紀錄一下新的體驗

score for RapidXen 6/10 xen 2.6.32.12-RX-domU-static Los Angeles, California

結論

網路只有 ping 直到台灣不錯，下載速度並不快 (所以選在LA或是美西的VPS都不錯，延遲時間很短 )
network speed to taiwan, sucks 0
disk read performance, sucks 0
cpu performace, OK 1
service, sucks 0

You just skip this provider to save your time and money.

2010-07-14 09:00 買了 RapidXen
2010-07-14 11:00 在IRC 上面問怎麼沒有開通的 email 通知，客服說要 724 小時才會處理好，美國真是人性化，不願意自動化，才會有工作機會
2010-07-15 08:14 接近24 小時，過去了，沒有任何通知信，目前的感覺，這一家也不是什麼好貨色，爛到爆，2010 年了，還有這樣人力開通的，在IRC 上面問，怎麼這麼慢？，他們說，他們要避免濫用，還註冊的攻擊，另一點就是會 hold chinese order，但是我等了24小時，在 IRC 上面問，問為什麼還沒有記資料來，抱怨沒有開通，所以又進入了懲罰清單 penalty list，會等更久，果然令人想罵髒話，customer service sucks, If you complain more they will keep you wait longer, make you feel sucks more.

2010-07-15 17:04 原來有人抱怨，還等了三天，只是，他會把你踢出來，不給你買，哇，真跩，第一次看到這樣做生意的，超過24小不理你，還怪你抱怨他慢，然後就是 Chinese 該死，要等更久，我一定要試試，一定把數據記下來，看到底值不值接受這樣客服 http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=934659&highlight=RapidXen

2010-07-16 11:04 一樣，沒有消息，基本上可以不用是這一家了，就算打折過後，也不會比 Linode 便宜，選他不如直接用 Linode 就好了

2010-07-16 17:53 通了，測試中


網路速度

RapidXEN

Saving to: debian-505-amd64-DVD-1.iso.1'<br /><br />4% [===> ] 226,991,022 860K/s eta 85m 35s<br /></code><br /><br />2HOST<br /><code><br />Saving to: debian-505-amd64-DVD-1.iso’

2% [=> ] 139,673,008 2.78M/s eta 34m 20s



NordicVPS

Saving to: `debian-505-amd64-DVD-1.iso.2’

1% [> ] 78,339,342 2.39M/s eta 55m 6s

基本上，我試過的每一家，網路都比 RapidXen 快， NordicVPS 有時候比 2HOST 快，不過他的機房比較遠


CPU
terryh:# cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
cpu family : 15
model : 65
model name : Dual-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2216
stepping : 2
cpu MHz : 2399.998
cache size : 1024 KB
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 1
wp : yes
flags : fpu de tsc msr pae cx8 cmov pat clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt lm 3dnowext 3dnow up rep_good pni cx16 hypervisor lahf_lm cmp_legacy extapic cr8_legacy
bogomips : 4799.99
TLB size : 1024 4K pages
clflush size : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management: ts fid vid ttp tm stc

DISK read

terryh:~/unixbench-5.1.2# hdparm -tT /dev/xvda1

/dev/xvda1:
Timing cached reads: 1010 MB in 2.00 seconds = 504.33 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 92 MB in 3.09 seconds = 29.82 MB/sec


真是驚人的慢
Unixbench

========================================================================
BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.2)

System: terryh: GNU/Linux
OS: GNU/Linux – 2.6.32.12-RX-domU-static – #1 SMP Fri Jul 9 12:19:17 PDT 2010
Machine: x86_64 (unknown)
Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap=“UTF-8”, collate=“UTF-8”)
CPU 0: Dual-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2216 (4800.0 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, AMD MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSCALL/SYSRET
10:23:10 up 1 day, 9:48, 1 user, load average: 0.39, 0.24, 0.15; runlevel 2

————————————————————————
Benchmark Run: Fri Jul 16 2010 10:23:10 - 10:51:44
1 CPU in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests

Dhrystone 2 using register variables 10367411.9 lps (10.2 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 2267.5 MWIPS (9.9 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 1101.3 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 186946.1 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 56563.0 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 460470.8 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 280758.1 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 51376.1 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 2242.8 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 1543.3 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 218.6 lpm (60.2 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 292819.3 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)

