000000
+DT:rc4:3:8192
+R:1855008:rc4:3.000000
+DT:rc4:3:8192
+R:234987:rc4:3.000000
+DT:aes-128 cbc:3:16
+R:234617:rc4:3.000000
+DT:aes-128 cbc:3:16
+R:19281263:aes-128 cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-128 cbc:3:64
+R:19258549:aes-128 cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-128 cbc:3:64
+R:5298167:aes-128 cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-128 cbc:3:256
+R:5293849:aes-128 cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-128 cbc:3:256
+R:1357219:aes-128 cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-128 cbc:3:1024
+R:1355862:aes-128 cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-128 cbc:3:1024
+R:726105:aes-128 cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-128 cbc:3:8192
+R:725274:aes-128 cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-128 cbc:3:8192
+R:92081:aes-128 cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-256 cbc:3:16
+R:91538:aes-128 cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-256 cbc:3:16
+R:14150224:aes-256 cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-256 cbc:3:64
+R:14140675:aes-256 cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-256 cbc:3:64
+R:3781441:aes-256 cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-256 cbc:3:256
+R:3354831:aes-256 cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-256 cbc:3:256
+R:966274:aes-256 cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-256 cbc:3:1024
+R:948925:aes-256 cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-256 cbc:3:1024
+R:529248:aes-256 cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-256 cbc:3:8192
+R:518553:aes-256 cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-256 cbc:3:8192
+R:67269:aes-256 cbc:3.000000
+R:66935:aes-256 cbc:3.000000
+DTP:2048:private:rsa:10
+DTP:2048:private:rsa:10
+R1:6707:2048:10.00
+R1:6628:2048:10.00
+DTP:2048:public:rsa:10
+DTP:2048:public:rsa:10
+R2:223032:2048:10.00
+R2:218568:2048:10.00
+DTP:4096:private:rsa:10
+DTP:4096:private:rsa:10
+R1:902:4096:10.00
+DTP:4096:public:rsa:10
+R1:900:4096:10.01
+DTP:4096:public:rsa:10
+R2:60475:4096:10.00
+DTP:256:sign:ecdsa:10
+R2:61107:4096:10.00
+DTP:256:sign:ecdsa:10
+R5:71496:256:10.00
+DTP:256:verify:ecdsa:10
+R5:66060:256:10.00
+DTP:256:verify:ecdsa:10
+R6:16743:256:10.00
Got: +H:16:64:256:1024:8192 from 0
Got: +F:3:md5:48322960.00:142363498.67:303094442.67:445208234.67:510541824.00 from 0
Got: +F:5:sha1:54027237.33:142679872.00:316030122.67:474117120.00:579559424.00 from 0
Got: +F:7:rc4:286281754.67:522169450.67:615620522.67:635752106.67:641671168.00 from 0
Got: +F:16:aes-128 cbc:102833402.67:113027562.67:115816021.33:247843840.00:251442517.33 from 0
Got: +F:18:aes-256 cbc:75467861.33:80670741.33:82455381.33:180649984.00:183689216.00 from 0
Got: +F:23:sha256:40462405.33:90880128.00:157073066.67:192024576.00:202817536.00 from 0
Got: +F2:2:2048:0.001491:0.000045 from 0
Got: +F2:3:4096:0.011086:0.000165 from 0
Got: +F4:3:256:0.000140:0.000597 from 0
+R6:18086:256:10.00
Got: +H:16:64:256:1024:8192 from 1
Got: +F:3:md5:48496768.00:141789077.33:307861504.00:446049621.33:510036650.67 from 1
Got: +F:5:sha1:53791824.00:132473472.00:307370325.33:472821418.67:572213930.67 from 1
Got: +F:7:rc4:286316517.33:525199146.67:615498666.67:633176064.00:640660821.33 from 1
Got: +F:16:aes-128 cbc:102712261.33:112935445.33:115700224.00:247560192.00:249959765.33 from 1
Got: +F:18:aes-256 cbc:75416933.33:71569728.00:80974933.33:176999424.00:182777173.33 from 1
Got: +F:23:sha256:40447466.67:91082069.33:157390165.33:174782805.33:198060714.67 from 1
Got: +F2:2:2048:0.001509:0.000046 from 1
Got: +F2:3:4096:0.011122:0.000164 from 1
Got: +F4:3:256:0.000151:0.000553 from 1
OpenSSL 1.0.1e-fips 11 Feb 2013
built on: Sun Nov  6 03:45:24 UTC 2016
options:bn(64,64) md2(int) rc4(16x,int) des(idx,cisc,16,int) aes(partial) idea(int) blowfish(idx)
compiler: gcc -fPIC -DOPENSSL_PIC -DZLIB -DOPENSSL_THREADS -D_REENTRANT -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -DKRB5_MIT -m64 -DL_ENDIAN -DTERMIO -Wall -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches   -m64 -mtune=generic -Wa,--noexecstack -DPURIFY -DOPENSSL_IA32_SSE2 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT5 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_GF2m -DSHA1_ASM -DSHA256_ASM -DSHA512_ASM -DMD5_ASM -DAES_ASM -DVPAES_ASM -DBSAES_ASM -DWHIRLPOOL_ASM -DGHASH_ASM
md5              96819.73k   284152.58k   610955.95k   891257.86k  1020578.47k
sha1            107819.06k   275153.34k   623400.45k   946938.54k  1151773.35k
