Benchmarking AWS, DigitalOcean, Linode, Packet, and Vultr

I used to use DO, but switched off after they decided to disconnect my droplet for 3 hours when it got DDoS'd. It didn't matter that my node was able to handle the traffic. I was only using it for a Mumble VOIP server and an IRC bouncer, so it's not like I was going to lose money by having some business going offline, but still frustrating and enough to decide that should I ever need to run an actual business, I definitely won't use DO for it.

This is great to see. I love DigitalOcean and they&#x27;ve really stepped up their game wrt. product offerings.<p>But I was surprised at how DO beat AWS EC2 in most but not all of the tests. Their performance is impressive considering that they&#x27;re not on the same scale as AWS, Azure or GCP

I did a similar set of benchmarks, except with a bit more of a focus on storage performance, several years ago. Even included the results in a presentation at LISA. The most striking thing at the time was not so much the averages but the <i>variability</i>. IIRC Amazon was particularly bad in that regard, and Vultr particularly good (so kudos to them), but Digital Ocean&#x27;s advantage in raw performance was so big that it still won out. Looks like not much has changed.

I think the AWS failures on iops tests should&#x27;ve been examined more prior to publication, or at least explained more to the reader.<p>AWS General Purpose EBS volumes scale based on volume size, so a purely naively-done test with a default AMI&#x27;s performance could be as low as 24 iops (8GB*3 IOPS per GB) once exhausting it&#x27;s burst iops quota. I think it&#x27;s unfair to compare apples to oranges here, as you can make these volumes scale to absurd numbers, if you have the cash.

Linode, who didn&#x27;t fair all that well in this test (though was the cheapest) actually does offer a dedicated CPU option as of recently: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.linode.com&#x2F;2019&#x2F;02&#x2F;05&#x2F;introducing-linode-dedicated-cpu-instances&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.linode.com&#x2F;2019&#x2F;02&#x2F;05&#x2F;introducing-linode-dedica...</a><p>Curious how much of a difference it would make.

I have tried&#x2F;used the providers mentioned and others, and am now with UpCloud which really has great performance, better than Do etc for what I have seen. Only thing is that they don&#x27;t offer much more than just servers yet.

&gt; The virtualized nature of cloud hosting makes benchmarking over a period of time vital to getting the full picture.<p>It&#x27;s so nice to see a benchmark of VPSs that takes this into account.

I love DO, but man in practice the CPU performance of their machines have been horrible in my experience. Like 2-3x worse than the same $ spend on ec2.

Rubbish. Why is there even a section describing its methodology when it&#x27;s comparing $40 and $50 instances against $20 ones? I can see why they might compare the $62 EC2 instances against other vendors&#x27; cheaper ones as that is the point of their investigation, but the challengers should be on a level playing field. Seems to me that they wanted DO to &#x27;win&#x27;.

Missing 2018 in the Title.