System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 10367411.9 888.4
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 2267.5 412.3
Execl Throughput 43.0 1101.3 256.1
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 186946.1 472.1
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 56563.0 341.8
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 460470.8 793.9
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 280758.1 225.7
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 51376.1 128.4
Process Creation 126.0 2242.8 178.0
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 1543.3 364.0
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 218.6 364.4
System Call Overhead 15000.0 292819.3 195.2
========
System Benchmarks Index Score 328.9


redis-benchmark



====== SET ======
10038 requests completed in 0.71 seconds
50 parallel clients
3 bytes payload
keep alive: 1

16.59% <= 2 milliseconds
47.73% <= 3 milliseconds
88.00% <= 4 milliseconds
96.31% <= 5 milliseconds
99.96% <= 6 milliseconds
100.00% <= 7 milliseconds
14039.16 requests per second

====== GET ======
10032 requests completed in 0.72 seconds
50 parallel clients
3 bytes payload
keep alive: 1

15.43% <= 2 milliseconds
46.07% <= 3 milliseconds
88.77% <= 4 milliseconds
95.87% <= 5 milliseconds
99.85% <= 6 milliseconds
100.00% <= 7 milliseconds
13991.63 requests per second

====== SET ======
10038 requests completed in 0.71 seconds
50 parallel clients
3 bytes payload
keep alive: 1



PS: 這一系列的 VPS 文章，就到我找到好又便宜的，就不寫了，基本上，怎麼選才能找到好的供應商呢？基本的原則，就是他的 VPS node 都賣光光，就是好的

是一家在德國，及美國都有資料中心的 VPS 供應商

我用的是在德國法蘭克福的 XEN 512 plan ，一個月大約 7.9 美元，缺點是網路有時慢一點，還有網路節點太多了點，到台灣接近要跳 28 個節點，這一個問題，說起來要怪台灣自己沒有什麼網路建設，連到歐洲，還要先連到美國，利用美國的網路連歐洲，就是自己網路建設擺爛，也怪不了別人，由中國連應該會好一點，目前沒有提供 32 bit 的作業系統

terry@terry:~$ traceroute 188.40.21.88
traceroute to 188.40.21.88 (188.40.21.88), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 3.819 ms 3.664 ms 4.008 ms
2 h254.s98.ts.hinet.net (168.95.98.254) 18.672 ms 19.914 ms 21.820 ms
3 TPE4-3301.hinet.net (168.95.100.198) 20.112 ms 21.911 ms 22.149 ms
4 TPE4-3202.hinet.net (220.128.5.174) 23.043 ms 23.282 ms 30.787 ms
5 TPDT-3011.hinet.net (220.128.3.22) 24.079 ms TPDT-3011.hinet.net (220.128.1.110) 24.553 ms TPDT-3012.hinet.net (220.128.2.170) 24.344 ms
6 r4003-s2.tp.hinet.net (220.128.2.121) 24.675 ms 13.918 ms 13.834 ms
7 r4001-s2.tp.hinet.net (220.128.3.42) 14.592 ms 220-128-7-209.HINET-IP.hinet.net (220.128.7.209) 15.573 ms 220-128-7-213.HINET-IP.hinet.net (220.128.7.213) 15.830 ms
8 r01-pa.us.hinet.net (211.72.108.217) 144.031 ms 147.047 ms 147.910 ms
9 r02-pa.us.hinet.net (202.39.83.9) 149.645 ms 149.950 ms 149.687 ms
10 12.94.42.5 (12.94.42.5) 150.094 ms 150.512 ms 150.244 ms
11 cr2.sffca.ip.att.net (12.122.114.74) 152.256 ms 145.959 ms 146.431 ms
12 cr2.sffca.ip.att.net (12.123.15.249) 146.009 ms 146.576 ms 147.348 ms
13 ggr3.sffca.ip.att.net (12.122.136.13) 148.238 ms 145.292 ms 145.701 ms
14 att-gw.sanfran.level3.net (192.205.33.82) 148.615 ms 149.203 ms 149.754 ms
15 vlan99.csw4.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.68.18.254) 152.019 ms 152.663 ms 153.306 ms
16 ae-94-94.ebr4.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.69.134.253) 155.105 ms 156.029 ms 157.745 ms
17 ae-2-2.ebr2.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.135.186) 217.692 ms 220.555 ms 223.110 ms
18 ae-6-6.ebr2.NewYork2.Level3.net (4.69.141.22) 220.646 ms 223.272 ms 223.407 ms
19 ae-1-100.ebr1.NewYork2.Level3.net (4.69.135.253) 218.361 ms 218.965 ms 220.418 ms
20 ae-3-3.ebr2.Washington1.Level3.net (4.69.132.89) 223.256 ms 224.563 ms 225.125 ms
21 ae-41-41.ebr2.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.69.137.49) 317.569 ms 316.868 ms 318.948 ms
22 ae-82-82.csw3.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.69.140.26) 317.328 ms ae-72-72.csw2.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.69.140.22) 324.085 ms ae-82-82.csw3.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.69.140.26) 319.405 ms
23 ae-1-69.edge3.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.68.23.11) 316.215 ms 319.606 ms ae-3-89.edge3.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.68.23.139) 319.650 ms
24 HETZNER-ONL.edge3.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (212.162.40.206) 310.752 ms 300.234 ms 302.646 ms
25 hos-bb1.juniper2.fs.hetzner.de (213.239.240.243) 308.332 ms hos-bb1.juniper1.fs.hetzner.de (213.239.240.242) 311.535 ms hos-bb1.juniper2.fs.hetzner.de (213.239.240.243) 310.499 ms
26 hos-tr4.ex3k13.rz10.hetzner.de (213.239.227.238) 312.012 ms hos-tr2.ex3k13.rz10.hetzner.de (213.239.227.174) 313.512 ms 312.964 ms
27 fra02.de.glbldc.com (188.40.136.196) 315.109 ms 306.433 ms 305.286 ms
28 vserver88.glbldc.com (188.40.21.88) 315.846 ms 307.739 ms 316.697 ms



