NFO doesn't offer enough threads

This is used for general discussion that is not necessarily server-related.
Locked
stickz
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC40BgXanDqOYoVCYFDSTfHA

NFO doesn't offer enough threads

Post by stickz »

I would like to switch my game servers from anther host to NFO, but the problem is I need enough threads to run them efficiently. I have to pay $28 for 4 threads on NFO. I have a 4 thread configuration elsewhere that is just as fast NFO's e5-2690v2 for only $12.

Will NFO ever offer power-packs to compete with other VPS providers? I'm perfectly fine with an execution cap on a two core VDS if the threads can be bumped up to four. I only want to run two servers anyways.

A LOT of game servers can run faster with 8 threads. But the problem is that many people don't want to spend $55 to only host one or two servers. This results in worse performance on certain types of processes when they go the VDS route.
User avatar
Vanderburg
Former staff
Former staff
Posts: 1253
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:27 am
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: NFO doesn't offer enough threads

Post by Vanderburg »

We don't limit how many threads a process (like a game server) can create. We think it'd be great if game servers were all very multi-threaded, to be able to take advantage of multiple cores. Unfortunately, this isn't the case, and most game server software can't take advantage of multiple cores. All the threads your software creates would still have to run only on those 4 cores you have available in your package, however.
stickz

Re: NFO doesn't offer enough threads

Post by stickz »

My game servers will only create a proportional amount of software threads, depending on the number of hardware threads available. I've noticed this on multiple source-engine and spark-engine servers. Things run faster with fewer lag spikes when the machine has more hardware threads. Multiple different server types I run are very unstable when the machine only has two or three threads. In many cases, I could benefit from six or eight threads on some of the newer engine types.
User avatar
Edge100x
Founder
Founder
Posts: 12945
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2002 11:04 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: NFO doesn't offer enough threads

Post by Edge100x »

I don't know of other hosts that offer actual hardware cores.

Most customers tell us the opposite of what you're saying -- that they need more memory and fewer cores. We recognize that everyone has different needs, and that's why our order page is relatively flexible -- but it is based around cores because that is the main limited resource.

Prices are always trending down here.
It'sRandinator
This is my homepage
This is my homepage
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 10:56 pm

Re: NFO doesn't offer enough threads

Post by It'sRandinator »

stickz wrote:I would like to switch my game servers from anther host to NFO, but the problem is I need enough threads to run them efficiently. I have to pay $28 for 4 threads on NFO. I have a 4 thread configuration elsewhere that is just as fast NFO's e5-2690v2 for only $12.
Seeing as you're with [a specific other host] I can tell you that [the host] is a poor host and have used them through [that host], support, network were very bad as well as downtime, but some also said they've had great uptime. They do rank up there as a high end vps provider with the lot of them. I can say this as a vps provider nfo has the best balance of resources per package.

Now I'm not saying NFOs the greatest host out there, there certainly are better, and just a bit more expensive for the matching specs. Many hosts have different configs for different reasons like for example I've seen hosts who offer more ram than cores by a ratio of 4:1.

Edge100x wrote:I don't know of other hosts that offer actual hardware cores.

Most customers tell us the opposite of what you're saying -- that they need more memory and fewer cores. We recognize that everyone has different needs, and that's why our order page is relatively flexible -- but it is based around cores because that is the main limited resource.
I don't know if that's a thing? I think he means a physical core with two threads? Or some misunderstanding that you have dedicated usage of the core? In that case I don't think NFO's packages have dedicated cpu.

Maybe you can have people build their own specs to their own liking and charge by that :P

@Edge100x

When are ssds going to replace hdds on the vps.
User avatar
Edge100x
Founder
Founder
Posts: 12945
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2002 11:04 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: NFO doesn't offer enough threads

Post by Edge100x »

It'sRandinator wrote:When are ssds going to replace hdds on the vps.
Most of our machines have SSD-cached magnetic storage or all-SSD storage now. I know that we haven't bought a new machine that uses anything but all-SSD storage in over a year.

How long it will be until we have all-SSD across the board depends on our growth rate and new hardware releases. Older machines get phased out and newer machines go out to replace them, and we add newer machines on top of this.

At most hosts that advertise all-SSD storage, the storage is actually not local to the machine -- it's network-based, on a separate server that has a large RAID. This has pros and cons, but one of the cons is that the latency is not as low as with local storage. We use all local storage here.
It'sRandinator
This is my homepage
This is my homepage
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 10:56 pm

Re: NFO doesn't offer enough threads

Post by It'sRandinator »

It'sRandinator wrote:
stickz wrote:I would like to switch my game servers from anther host to NFO, but the problem is I need enough threads to run them efficiently. I have to pay $28 for 4 threads on NFO. I have a 4 thread configuration elsewhere that is just as fast NFO's e5-2690v2 for only $12.
Seeing as you're with [a specific other host] I can tell you that [the host] is a poor host and have used them through [the host], support, network were very bad as well as downtime, but some also said they've had great uptime. NFO does rank up there as a high end vps provider with the lot of them. I can say as a vps provider nfo has the best balance of resources per package for price.