rc4             572598.27k  1047368.60k  1231119.19k  1268928.17k  1282331.99k
aes-128 cbc     205545.66k   225963.01k   231516.25k   495404.03k   501402.28k
aes-256 cbc     150884.79k   152240.47k   163430.31k   357649.41k   366466.39k
sha256           80909.87k   181962.20k   314463.23k   366807.38k   400878.25k
                  sign    verify    sign/s verify/s
rsa 2048 bits 0.000750s 0.000023s   1333.4  43961.4
rsa 4096 bits 0.005552s 0.000082s    180.1  12158.2
                              sign    verify    sign/s verify/s
 256 bit ecdsa (nistp256)   0.0001s   0.0003s  13765.4   3483.4
[email protected] [~]#
Code:
[email protected] [~]# openssl speed -evp aes256 -multi 2
Forked child 0
Forked child 1
+DT:aes-256-cbc:3:16
+DT:aes-256-cbc:3:16
+R:66967987:aes-256-cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-256-cbc:3:64
+R:71909762:aes-256-cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-256-cbc:3:64
+R:17319546:aes-256-cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-256-cbc:3:256
+R:18553577:aes-256-cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-256-cbc:3:256
+R:4730655:aes-256-cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-256-cbc:3:1024
+R:4781434:aes-256-cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-256-cbc:3:1024
+R:1158888:aes-256-cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-256-cbc:3:8192
+R:1169718:aes-256-cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-256-cbc:3:8192
+R:149901:aes-256-cbc:3.000000
+R:151543:aes-256-cbc:3.000000
Got: +H:16:64:256:1024:8192 from 0
Got: +F:22:aes-256-cbc:357162597.33:369483648.00:403682560.00:395567104.00:409329664.00 from 0
Got: +H:16:64:256:1024:8192 from 1
Got: +F:22:aes-256-cbc:383518730.67:395809642.67:408015701.33:399263744.00:413813418.67 from 1
OpenSSL 1.0.1e-fips 11 Feb 2013
built on: Sun Nov  6 03:45:24 UTC 2016
options:bn(64,64) md2(int) rc4(16x,int) des(idx,cisc,16,int) aes(partial) idea(int) blowfish(idx)
compiler: gcc -fPIC -DOPENSSL_PIC -DZLIB -DOPENSSL_THREADS -D_REENTRANT -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -DKRB5_MIT -m64 -DL_ENDIAN -DTERMIO -Wall -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches   -m64 -mtune=generic -Wa,--noexecstack -DPURIFY -DOPENSSL_IA32_SSE2 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT5 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_GF2m -DSHA1_ASM -DSHA256_ASM -DSHA512_ASM -DMD5_ASM -DAES_ASM -DVPAES_ASM -DBSAES_ASM -DWHIRLPOOL_ASM -DGHASH_ASM
evp             740681.33k   765293.29k   811698.26k   794830.85k   823143.08k
[email protected] [~]#
Code:
[email protected] [~]# openssl speed -evp aes128 -multi 2
Forked child 0
Forked child 1
+DT:aes-128-cbc:3:16
+DT:aes-128-cbc:3:16
+R:96395130:aes-128-cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-128-cbc:3:64
+R:96633984:aes-128-cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-128-cbc:3:64
+R:26261506:aes-128-cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-128-cbc:3:256
+R:26261048:aes-128-cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-128-cbc:3:256
+R:6732444:aes-128-cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-128-cbc:3:1024
+R:6738525:aes-128-cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-128-cbc:3:1024
+R:1695647:aes-128-cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-128-cbc:3:8192
+R:1695805:aes-128-cbc:3.000000
+DT:aes-128-cbc:3:8192
+R:202945:aes-128-cbc:3.000000
+R:205053:aes-128-cbc:3.000000
Got: +H:16:64:256:1024:8192 from 0
Got: +F:22:aes-128-cbc:514107360.00:560245461.33:574501888.00:578780842.67:554175146.67 from 0
Got: +H:16:64:256:1024:8192 from 1
Got: +F:22:aes-128-cbc:515381248.00:560235690.67:575020800.00:578834773.33:559931392.00 from 1
OpenSSL 1.0.1e-fips 11 Feb 2013
built on: Sun Nov  6 03:45:24 UTC 2016
options:bn(64,64) md2(int) rc4(16x,int) des(idx,cisc,16,int) aes(partial) idea(int) blowfish(idx)
compiler: gcc -fPIC -DOPENSSL_PIC -DZLIB -DOPENSSL_THREADS -D_REENTRANT -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -DKRB5_MIT -m64 -DL_ENDIAN -DTERMIO -Wall -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches   -m64 -mtune=generic -Wa,--noexecstack -DPURIFY -DOPENSSL_IA32_SSE2 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT5 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_GF2m -DSHA1_ASM -DSHA256_ASM -DSHA512_ASM -DMD5_ASM -DAES_ASM -DVPAES_ASM -DBSAES_ASM -DWHIRLPOOL_ASM -DGHASH_ASM
evp            1029488.61k  1120481.15k  1149522.69k  1157615.62k  1114106.54k
[email protected] [~]#
 