UnixBench 4.1

==============================================================
BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 4.1-wht.2)
System – Linux www.xxx.com 2.6.18-164.11.1.el5xen #1 SMP Wed Jan 20 08:06:04 EST 2010 x86_64 GNU/Linux
/dev/sda2 15481840 2608208 12087200 18% /

Start Benchmark Run: Tue Jul 13 04:54:47 UTC 2010
04:54:47 up 23:10, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.42, 1.20

End Benchmark Run: Tue Jul 13 05:05:05 UTC 2010
05:05:05 up 23:20, 2 users, load average: 13.74, 6.14, 3.31


INDEX VALUES
TEST BASELINE RESULT INDEX

Dhrystone 2 using register variables 376783.7 16605225.1 440.7
Double-Precision Whetstone 83.1 1637.7 197.1
Execl Throughput 188.3 4444.7 236.0
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 2672.0 171429.0 641.6
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1077.0 47289.0 439.1
File Read 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 15382.0 1469103.0 955.1
Pipe-based Context Switching 15448.6 298339.2 193.1
Pipe Throughput 111814.6 1029200.3 92.0
Process Creation 569.3 9798.1 172.1
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 44.8 1246.2 278.2
System Call Overhead 114433.5 1294781.3 113.1
=========
FINAL SCORE 268.9


UnixBench 5.1.2



========================================================================
BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.2)

System: www.xxx.com: GNU/Linux
OS: GNU/Linux – 2.6.18-164.11.1.el5xen – #1 SMP Wed Jan 20 08:06:04 EST 2010
Machine: x86_64 (unknown)
Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap=“UTF-8”, collate=“UTF-8”)
CPU 0: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (6685.0 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET
CPU 1: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (6685.0 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET
CPU 2: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (6685.0 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET
CPU 3: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (6685.0 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET
14:50:04 up 3 days, 9:05, 4 users, load average: 1.66, 1.71, 1.18; runlevel 2

————————————————————————
Benchmark Run: Thu Jul 15 2010 14:50:04 - 15:14:17
4 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests

Dhrystone 2 using register variables 14338210.6 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 2982.6 MWIPS (9.9 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 1155.5 lps (29.9 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 308608.0 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 77009.4 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 3060.4 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 3138.7 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (16 concurrent) 385.8 lpm (60.1 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 736.5 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 416088.7 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)

