Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 11:00:44 +0000 From: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Cc: cperciva@freebsd.org Subject: Amazon AMIs Message-ID: <f002c020-1e63-c12f-456e-e20f8546a701@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, I've been playing with setting up a very simple website on AWS to do speedtesting for the ISP I work for[*]. Naturally I used the FreeBSD 12.0 AMIs. The result with the default m4.large instance was actually pretty dissapointing: speedtest:~:% iperf3 -p 443 -P 3 -c test1.lightspeed.gigaclear.com Connecting to host test1.lightspeed.gigaclear.com, port 443 [ 4] local 46.227.144.15 port 38926 connected to 3.8.245.243 port 443 [ 6] local 46.227.144.15 port 38928 connected to 3.8.245.243 port 443 [ 8] local 46.227.144.15 port 38930 connected to 3.8.245.243 port 443 [...] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 177 MBytes 148 Mbits/sec 123 sender [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 176 MBytes 147 Mbits/sec receiver [ 6] 0.00-10.00 sec 281 MBytes 236 Mbits/sec 155 sender [ 6] 0.00-10.00 sec 280 MBytes 235 Mbits/sec receiver [ 8] 0.00-10.00 sec 206 MBytes 173 Mbits/sec 118 sender [ 8] 0.00-10.00 sec 205 MBytes 172 Mbits/sec receiver [SUM] 0.00-10.00 sec 664 MBytes 557 Mbits/sec 396 sender [SUM] 0.00-10.00 sec 661 MBytes 554 Mbits/sec receiver Couldn't even saturate a 1G link. So I tried one of the newer m5.large instance instead. As well as being rather newer and better integrated with FreeBSD (m5 has if_ena interfaces, nvd disk devices rather than m4 which has ixv and xbd disguised as ada for the root device but not for additional drives), they're actually slightly cheaper for the same nominal CPU count, RAM and disk: speedtest:~:% iperf3 -p 443 -P 3 -c test0.lightspeed.gigaclear.com Connecting to host test0.lightspeed.gigaclear.com, port 443 [ 4] local 46.227.144.15 port 54264 connected to 18.130.169.5 port 443 [ 6] local 46.227.144.15 port 54266 connected to 18.130.169.5 port 443 [ 8] local 46.227.144.15 port 54268 connected to 18.130.169.5 port 443 [...] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 1.90 GBytes 1.63 Gbits/sec 2484 sender [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 1.89 GBytes 1.63 Gbits/sec receiver [ 6] 0.00-10.00 sec 1.87 GBytes 1.60 Gbits/sec 3381 sender [ 6] 0.00-10.00 sec 1.86 GBytes 1.60 Gbits/sec receiver [ 8] 0.00-10.00 sec 1.90 GBytes 1.64 Gbits/sec 3607 sender [ 8] 0.00-10.00 sec 1.90 GBytes 1.63 Gbits/sec receiver [SUM] 0.00-10.00 sec 5.67 GBytes 4.87 Gbits/sec 9472 sender [SUM] 0.00-10.00 sec 5.65 GBytes 4.86 Gbits/sec receiver So, about 2Gb/s with an out-of-the-box configuration and no tuning. Question: Why is m4.large the recommended instance type? Surely we'd be better served and present users with a better experience by recommending an m5 instance as one of the more modern and higher performance types? Cheers, Matthew [*] It's an OfCom requirement here in the UK. If what we sell is described as a 940Mb/s pure fibre connection, then by golly it should be capable of pulling down 940Mb/s even at peak usage times of day[+]. So we need to measure this regularly, which means we need to roll out a bunch of small devices to sit in customer premises and run automated tests downloading large blobs of random data from a website "not on our own network." [+] We can't count packet headers as part of the delivered bandwidth, or this would just be a 1Gb/s service.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?f002c020-1e63-c12f-456e-e20f8546a701>