Current location: Foreign host evaluation Preferential promotions text

VPS recommendation: iozoom, access to China Telecom/China Unicom backbone/20gDDOS protection

2016-07-21 Classification: Preferential promotions

I plan to introduce it to you again iozoom Why? Because of the computer room, network and bandwidth. When iozoom was first established, it used the computer room of psychz. I'm not satisfied with the chicken getting lost? Anyway, it later switched to Sharktech, which is connected to Telecom North America Backbone+Unicom North America Backbone Network, and has a 1000M port. Sharktech provides 20G non shrinking DDOS protection. You know that 20G DDOS protection for chicken getting lost is mostly a toy

iozoom

 

The host evaluation has written about the evaluation of the vps of iOZoom before, but now they don't have their VPS on hand, so we can't have a second evaluation. Let's make do with what we wrote for the first time: Iozoo - Los Angeles KVM minimum VPS simple evaluation, powerful performance!

 

Los Angeles

Test IP: 107.167.5.195, connected to China Telecom and China Unicom, good network!

Chicago

Test IP: 204.188.245.67

 

Official website: www.iozoom.com

 

KVM 2GB [minimum VPS]

Memory: 2G

Hard disk: 20G SSD

CPU: 1 core

Flow: 2000G/month

Price: $7

Discount code: LET

Buy Link

 

Guangzhou Telecom The unknown melon eating crowd expressed surprise:

 

C:\Users\gy>ping 107.167.5.195 -t

Ping 107.167.5.195 data with 32 bytes:
Reply from 107.167.5.195: byte=32 time=157ms TTL=52
Reply from 107.167.5.195: byte=32 time=155ms TTL=52
Reply from 107.167.5.195: byte=32 time=154ms TTL=52
Reply from 107.167.5.195: byte=32 time=157ms TTL=52
Reply from 107.167.5.195: byte=32 time=155ms TTL=52
Reply from 107.167.5.195: byte=32 time=154ms TTL=52
Reply from 107.167.5.195: byte=32 time=155ms TTL=52
Reply from 107.167.5.195: byte=32 time=155ms TTL=52
Reply from 107.167.5.195: byte=32 time=155ms TTL=52
Reply from 107.167.5.195: byte=32 time=157ms TTL=52
Reply from 107.167.5.195: byte=32 time=155ms TTL=52
Reply from 107.167.5.195: byte=32 time=155ms TTL=52
Reply from 107.167.5.195: byte=32 time=156ms TTL=52
Reply from 107.167.5.195: byte=32 time=157ms TTL=52
Reply from 107.167.5.195: byte=32 time=157ms TTL=52
Reply from 107.167.5.195: byte=32 time=157ms TTL=52
Reply from 107.167.5.195: byte=32 time=155ms TTL=52
Reply from 107.167.5.195: byte=32 time=155ms TTL=52
Reply from 107.167.5.195: byte=32 time=157ms TTL=52
Reply from 107.167.5.195: byte=32 time=155ms TTL=52
Reply from 107.167.5.195: byte=32 time=156ms TTL=52
Reply from 107.167.5.195: byte=32 time=157ms TTL=52
Reply from 107.167.5.195: byte=32 time=157ms TTL=52
Reply from 107.167.5.195: byte=32 time=155ms TTL=52
Reply from 107.167.5.195: byte=32 time=157ms TTL=52
Reply from 107.167.5.195: byte=32 time=157ms TTL=52

Ping statistics of 107.167.5.195:
Packets: Sent=26, Received=26, Lost=0 (0% Lost),
Estimated time of round trip (in milliseconds):
Minimum=154ms, maximum=157ms, average=155ms
Control-C
^C

Guangzhou Telecom tracert People eating melons said it was a shark machine room?