System Benchmarks Partial Index BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 14338210.6 1228.6
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 2982.6 542.3
Execl Throughput 43.0 1155.5 268.7
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 308608.0 248.1
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 77009.4 192.5
Process Creation 126.0 3060.4 242.9
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 3138.7 740.3
Shell Scripts (16 concurrent) — 385.8 —
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 736.5 1227.4
System Call Overhead 15000.0 416088.7 277.4
========
System Benchmarks Index Score (Partial Only) 432.0
————————————————————————
Benchmark Run: Thu Jul 15 2010 15:14:17 - 15:39:13
4 CPUs in system; running 4 parallel copies of tests

Dhrystone 2 using register variables 32845851.0 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 10906.2 MWIPS (8.5 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 3433.6 lps (29.8 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 863458.1 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 230032.5 lps (10.1 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 7666.0 lps (30.1 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 6183.3 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (16 concurrent) 444.1 lpm (60.3 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 924.7 lpm (60.1 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 1161191.6 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)

System Benchmarks Partial Index BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 32845851.0 2814.6
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 10906.2 1982.9
Execl Throughput 43.0 3433.6 798.5
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 863458.1 694.1
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 230032.5 575.1
Process Creation 126.0 7666.0 608.4
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 6183.3 1458.3
Shell Scripts (16 concurrent) — 444.1 —
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 924.7 1541.1
System Call Overhead 15000.0 1161191.6 774.1
========
System Benchmarks Index Score (Partial Only) 1072.8

DISK

[root@www tmp$hdparm -tT /dev/sda1
/dev/sda1:
Timing cached reads: 10950 MB in 1.99 seconds = 5500.80 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 256 MB in 3.01 seconds = 84.92 MB/sec


redis-benchmark


[root@www redis-2.0.0-rc2$./redis-benchmark




====== PING ======
10012 requests completed in 0.25 seconds
50 parallel clients
3 bytes payload
keep alive: 1

5.44% <= 0 milliseconds
77.44% <= 1 milliseconds
96.50% <= 2 milliseconds
100.00% <= 3 milliseconds
40208.84 requests per second

====== PING (multi bulk) ======
10006 requests completed in 0.23 seconds
50 parallel clients
3 bytes payload
keep alive: 1

5.68% <= 0 milliseconds
80.94% <= 1 milliseconds
99.26% <= 2 milliseconds
100.00% <= 3 milliseconds
42944.21 requests per second
====== SET ======
10000 requests completed in 0.22 seconds
50 parallel clients
3 bytes payload
keep alive: 1

7.45% <= 0 milliseconds
84.34% <= 1 milliseconds
99.19% <= 2 milliseconds
99.91% <= 3 milliseconds
99.94% <= 4 milliseconds
99.97% <= 5 milliseconds
99.99% <= 7 milliseconds
100.00% <= 8 milliseconds
44843.05 requests per second

====== GET ======
10000 requests completed in 0.23 seconds
50 parallel clients
3 bytes payload
keep alive: 1

6.45% <= 0 milliseconds
83.29% <= 1 milliseconds
98.85% <= 2 milliseconds
99.82% <= 3 milliseconds
99.85% <= 4 milliseconds
99.88% <= 5 milliseconds
99.89% <= 6 milliseconds
99.91% <= 7 milliseconds
99.93% <= 8 milliseconds
99.95% <= 9 milliseconds
99.99% <= 10 milliseconds
100.00% <= 11 milliseconds
43859.65 requests per second



其他不貼了



就差網路節點有點多了，最佳 CP 值很有機會，cpu 還是 i7 的，最後不知道是不是他

2010-06-29 更正，實際分數跑起來，不算高，我問問看客服，有沒有官方的數據可以比較，還是要多比較一下，我會再看看 Linode 的

便宜又大碗，先用用看，目前還蠻穩定的，連台灣，網路還算 OK

我是選 512M的 VPS 一個月 8 塊美金左右，大概比我自己擺 server 的電費還省，下面是 CPU info 可以參考一下，不過，我自己跑起來實測，有比 Amazon em2 的最便宜的 small instance 大約快兩倍，不過就比不過 middle 的了，如果有問題就發問吧

跑了 nginx，mysql ，兩個 Django site 大概用了 150M RAM

cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 3
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 26
model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5520 @ 2.27GHz
stepping : 5
cpu MHz : 2260.998
cache size : 8192 KB
physical id : 3
siblings : 1
core id : 0
cpu cores : 1
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 11
wp : yes
flags : fpu tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm syscall nx lm constant_tsc pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 cx16 xtpr lahf_lm
bogomips : 5655.56
clflush size : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management:

========================================================================
BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.2)

System: www.digez.com: GNU/Linux
OS: GNU/Linux – 2.6.18-164.15.1.el5xen – #1 SMP Wed Mar 17 12:04:23 EDT 2010
Machine: x86_64 (unknown)
Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap=“UTF-8”, collate=“UTF-8”)
CPU 0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5520 @ 2.27GHz (5662.0 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
CPU 1: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5520 @ 2.27GHz (5662.0 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
CPU 2: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5520 @ 2.27GHz (5662.0 bogomips)
CPU 3: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5520 @ 2.27GHz (5662.0 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
14:53:21 up 2:44, 3 users, load average: 0.11, 0.09, 0.07; runlevel 3

————————————————————————
Benchmark Run: Tue Jun 29 2010 14:53:21 - 15:21:28
4 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests

Dhrystone 2 using register variables 9705725.4 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 2545.7 MWIPS (9.2 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 1004.9 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 194004.6 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 50378.3 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 530237.1 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 340164.4 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 68815.1 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 2548.5 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 2485.8 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 582.7 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 366327.5 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 9705725.4 831.7
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 2545.7 462.9
Execl Throughput 43.0 1004.9 233.7
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 194004.6 489.9
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 50378.3 304.4
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 530237.1 914.2
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 340164.4 273.4
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 68815.1 172.0
Process Creation 126.0 2548.5 202.3
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 2485.8 586.3
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 582.7 971.1
System Call Overhead 15000.0 366327.5 244.2
========
System Benchmarks Index Score 398.9

————————————————————————
Benchmark Run: Tue Jun 29 2010 15:21:28 - 15:50:39
4 CPUs in system; running 4 parallel copies of tests

Dhrystone 2 using register variables 36206722.0 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 10039.4 MWIPS (9.0 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 2053.0 lps (29.5 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 139297.5 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 39443.2 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 413460.4 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 794207.7 lps (10.1 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 197504.1 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 3082.2 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 3750.5 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 498.9 lpm (60.2 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 848080.4 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)

System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 36206722.0 3102.5
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 10039.4 1825.4
Execl Throughput 43.0 2053.0 477.4
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 139297.5 351.8
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 39443.2 238.3
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 413460.4 712.9
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 794207.7 638.4
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 197504.1 493.8
Process Creation 126.0 3082.2 244.6
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 3750.5 884.5
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 498.9 831.6
System Call Overhead 15000.0 848080.4 565.4
========
System Benchmarks Index Score 645.0


===================================================================================

BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 4.1-wht.2)
System – Linux www.?????.com 2.6.18-164.15.1.el5xen #1 SMP Wed Mar 17 12:04:23 EDT 2010 x86_64 GNU/Linux
/dev/sda1 10321208 2974096 6822824 31% /

Start Benchmark Run: Tue Jun 29 17:17:07 CST 2010
17:17:07 up 5:08, 3 users, load average: 0.19, 0.17, 0.21

End Benchmark Run: Tue Jun 29 17:27:23 CST 2010
17:27:23 up 5:18, 3 users, load average: 16.73, 7.01, 3.15


INDEX VALUES
TEST BASELINE RESULT INDEX

Dhrystone 2 using register variables 376783.7 10227540.3 271.4
Double-Precision Whetstone 83.1 1484.0 178.6
Execl Throughput 188.3 1972.1 104.7
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 2672.0 108726.0 406.9
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1077.0 35313.0 327.9
File Read 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 15382.0 1262429.0 820.7
Pipe-based Context Switching 15448.6 230394.6 149.1
Pipe Throughput 111814.6 1214489.5 108.6
Process Creation 569.3 3573.8 62.8
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 44.8 591.7 132.1
System Call Overhead 114433.5 1044142.2 91.2
=========
FINAL SCORE 181.0




redis-benchmark

====== PING ======
10024 requests completed in 0.29 seconds
50 parallel clients
3 bytes payload
keep alive: 1

8.30% <= 0 milliseconds
64.88% <= 1 milliseconds
85.17% <= 2 milliseconds
99.87% <= 3 milliseconds
100.00% <= 4 milliseconds
34328.77 requests per second

====== PING (multi bulk) ======
10011 requests completed in 0.22 seconds
50 parallel clients
3 bytes payload
keep alive: 1