Moebuntu

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
86
Best answers
0
Ratings
1
Points
8
#20
have comparative benchmarks but it's against forum rules to link to them (self promotion) and they're long and detailed

example of one of dozens of benchmark results this is for disk FFIO benchmarks back in August 2015

View attachment 1957

and OpenSSL - of particular interest is for SSL certificates and HTTPS via RSA 2048bit and ECC 256bit ECDSA

View attachment 1958

OVH Public Cloud EG-7 instance from Jan 2016 benchmarks raw disk FFIO in comparison
Code:
-------------------------------------------
disk FIO tests
-------------------------------------------

FIO random reads:
randomreads: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=64
fio-2.0.9
Starting 1 process
randomreads: Laying out IO file(s) (1 file(s) / 1024MB)

randomreads: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3984: Thu Dec 31 19:49:25 2015
  read : io=1024.3MB, bw=8004.4KB/s, iops=2001 , runt=131033msec
  cpu          : usr=1.82%, sys=6.32%, ctx=246575, majf=0, minf=83
  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=0.1%, >=64=0.0%
     issued    : total=r=262207/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0

Run status group 0 (all jobs):
   READ: io=1024.3MB, aggrb=8004KB/s, minb=8004KB/s, maxb=8004KB/s, mint=131033msec, maxt=131033msec

Disk stats (read/write):
  vda: ios=262045/73, merge=0/26, ticks=8374297/371, in_queue=8375702, util=100.00%

