Compare The Io And Network Throughput Performance Of Different Brands Of 24-core Singapore Vps

2026-04-08 16:20:11
Current Location： Blog > Singapore VPS

1.

overview: comparison objectives and test focus

test objects: three common brands that provide 24-core vps in singapore (hereinafter referred to as a, b, and c).
test focus: disk io (sequential/random, 4k/1m, iops, latency) and network throughput (iperf3, packet loss, rtt).
test tools: fio 3.27, iperf3 3.10, ping, traceroute, and tcpdump are used for traffic skimming.
test environment: take the median of multiple measurements within the same time window to exclude short-term jitter and host hot spots.
purpose: to provide comparable performance data and selection suggestions for high-concurrency database, e-commerce and streaming media scenarios.

2.

test methods and configuration details

fio configuration example: fio --name=rand4k --rw=randread --bs=4k --size=10g --numjobs=8 --iodepth=32 --runtime=120 --group_reporting.
iperf3 test: two-way throughput test, both client and server use -p 8 multi-thread concurrency, test duration is 120s.
system level: kernel version linux 5.15, net.core.rmem_max=268435456, net.core.wmem_max=268435456, tcp_rmem/tcp_wmem is adjusted to automatically expand.
measurement items: sequential read and write, random 4k read and write (iops/latency), network peak bandwidth, round-trip delay, and packet loss rate.
sample collection method: each test is repeated 3 times, the median is taken, and the 95th percentile delay is recorded for sla reference.

3.

hardware and instance configuration examples

brand a (native nvme passthrough, sr-iov): 24vcpu (physically bound), 64gb ram, 2x1.6tb nvme, 10gbps capped bandwidth, kvm + sr-iov.
brand b (distributed ceph backend): 24vcpu (shared), 64gb ram, 1x1tb nvme (ceph rbd), 5gbps bandwidth, kvm + vswitch.
brand c (ordinary enterprise disk): 24vcpu (shared), 48gb ram, 2x1tb sata ssd (raid), 1gbps bandwidth, traditional virtualization such as xen/ovz.
software stack example: ubuntu 22.04, fio/iperf3, sysstat for monitoring, and cloud-init for basic network settings.
advantages of tuning: a enables cpu affinity and irq binding, b applies ceph client cache optimization, and c tries to configure the io scheduler to noop or mq-deadline.

4.

io performance test results and comparison

the test gives specific values ​​(median results in the table below, unit: mb/s or iops/ms):
brand sequential reading (1m) sequential writing (1m) random read (4k) random write (4k) 4k read latency (ms)
a (nvme pass-through) 2400mb/s 2100mb/s 200,000 iops 140,000 iops 0.8ms
b (ceph rbd) 1600mb/s 1200mb/s 90,000 iops 70,000 iops 2.1 ms
c (sata ssd) 500mb/s 420mb/s 25,000 iops 18,000 iops 8.5ms
conclusion: a is superior in random io and sequential throughput, and is suitable for highly concurrent database and log writing scenarios.
bdue to the distributed backend, latency and iops are affected by ceph osd and network, so it is suitable for disaster recovery and horizontal expansion needs.
c has the lowest cost but obviously limited io performance, making it suitable for static files or low-concurrency applications.

singapore vps

5.

network throughput and latency test results

use iperf3 -c server -p 8, two-way test, the results are as follows (median):
brand maximum bandwidth stable average bandwidth to hong kong rtt packet loss rate
a (10gbps port) 10 gbps 9.2 gbps 0.8ms 0.02%
b (5gbps port) 5 gbps 4.6 gbps 1.2 ms 0.1%
c (1gbps port) 1 gbps 930 mbps 2.5 ms 0.5%
it is observed that a is able to approach the line rate through sr-iov and pass-through nic, with low jitter and low packet loss.
b is due to the fact that virtualized switching and ceph traffic share a link with large periodic fluctuations.
c is limited by upstream bandwidth and is suitable for small and medium traffic loads.