10.27% <= 0 milliseconds
82.24% <= 1 milliseconds
99.25% <= 2 milliseconds
99.90% <= 3 milliseconds
100.00% <= 4 milliseconds
45094.59 requests per second
====== SET ======
10001 requests completed in 0.23 seconds
50 parallel clients
3 bytes payload
keep alive: 1

8.30% <= 0 milliseconds
83.05% <= 1 milliseconds
99.10% <= 2 milliseconds
99.33% <= 3 milliseconds
99.36% <= 4 milliseconds
99.39% <= 5 milliseconds
99.42% <= 6 milliseconds
99.44% <= 7 milliseconds
99.47% <= 8 milliseconds
99.49% <= 9 milliseconds
99.80% <= 10 milliseconds
100.00% <= 11 milliseconds
43294.37 requests per second

====== GET ======
10001 requests completed in 0.23 seconds
50 parallel clients
3 bytes payload
keep alive: 1

8.78% <= 0 milliseconds
83.75% <= 1 milliseconds
99.21% <= 2 milliseconds
99.51% <= 3 milliseconds
99.64% <= 7 milliseconds
99.83% <= 8 milliseconds
100.00% <= 9 milliseconds
43672.49 requests per second



找便宜的 VPS 的好站，以前，都只看 Linode，價格很久沒動了，所以想找便宜的可以試試這一個站，我自己也記一下，免得忘了


http://vpslook.com/

聽說效能比較好，聽說安全性不錯，聽說記憶體用很少

聽別人說不準，還是自己試試才知道

所以單純只是試試試看，跑起來如何，自己寫個筆記

我的nginx上， server 設定，Django fastcgi 的部份照舊 ，如果跟我一樣是用 unix socket 來連的話，權限要可以讓 nginx 寫入


limit_zone one $binary_remote_addr 10m;
server {
listen 80;
server_name s.localhost.com h.localhost.com;
#server_name home.digez.com stock.digez.com;

access_log /var/log/nginx/access.log;
location /site_media {
alias /home/terry/media/;
}
location /media {
alias /home/terry/django_src/django/contrib/admin/media/;
}
location / {
#fastcgi_pass 127.0.0.1:8080;
fastcgi_pass unix:/home/terry/run/digez.sock;
fastcgi_param REQUEST_METHOD $request_method;
fastcgi_param QUERY_STRING $query_string;
fastcgi_param CONTENT_TYPE $content_type;
fastcgi_param CONTENT_LENGTH $content_length;
fastcgi_param REMOTE_ADDR $remote_addr;
fastcgi_param SERVER_PORT $server_port;
fastcgi_param SERVER_PROTOCOL $server_protocol;
fastcgi_param SERVER_NAME $server_name;
fastcgi_param PATH_INFO $fastcgi_script_name;
fastcgi_pass_header Authorization;
fastcgi_intercept_errors off;
limit_conn one 5;
}

}


更新
2010-01-05 設定加入， fastcgi_param REMOTE_ADDR $remote_addr; Django 需要

相關連結
Django
nginx
參考資料
http://wiki.nginx.org/Main

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/605173/how-to-nginx-virtual-servers-fcgi-for-django

http://david-paste.cn/paste/20/

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/605173/how-to-nginx-virtual-servers-fcgi-for-django

網路上免費的版本控制服務

http://github.com 用 git

http://bitbucket.org 用Mercurial 也就是 hg

Google Code 用 hg 或是 subversion

github 免費的空間比較大，不過 bitbucket 免費的有 Private repository

當然還有老大哥 http://sourceforge.net/

台灣 http://of.openfoundry.org/

現在的網站設計，越來越講究外部服務的整合，像是地圖，或是照片，影音檔，尤其是這些服務的提供商，都可以讓你鑲崁在自己的網站上，那麼，也節省了，網站的大量頻寬，所以新的網站，可以大量使用這些服務來加速開發

前些時候，看到記者訪問 BabyHome，反過來尋找他成功的理由

切中特定的族群發展，成功經營社群，口耳相傳，漸而進入商業模式

目前自己還想不通的點

寫寶寶日記，不就是部落格嗎？有一大堆免費有好用的，為什麼，大家不用，相簿只給幾十MB，有上 G 的免費相簿，還可以外崁的，為什麼不用

好像找不到解答，也許是，他們都不知道吧！有誰知道為什麼嗎？難不成真的是資訊落差嗎？

BabyHome