FIO random writes:
randomwrites: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=64
fio-2.0.9
Starting 1 process

randomwrites: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=4002: Thu Dec 31 19:51:41 2015
  write: io=1024.3MB, bw=7727.4KB/s, iops=1931 , runt=135729msec
  cpu          : usr=1.39%, sys=6.26%, ctx=220032, majf=0, minf=18
  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=0.1%, >=64=0.0%
     issued    : total=r=0/w=262207/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0

Run status group 0 (all jobs):
  WRITE: io=1024.3MB, aggrb=7727KB/s, minb=7727KB/s, maxb=7727KB/s, mint=135729msec, maxt=135729msec

Disk stats (read/write):
  vda: ios=0/261960, merge=0/0, ticks=0/8649441, in_queue=8650299, util=100.00%
OpenSSL
Code:
-------------------------------------------
OpenSSL System Benchmark
-------------------------------------------

OpenSSL 1.0.1e-fips 11 Feb 2013
-------------------------------------------
openssl speed rsa4096 rsa2048 ecdsap256 sha256 sha1 md5 rc4 aes-256-cbc aes-128-cbc -multi 2
OpenSSL 1.0.1e-fips 11 Feb 2013
built on: Mon Dec 14 05:15:47 UTC 2015
options:bn(64,64) md2(int) rc4(16x,int) des(idx,cisc,16,int) aes(partial) idea(int) blowfish(idx)
compiler: gcc -fPIC -DOPENSSL_PIC -DZLIB -DOPENSSL_THREADS -D_REENTRANT -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -DKRB5_MIT -m64 -DL_ENDIAN -DTERMIO -Wall -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches   -m64 -mtune=generic -Wa,--noexecstack -DPURIFY -DOPENSSL_IA32_SSE2 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT5 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_GF2m -DSHA1_ASM -DSHA256_ASM -DSHA512_ASM -DMD5_ASM -DAES_ASM -DVPAES_ASM -DBSAES_ASM -DWHIRLPOOL_ASM -DGHASH_ASM
md5             119114.20k   346672.32k   764772.86k  1095572.14k  1256876.71k
sha1            132379.21k   368093.29k   801694.21k  1183186.26k  1474958.68k
rc4             740271.96k  1300585.32k  1520406.95k  1575287.47k  1582809.09k
aes-128 cbc     253559.56k   278434.73k   284982.02k   609188.52k   618599.77k
aes-256 cbc     184280.39k   199743.91k   202872.58k   446723.75k   452149.25k
sha256          100144.66k   221360.19k   392457.05k   473819.14k   499971.41k
                  sign    verify    sign/s verify/s
rsa 2048 bits 0.000590s 0.000018s   1695.0  56349.2
rsa 4096 bits 0.004132s 0.000066s    242.0  15209.3
                              sign    verify    sign/s verify/s
256 bit ecdsa (nistp256)   0.0001s   0.0002s  19419.3   5057.9
-------------------------------------------
openssl speed -evp aes256 -multi 2
OpenSSL 1.0.1e-fips 11 Feb 2013
built on: Mon Dec 14 05:15:47 UTC 2015
options:bn(64,64) md2(int) rc4(16x,int) des(idx,cisc,16,int) aes(partial) idea(int) blowfish(idx)
compiler: gcc -fPIC -DOPENSSL_PIC -DZLIB -DOPENSSL_THREADS -D_REENTRANT -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -DKRB5_MIT -m64 -DL_ENDIAN -DTERMIO -Wall -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches   -m64 -mtune=generic -Wa,--noexecstack -DPURIFY -DOPENSSL_IA32_SSE2 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT5 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_GF2m -DSHA1_ASM -DSHA256_ASM -DSHA512_ASM -DMD5_ASM -DAES_ASM -DVPAES_ASM -DBSAES_ASM -DWHIRLPOOL_ASM -DGHASH_ASM
evp             957220.09k  1007051.93k  1020813.31k  1024438.27k  1015267.33k
-------------------------------------------
openssl speed -evp aes128 -multi 2
OpenSSL 1.0.1e-fips 11 Feb 2013
built on: Mon Dec 14 05:15:47 UTC 2015
options:bn(64,64) md2(int) rc4(16x,int) des(idx,cisc,16,int) aes(partial) idea(int) blowfish(idx)
compiler: gcc -fPIC -DOPENSSL_PIC -DZLIB -DOPENSSL_THREADS -D_REENTRANT -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -DKRB5_MIT -m64 -DL_ENDIAN -DTERMIO -Wall -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches   -m64 -mtune=generic -Wa,--noexecstack -DPURIFY -DOPENSSL_IA32_SSE2 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT5 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_GF2m -DSHA1_ASM -DSHA256_ASM -DSHA512_ASM -DMD5_ASM -DAES_ASM -DVPAES_ASM -DBSAES_ASM -DWHIRLPOOL_ASM -DGHASH_ASM
evp            1258757.73k  1356930.77k  1383251.71k  1390031.87k  1394032.64k
This data may be out of date because they were benchmarks in August 2015, they also don't tell us all aspects of a web hosting companies as support, pricing, hosting control panel, uptime/downtime..etc hence I think your orders might not be exact.

