Portal Home > Knowledgebase > Articles Database > My experience with LeaseWeb vs. OVH (SSD speed!)
My experience with LeaseWeb vs. OVH (SSD speed!)
| Posted by Tantawi, 08-20-2016, 11:37 AM |
|
Hi,
tl;dr:
I manage a small project that mostly targets visitors from Egypt, so I was looking for an entry level EU based VPS that have the fastest ping speeds from there. The choices I ended up with were OVH, Hetzner, and LeaseWeb.
I signed up with OVH, and used it for a couple of months, then decided to give LeaseWeb a try, since my OVH's VPS ping from Egypt wasn't the greatest, and LeaseWeb is a bit cheaper giving I don't need big amount of RAM.
So I went from:
OVH - VPS SSD 3 (2 vCores, 8GB RAM, 40GB SSD) located in their Strasbourg (FR) data center - 11.99/m
to:
LeaseWeb - VPS M (2 vCores, 2GB RAM, 60GB SSD) located in their German data center - 9.95/m
Both VPSs are running updated Ubuntu 16.04 with kernel 4.7
Apart from the vastly improved ping and download/upload speed (LeaseWeb provides 1Gbps interface vs. 100Mbps from OVH), I could clearly notice that compiling and setting up software was actually much faster on LeaseWeb's VPS! I decided to run some benchmarks to see if there is any actual difference in performance between both.
First I ran vpsbench
OVH:
LeaseWeb:
As you can see, network speed difference and Bzip test results are expected and normal... but WTH is wrong with LeaseWeb's VPS giving only 84MB/s on that SSD vs 317MB/s on OVH's!! This can't be right, as otherwise it should be much slower in compiling stuff and other IO intensive tasks. I tried the benchmark several times and each time I get similar results, so I decided to run another benchmark that will measure the IOPS. I used this method and here is the results of this command:
OVH:
LeaseWeb:
So that was it! It looks like OVH have some cap on the IOPS, while LeaseWeb doesn't (or have a higher cap). And this translates to a very noticeable speed difference in favor of LeaseWeb's VPS.
I hope that was useful to anyone torn between the two in the said EU region. As long as you don't need a huge amount of RAM in that price segment, go with LeaseWeb.
Let me know if you need me to run any other benchmarks as I have the OVH VPS until the end of month.
|
| Posted by Maple-Hosting, 08-20-2016, 11:24 PM |
|
Thanks for the great contribution to the WHT community.
Considering that OVH and LeaseWeb are two very big players in the VPS hosting industry, I'm sure this thread will help many make a more informed decision.
|
| Posted by Hosting4Real, 08-21-2016, 04:49 AM |
|
The performance on the SSD range from OVH on disks differ a lot, mainly due to the fact it's local storage, it means if you're on a hypervisor with io 'abusers' that will affect your overall iops performance.
We've deployed multiple machines on their public cloud VPS's, and performance differs *a lot*
As example:
VPS-SSD-3:
Another one:
It's a hit/miss if you get a high iops capable box - but I wouldn't expect much more than 2k iops anyway - specially not with the amount of actual memory that you get for the price, which will benefit you in real world examples anyway :-)
But also depends on your use-case anyway.
What I do like with OVH is that you can create a ticket and ask about getting moved to a server with more capacity, and they'll actually do it without even asking questions :-D
|
| Posted by Tantawi, 08-21-2016, 06:08 AM |
|
Wow, the first result is insanely good!
|
| Posted by Hosting4Real, 08-21-2016, 06:34 AM |
|
Yeah it is, but in general when working with machines that are located on hypervisors with local storage.. *never ever* expect X iops, because you can't really expect any consistency in the numbers.
But to be honest, we have to look at real world examples, most people will be perfectly fine with the actual iops that it does, also when you have the extra RAM, your OS will usually try to cache frequently accessed data anyway.
For benchmarks it might look not so nice that there's a big difference, but in an actual running application, the required numbers are very different - and you'll find that the access time on local storage are usually better than distributed environments such as SAN setups.
For the fun of it I tried running `iostat -x -m 1` on one of our database servers, it's only doing around 900 queries per second, and was peaking at about 380 iops write, and due to query caching the read iops are below 100.
Even when we're doing like 3-4k queries per second where most of it is actually updates and writes, we're still below 1k iops.
Sure the numbers will differ in other use cases, and for some people iops are way more important than for others, just like some stuff that we do requires a lot of throughput in terms of megabyte/s - something that can be throttled as well on some providers.
One provider with low iops but high throughput:
Another provider with semi-high iops but low throughput:
|
| Posted by kpmedia, 08-21-2016, 06:51 AM |
|
I've always considered Leaseweb vs. OVH to be "dumb vs. dumber" in some regards. I've been adversely affected by support tech incompetence and laziness in the past. It's one reason I try to avoid hosts that use them, for important projects.
Some other DCs are just as bad. Zayo comes to mind.
Note: Not really commenting on their VPS offerings.
|
Add to Favourites 
Print this Article
Also Read
FDC Servers? (Views: 824)
jkookserv.com (Views: 789)
if isset (Views: 763)