Host % Sent Recv Best Avrg Wrst Last
192.168.63.1 zero twenty-five twenty-five two two eight two
No response from host one hundred four zero zero zero zero zero
14.23.61.73 zero twenty-five twenty-five three one hundred and forty-two one thousand one hundred and eighty-three three
121.33.196.125 zero twenty-five twenty-five two eleven one hundred and forty three
183.56.31.37 zero twenty-five twenty-five two four six five
58.61.216.121 zero twenty-five twenty-five three four seven four
202.97.33.150 forty-five nine five zero four seven seven
202.97.34.66 twenty-four thirteen ten zero six ten four
202.97.52.218 zero twenty-five twenty-five one hundred and sixty-five one hundred and sixty-eight one hundred and seventy-one one hundred and seventy-one
202.97.52.238 zero twenty-five twenty-five one hundred and sixty-one one hundred and sixty-eight one hundred and ninety-three one hundred and sixty-four
te0-2-2.chinatelecom.edge01.onewilshire.la.ca.sharktech.net zero twenty-five twenty-five one hundred and sixty one hundred and sixty-four one hundred and eighty-five one hundred and sixty-one
10.0.0.6 zero twenty-five twenty-five one hundred and fifty-four one hundred and fifty-nine two hundred and one one hundred and sixty-two
lax.iozoom.com zero twenty-five twenty-five one hundred and fifty-three one hundred and fifty-four one hundred and fifty-six one hundred and fifty-four

 

I tested it Tianjin Unicom's tracert approach ：

From Tianjin Unicom – Beijing Unicom – San Jose, California, USA Unicom – San Jose, California, USA – Los Angeles, California, USA – Los Angeles, California, USA sharktech.net

That is to say, Tianjin goes through Beijing and then directly to California, the United States. In San Jose, California, it turns into Los Angeles. Unicom is also quite beautiful!

 

after Connectivity line test of multiple nodes Except that Shenzhen Unicom went directly to Hong Kong Unicom and then directly to California, the rest of them went directly to California through Beijing Unicom nodes, and the overall effect was very ideal!

 

The following data is not the result of my test, but is reproduced from abroad:

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Benchmark Run: Sat Jul 02 2016 22:45:06 - 23:13:15 1 CPU in system;  running 1 parallel copy of tests Dhrystone 2 using register variables       28439217.5 lps    (10.0 s, 7 samples) Double-Precision Whetstone                     3506.7 MWIPS (9.8 s, 7 samples) Execl Throughput                               5800.7 lps    (30.0 s, 2 samples) File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks       1088163.2 KBps   (30.0 s, 2 samples) File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks          313189.7 KBps   (30.0 s, 2 samples) File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks       2142705.0 KBps   (30.0 s, 2 samples) Pipe Throughput                             1954010.4 lps    (10.0 s, 7 samples) Pipe-based Context Switching                 391524.6 lps    (10.0 s, 7 samples) Process Creation                              15155.3 lps    (30.0 s, 2 samples) Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                   9024.5 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples) Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                   1183.0 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples) System Call Overhead                        3934875.8 lps    (10.0 s, 7 samples) System Benchmarks Index Values               BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX Dhrystone 2 using register variables         116700.0   28439217.5   2437.0 Double-Precision Whetstone                       55.0       3506.7    637.6 Execl Throughput                                 43.0       5800.7   1349.0 File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks          3960.0    1088163.2   2747.9 File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks            1655.0     313189.7   1892.4 File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks          5800.0    2142705.0   3694.3 Pipe Throughput                               12440.0    1954010.4   1570.7 Pipe-based Context Switching                   4000.0     391524.6    978.8 Process Creation                                126.0      15155.3   1202.8 Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                     42.4       9024.5   2128.4 Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                      6.0       1183.0   1971.7 System Call Overhead                          15000.0    3934875.8   2623.3 ======== System Benchmarks Index Score                                        1749.1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Benchmark Run: Sat Jul 02 2016 23:13:15 - 23:41:22 1 CPU in system;  running 1 parallel copy of tests Dhrystone 2 using register variables       28343653.9 lps    (10.0 s, 7 samples) Double-Precision Whetstone                     3506.0 MWIPS (9.8 s, 7 samples) Execl Throughput                               5789.1 lps    (30.0 s, 2 samples) File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks       1085087.1 KBps   (30.0 s, 2 samples) File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks          312795.5 KBps   (30.0 s, 2 samples) File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks       2162312.9 KBps   (30.0 s, 2 samples) Pipe Throughput                             1947864.2 lps    (10.0 s, 7 samples) Pipe-based Context Switching                 392665.5 lps    (10.0 s, 7 samples) Process Creation                              15724.9 lps    (30.0 s, 2 samples) Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                   9047.9 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples) Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                   1185.0 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples) System Call Overhead                        3932525.8 lps    (10.0 s, 7 samples) System Benchmarks Index Values               BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX Dhrystone 2 using register variables         116700.0   28343653.9   2428.8 Double-Precision Whetstone                       55.0       3506.0    637.5 Execl Throughput                                 43.0       5789.1   1346.3 File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks          3960.0    1085087.1   2740.1 File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks            1655.0     312795.5   1890.0 File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks          5800.0    2162312.9   3728.1 Pipe Throughput                               12440.0    1947864.2   1565.8 Pipe-based Context Switching                   4000.0     392665.5    981.7 Process Creation                                126.0      15724.9   1248.0 Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                     42.4       9047.9   2133.9 Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                      6.0       1185.0   1975.0 System Call Overhead                          15000.0    3932525.8   2621.7 ======== System Benchmarks Index Score                                        1754.9