Now I'm not saying NFOs vps' servers are the greatest out there, there certainly are better for the customizations, but more money for the same specs. Many hosts have different configs for different reasons like for example I've seen hosts who offer more ram than cores by a ratio of 4:1.

Woops sorry for the written mess as I was half asleep when I posted that :P Some corrections are bolded.
stickz

Re: NFO doesn't offer enough threads

Post by stickz »

@It'sRandinator
NFO has good and bad locations just like [another host] does. I do a little bit more research when picking hosting providers and locations.

I understand that NFO's configuration offers scalability. My main complaint is that it's not scalable enough. I am purchasing tons of extra resources I do not need on a very frequent basis with NFO. And I can never get the number of threads I need at a relatively reasonable cost because of this.

I'm running source engine game servers that use the following specifications:
  • Storage: 5gb each -50gb ballooned four servers (no forking)
  • Ram: 300mb (ballooned) + 50mb for Gentoo OS
  • Threads: Must have 4.
Anther thing. If people are running Linux, they don't need all that ram. Linux users suffer on NFO from Windows. Managed Windows eats 1.4gb last I checked. This means that all VDSs need an extra 2gb right? Ohh wait, you can't get run Managed Windows on four cores anymore... problem solved right? How about more scalable (and lower cost) four core packages? And trashing the junky two and three core ones.
User avatar
Edge100x
Founder
Founder
Posts: 12945
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2002 11:04 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: NFO doesn't offer enough threads

Post by Edge100x »

stickz wrote:NFO has good and bad locations just like [other host] does. I do a little bit more research when picking hosting providers and locations.
I can't speak for other hosts, but locations aren't overall "bad" or "good" here. All offer excellent performance in their geographical area, due to their healthy upstream provider blends and routing optimization. Which one you should choose mostly comes down to two things:

1. Where your clients are. You will want to choose the location that is physically in the middle of them, generally, because latencies to our locations are primarily based on distance.
2. Your need for DDoS mitigation. Locations vary in terms of their capacities.

But, there are other threads about this, and about your comparisons to other hosts. Please don't open multiple threads about the same things.
Anther thing. If people are running Linux, they don't need all that ram. Linux users suffer on NFO from Windows. Managed Windows eats 1.4gb last I checked.
Windows uses about 500 megabytes of memory or so, internally, with a default install. This is certainly more overhead than a default Linux install, but it's nowhere near 1.4 GB. It hasn't ever used that much.

We've been hosting servers for rent since 2002, and running them years before that. In 2002, 2 GB was a lot of RAM. Heck, 1 GB was a lot of RAM. Windows couldn't have even run if it needed 1.4 GB of RAM. Its usage server-side hasn't increased a whole lot since then.
This means that all VDSs need an extra 2gb right? Ohh wait, you can't get run Managed Windows on four cores anymore... problem solved right? How about more scalable (and lower cost) four core packages? And trashing the junky two and three core ones.
It feels like you're trolling at this point. As I've said before, we offer a variety of packages that are based on the number of cores, because CPU is our primary limited resource. If you don't need as much memory as a package provides, that's great -- you can use the rest as a disk cache. If you need more memory, that's great, too -- you can buy more for a small fee. Most customers that I have spoken to run out of memory before they run out of CPU, whether they run Windows or Linux, but either way is fine. The nature of having multiple resources is that you'll always run out of one before you run out of the others.

Also, as a reminder to all, these forums are not meant to be used for advertising other companies, or for bashing other companies. Some occasional one-off references can be excused, but you should keep references to specific other companies to a minimum, and generally leave out names.
It'sRandinator
This is my homepage
This is my homepage
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 10:56 pm

Re: NFO doesn't offer enough threads

Post by It'sRandinator »

stickz wrote:@It'sRandinator
NFO has good and bad locations just like [another host] does. I do a little bit more research when picking hosting providers and locations.
I didn't mention locations in my previous post. I still use multiple vps providers including NFO and I put in tons of research into a host, I've used servers for ssh gateways to dns to development/testing. I only pick quality providers for my sensitive projects and NFO is one of them, but their prices as I said are a bit much for resources I don't need.