1. Linode
2. Ramnode
3. DigitalOcean
4. Vultr
5. OVH
 

eva2000

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
146
Best answers
0
Ratings
34
Points
0
#21
Guess it's relative to the end user's criteria and requirements. I don't need much support as I manage all my servers myself 96% centmin mod lemp based and remaining 4% are cpanel/whm based. So my criteria first and foremost is performance to price ratio with Linode being the sweet spot given that 8GB memory + 4 cpus on Intel Xeon E5-2680v2 or E5-2680v3 or E5-2697v4 processor with 96GB fast SSD storage and 4TB bandwidth is US$40/month https://www.linode.com/pricing
 

WPCycle

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
111
Best answers
0
Ratings
12
Points
0
#23
I'm late for the party since this thread was created last summer.

Of all the hosts listed, I've only dealt with RamNode, so I can only give my opinion of them, and there service and support is A+.
 

HostXNow

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Messages
374
Best answers
0
Ratings
24 1
Points
18
#25
Not when your Linode IP is being DDoS. OVH wins then!? :eek:k:
 

eva2000

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
146
Best answers
0
Ratings
34
Points
0
#26
eva2000
True for layer 3 and 4 but not layer 7 attacks, though if you read linode's network status announcements, they've been ramping up their peering/exchange and network capacity in each data center to weather future DDOS attacks. It's just a matter of when not if web hosts all start look at DDOS protection being a native service offering :)

For Linode VPS i have a DDOS protected ip server via buyvm.net and setup a Gre tunnel between the DDOS protected ip server and Linode VPS for remote DDOS protection right now and use Sucuri for layer 7 protection which OVH doesn't really handle anyway. And use Amazon SES for smtp as they hide ips and forum's have http proxy on DDOS protected ip server for embedded remote images so only leaks the DDOS protected ip. Yes more complicated than having origin server on DDOS protection like OVH. But location is important too with US West coast preference for my servers. Buyvm.net is Las Vegas and Linode VPS in Fremont, CA :)

Also have an OVH i7 4790K for US$46/month via black friday specials but that is used for other purposes right now :)
 

eva2000

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
146
Best answers
0
Ratings
34
Points
0
#28
hehe.. can't wait to see OVH move into USA hosting scene with their announced data center expansion plans though = more options to choose from whether it be native DDOS protected servers or utilising Gre tunnels between DDOS protected ip and origin servers :)
 

Lampard

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Messages
75
Best answers
0
Points
6
#29
OVH, why? because of:
Low price
DDoS Protection
99% Uptime

The only problem they have is disk space, yes they have SSD, but its too low, i would prefer getting normal disk than getting too low SSD, i am talking about OVH plan 1.
 

Similar threads

Latest postsNew threads

Latest Hosting OffersNew Reviews

Web Hosting

Tag Cloud

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.