I/O Pings

 ioping -c 10 request=1 time=0.2 ms request=2 time=0.3 ms request=3 time=0.2 ms request=4 time=0.3 ms request=5 time=0.3 ms request=6 time=0.2 ms request=7 time=0.2 ms request=8 time=0.3 ms request=9 time=0.2 ms request=10 time=0.2 ms 10 requests completed in 9004.1 ms, 3981 iops, 15.6 mb/s

I/O Seek Test (No Cache)

 ioping -RD 8077 iops, 31.6 mb/s min/avg/max/mdev = 0.1/0.1/0.6/0.0 ms

I/O Reads – Sequential

 ioping -RL 3255 iops, 813.8 mb/s min/avg/max/mdev = 0.3/0.3/13.0/0.2 ms

I/O Reads – Cached

 ioping -RC 501619 iops, 1959.4 mb/s min/avg/max/mdev = 0.0/0.0/0.0/0.0 ms

DD

 dd if=/dev/zero of=sb-io-test bs=1M count=1k conv=fdatasync 1.049 s, 1.0 GB/s
 dd if=/dev/zero of=sb-io-test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync 0.884909 s, 1.2 GB/s
 dd if=/dev/zero of=sb-io-test bs=1M count=1k oflag=dsync 2.35989 s, 455 MB/s
 dd if=/dev/zero of=sb-io-test bs=64k count=16k oflag=dsync 13.3407 s, 80.5 MB/s

FIO

Read IOPS seventy-seven thousand and ninety-seven
Read Bandwidth 308.3 MB/second
Write IOPS forty-six thousand three hundred and ninety-one
Write Bandwidth 185.5 MB/second
Raw FIO Output
 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=16539: Sat Jul  2 22:42:20 2016 read : io=1024.3MB, bw=308388KB/s, iops=77097 , runt=  3401msec cpu          : usr=11.53%, sys=52.71%, ctx=4831, majf=0, minf=69 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=308388KB/s, minb=308388KB/s, maxb=308388KB/s, mint=3401msec,  maxt=3401msec Disk stats (read/write): vda: ios=250246/0, merge=0/0, ticks=135136/0, in_queue=135096, util=94.47% Done 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=16543: Sat Jul  2 22:42:26 2016 write: io=1024.3MB, bw=185568KB/s, iops=46391 , runt=  5652msec cpu          : usr=5.66%, sys=21.24%, ctx=14379, majf=0, minf=5 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=185567KB/s, minb=185567KB/s, maxb=185567KB/s, mint=5652msec, maxt=5652msec Disk stats (read/write): vda: ios=0/250606, merge=0/0, ticks=0/312824, in_queue=312772, util=96.80% Done

Network download test:

Location Rate
Cachefly 86.1 MB/s
Linode, Atlanta, GA, USA 14.4 MB/s
Linode, Dallas, TX, USA 26.9 MB/s
Linode, Tokyo, JP 16.7 MB/s
Linode, London, UK 6.81 MB/s
OVH, Paris, France 7.86 MB/s
SmartDC, Rotterdam, Netherlands 6.21 MB/s
Hetzner, Nuernberg, Germany 4.71 MB/s
iiNet, Perth, WA, Australia 6.97 MB/s
Leaseweb, Haarlem, NL 9.10 MB/s
Leaseweb, Manassas, VA, USA 15.5 MB/s
Softlayer, Singapore 5.86 MB/s
Softlayer, Seattle, WA, USA 36.8 MB/s
Softlayer, San Jose, CA, USA 65.4 MB/s
Softlayer, Washington, DC, USA 22.9 MB/s
QQ group of this station: 812451114, contact webmaster: zhujiceping@vip.qq.com
Share to

Related recommendations