6.

real case: comparison between e-commerce promotion and live broadcast scenarios

case 1 (e-commerce promotion): an e-commerce company deployed the main database and cache on a brand a 24-core vps. the peak order volume reached 8,000 requests per second, and the database was randomly written intensively. result: a can maintain low latency, 99% response is <30ms, and the promotion window is stable.
case 2 (live streaming): a live broadcast platform uses brand b as an edge forwarding node for evaluation. when live broadcast concurrency is high, network bandwidth competes with ceph write concurrency, resulting in short-term frame loss. subsequent adjustments were made to write the stream to the local ssd buffer and synchronize it to ceph asynchronously.
case 3 (small and medium-sized websites): choose brand c for static resource hosting, combine cdn (anycast) and cloud acceleration to reduce the bandwidth pressure on the origin site and resist small-scale ddos.
lesson: high io and high network concurrency usually cannot achieve low cost at the same time. a common approach is to separate hot and cold (local nvme cache + back-end distributed storage).
ddos defense: it is recommended to connect cloud cleaning (scrubbing) on ​​a/b or use cdn (caching static resources, anycast distribution) as the first line of defense.

7.

selection suggestions and optimization practices

if the target is a high-concurrency database or oltp: prioritize local nvme passthrough (such as brand a), and enable cpu affinity and irq binding.
if you are pursuing high availability and horizontal expansion: optional ceph backend (brand b), but the ceph cluster network and osd performance should be evaluated.
for cost-sensitive sites with low traffic: brand c combined with external cdn is a cost-effective combination.
network optimization: enable tcp window auto-tuning, adjust congestion control algorithms (such as bbr), use multi-thread concurrency (iperf3 -p), and enable sr-iov or dpdk to improve throughput.
security recommendations: access managed ddos protection, configure firewall speed limits, use anycast cdn to disperse traffic, and whitelist and rate limit traffic return sources for key businesses.

Tags：24-core Vps Singapore Vps Io Performance Network Throughput Iops Iperf3 Fio Nvme Ceph Ddos Defense Cdn Host Comparison More»
Previous article： Optimization And Case Sharing Of Singapore’s Independent Cloud Servers Carrying High Concurrency During The E-commerce Promotion Period
Latest articles
Before Choosing A Hong Kong High-defense Exemption Server, You Need To Pay Attention To Security And Contract Terms
Experts Recommend Paying Attention To ISP And Routing Issues When Assessing The Speed Of Vietnamese VPS
Cost Control Tips For Korean CN2 Site Clusters: Bandwidth Billing And Resource Allocation Recommendations
Common Causes Of Tencent Cloud Singapore Server Failures And Best Practices For Prevention
Evaluation Of The Capabilities Of Singapore Cloud Server CN2 Service Providers In Supporting Cross-border Business
Case Study Of Application Of Hong Kong Sha Tin CN2 Console In Game Acceleration And Live Streaming
Judging From Case Studies Whether US High-defense Servers Are Resistant To Complaints: Complaint Types And Final Handling Results Statistics
Remote Management Practice: US VPS Windows 2003 Remote Desktop And Permission Configuration Instructions
Key Points Reflected In The Malaysian Cloud Server Price List Comparing Nodes From Different Regions
A Guide To Choosing Which Cloud Server To Use In Vietnam To Meet Regulatory Compliance And Data Residency Requirements
Popular tags
Hidden Costs Tcp Long Connection Market Trends Rubik's Cube Cms Renting US High-defense Servers Cn2 Us Server: Bandwidth Not Meeting Requirements. Traceroute Pricing Plans Bandwidth Performance Foreign Cloud Server Game Delay Us Cn2 Large Bandwidth Annual Paid Vps Packet Capture Redundancy Server Schedule Cloud Optimization Server Address American Reagan Server Boot Options Internet Server Connection Abnormality Email Tutorial Ssh Us Cn2 Space High Availability Architecture Monitoring Dashboard Ddos Protection Server Monitoring Content Review Browser
Related Articles