For example NFOs best location is in my opinion NY because voxel/tons of peers and better upstreams in NY as it's Internaps flagship location, Chicago is second followed by Dallas/SJ due to being Internaps strong point of presence. I still think utilizing a tool like Noction IRP would be a great addition instead of Internaps own proprietary garbage.
I understand that NFO's configuration offers scalability. My main complaint is that it's not scalable enough. I am purchasing tons of extra resources I do not need on a very frequent basis with NFO. And I can never get the number of threads I need at a relatively reasonable cost because of this.
I can agree with that as that is my issue as well, because as I mentioned in my last post, NFO sets packages like this due to them being used for game servers. Other hosts don't cater to game server hosting, hence their packages are more lenient ie. 4 cores to a 1GB ram ratio (many hosts have this model).

I was thinking of a build what you need model, start with one core and one GB of ram, add what you need and price accordingly.
stickz

Re: NFO doesn't offer enough threads

Post by stickz »

IMO, NFO needs a second pricing model in a few/couple flagship locations. Maybe call the current one cloud machine and the other SSD machine. (or something)

Pure solid state storage and higher core to ram ratios would be beneficial. A lot more machines could be fit onto E7s at much lower costs. By not offering it at all locations, the cost of purchasing a few new machines and using them all up would be a lot less. Also, a more limited section would increase predictability, further reducing costs.

Example:
  • 1GB, 25gb, 1 core VPS - $5
  • 2GB, 50gb, 4 core VPS - $10
  • 4GB, 100gb, 4 core VPS - $20
  • 8GB, 200gb, 8 core VPS - $40
  • 16GB, 400gb, 8 core VPS - $80
User avatar
Edge100x
Founder
Founder
Posts: 12945
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2002 11:04 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: NFO doesn't offer enough threads

Post by Edge100x »

stickz,

We don't plan to ever purchase another machine that doesn't use SSDs, so that part isn't too much of a stretch. I doubt many other companies out there plan to purchase non-SSD-based machines, either. It doesn't make sense to do it in the long term, because SSD prices keep coming down and SSDs are more reliable than spinning disks. Most of our current customers don't seem to care much about the storage type, though, likely because it is not usually a bottleneck for them

E7-based machines are far more expensive than E5-based machines on every level, so whoever gave you the idea that buying E7s would save money somehow is nuts.

New hardware is expensive, and CPUs with more cores are more expensive. If we want to come out with a cheaper VPS plan, we'll have to do it using older hardware, since that would save money.

You have benefited from going to a different, general-purpose VPS provider and rolling the dice. Your neighbors on your machine apparently don't use much CPU (which makes some sense at a more general-purpose host, where lots of people are just buying to experiment or run small webservecrs). That has allowed your other host to put more customers onto a single machine (lowering costs) and make your four virtual cores perform similarly to four real cores. Customers here are more likely to use both their CPU and memory resources, since they tend to run game servers, and we put fewer customers onto a machine in order to make certain that performance stays high -- nigh-guaranteeing a high level of performance, but at a somewhat higher cost. If we came out with a separate product, we would still need to do that, unless we put it under an entirely separate brand -- simply because our current brand is known for game servers and high performance.

We have, in fact, considered running an entirely separate brand, but it's not something that we'll be doing in the near future, partially because launching a second brand would be expensive and labor intensive, with a huge amount of time and money needing to be spent on marketing to compensate for the fact that it would be built up from nothing. It would also be a major gamble, because cheap, general-purpose VPSes without a real niche are common and compete directly with big players like Amazon and Azure -- companies have scale to their advantage -- so there is a tremendous amount of competition.

You also have to keep in mind that, to go after the bottom of the market and drop prices as far as possible with that second brand, we'd have to use cheaper bandwidth (not Internap) and host our equipment in cheaper datacenters (such as those without fancy battery back-ups and high-end security). Which, again, is doable, but building up new infrastructure from scratch is a major undertaking, so it's not a "just follow this simple plan" kind of thing.

It'sRandinator, those are interesting guesses on the bandwidth quality. It's true that NYC is Internap's largest location, followed by Dallas, but larger does not necessarily mean better. Since we only host in major cities with dense peering, and Internap purchases from major transit providers everywhere in addition to Comcast, it's pretty uncommon to see scenic routes to anyone, and which location is best truly does mostly come down to distance to the client base (and desired DDoS resistance). We don't see many problems with MIRO, so I'm not sure that I see the sense in suggesting to Internap that they use a different route optimizer; I rarely have to ask for manual shunts nowadays. If you think you see a path that can be improved, don't hesitate to open a support request about it, though.

This thread has run its course. You two will need to continue debating the merits of different companies with others on a different forum, or take it private. I can't afford to go deeper into discussing the status of our business or strategies for the future (I've said too much as it is).
Locked