More powerfull cpu
In my case is more significant the power of a single CPU core than the total number of CPU. (In my current dedicated server I have disabled the hipertheading)
I'm testing you're server in order to transfer a performance critical application I have in a dedicated server. My current bottle neck is on disk io so I thought that your ssd based service will solve my performance issues but:
Although the SSD increases the respond time of the first run of a query, all subsequent queries are CPU bounded and are significant slower than my current non-SSD dedicated server.
Actually linden is killing me with their new plans, It has the same price of DO but with more CPU. Please double the CPU
The $20 plan costs four times as much as the $5 plan, yet CPU cores only double. To scale from two cores to four, one again has to pay four times as much for twice the CPU horsepower.
For those running CPU bound web services like me, this is a difficult proposition to sell to value-conscious clients. Nor do I have the resources to manage clusters of $5 droplets. Horizontal scaling is great on paper but it increases the risk of failure and adds to the administrative burden.
Please consider distributing the CPU cores through your price plans in a more equitable manner. If I'm paying 8 times more than a guy on the $5 plan, I feel like I should get access to proportionally more resources.
Why is it that because we want more memory, we have to have more diskspace? Or more cores equals a lot more diskspace - why? This just isn't logical. We need a mix and match system. Let us choose the amount of disk space separately and charge accordingly.
I, myself, only need 20 Gb or even less of disk, but would like 4 cores and a good sized chunk of memory.
I see others here need much more diskspace. Each has his own requirements.
As it is, you are probably wasting your resources and many users are paying for something they will never use. Not environmentally or customer friendly!
Linode has 8 CPUs for each server at least, I suggest you double the cores for every plan or plans above $10
As you can see from the other suggestions many people want higher cpu counts. Let me try to convince you.
I assume the reason you don't allow this is simply because you have scaled your data center linearly, so you have less CPUs to go around. Many developers like myself have tasks that are CPU bound and we don't really need ram, disk space, or network speed. Lets say I needed 16 cores, I would have to run 16x $5/month 512 MB instances at $80. That a whole lot of instances I now have to manage, and with a whole lot of memory, and space that I am wasting. Even if you sold me 8 cores with at $40 with 512 MB specs in one instance, it would be almost like selling me 16 of them but you keep most of the resource. The added benefit for me is that I only have to manage one instance instead of 16.
You get way more profit, and I win too. What do you think?
For example 4GB / 4 Cores .... 8 GB / 8 Cores or make droplets with more CPU power and make price for this.
The cpu overloads for just using the internet browser, apps left running automatically close
The plans that you guys have are amazing, but in some cases you provide too much ram and too few CPU resources.
Taking for example the 20 usd/mo plan,
40GB SSD Disk
I find it much more helpful to have, let's say, 4 cores, 30 GB SSD and just 1 TB transfer with 1.5 GB ram.
Or something that goes into that direction.
tl:dr; more cpus, less everything else, same price.
Ted Wood commented
One way to work around the low number of cores is to set up multiple droplets with Private Networking... one for application, one for database, one for memory-based caching, etc. That way, $15 gets you 3 cores to serve your site, for example. By moving away from the "one server does it all" mindset, you can actually get tremendous value and performance from DO's 1-core plans.
Ted Wood commented
I was excited to be moving my entire business to Digital Ocean away from a Rackspace reseller. I thought the price-per-droplet would be better than what I am currently using. I failed to look closely at the CPU count of each server. Despite sites being faster under light load when running on DO droplets, things begin to change drastically once there's a heavier load compared to my previous hosting. I peg this at the CPU difference. My previous production server (20GB HHD, 500MB RAM, and 4 cores), vs only 1 core at Digital Ocean. I would actually need to spend more per month at Digital Ocean to get the same 4 cores. I take full responsibility for overlooking the CPU performance, as I thought that DigitalOcean was a dream come true. Some dreams are too good to be true, I guess. :) I'll continue my migration to DO in hopes that they strike a better balance of price-per-core. I don't need to massive RAM and SSD that comes with the high-core servers.
Mikhail Kolesnik commented
Is there any proof that DO's single core is much slower than Linode's 8 on some popular web stack? UnixBench actually gave me the impression that DO is overall faster despite of the number of cores. At the end it does not matter much if you have one or 32 cores if that single CPU is really fast.
It's a good idea to increase CPU ...I didn't use Linode, but, even so, I would want DO to do it.
Zachary DuBois commented
Haydrion, completely false. I payed +$300/m on Linode for 7 VPSs. They were slow as hell. I now have much more resources and speed on DigitalOcean than linode and almost a third of the price. Not to meantion that they are much faster with the SSD and the CPU DigitalOcean does.
It is also annoying that people are like to do the Linode vs Digital Ocean topics, digi is new, Linode is here for years. They are leading and that will always be how much Digital Ocean is trying to do, they will never get the level of Linode
Linode is just better than Digital Ocean ! End of Story ! Why you pay more by Linode is because on Linode you have more freedom than by Digital Ocean. $5 for a VPS .. serious .. don't expect amazing things or even better things that you have by Linode
Evandro Camargo commented
Well, maybe they could keep the current plans (for those of us who actually fit into it.) and make the "custom" plans at fair prices (not only fair to customers but to their infrastructure too.).
That way we have what we want and they get what they need to not overwhelm the structure and still provide everyone with a reliable level of service.
Zachary DuBois commented
Problem is, Linode is prioritized CPU not the awesome DigitalOcean CPU. No +1 from me :/
Bob Monteverde commented
I would assume this would be tricky to implement. It would be much harder to divide of server resources. Would like to hear from someone at DO about this, I'm sure they have put quite some thought into it. From a user perspective it would be ideal to choose RAM, HD Storage, Cores, and Bandwidth independently.... but again, probably a very hard thing to do from their perspective.
Bob Monteverde commented
While this would be amazing, it may not be practical at the current cost. On the other hand, I find it very useful to have at least 2 [v]CPUs per a droplet. Having to pay for a $20 a month droplet, when I don't need the extra RAM is a little steep.
I would be more than happy if you just gave the 1 GB plan 2 cores. It makes sense to keep the 512mb plan 1 core.
I suppose there is still an issue with the larger plans having few cores, but my vote still is to just boost the 1gb plan to 2 cores.
Teshoo Lama commented
The way CPU cores scale through your price plans penalises your bigger customers. At things stand, Bitcoin miners pay $5 per core, while on the 8GB plan we're paying $20 per core. I understand you're primarily competing on RAM, but charging 4x more per core is just extreme.
Rodrigo Sandoval commented
I really want to move to DO, but at this point is useless with the current configurations, I understand the whole thing about pricing and everything else, but being able to create your own droplet with custom resources sounds better than being forced to have 160Gb of HDD when you don't need it, or 16Gb of RAM, when I only need 8 cores and 2Gb of RAM
I think increasing ram would be better from 512 to 728 or something.
From what I see on Linode, you are on a server with cpu with 8 physical core but you have access to 1 virtual core like Digital Ocean.
Linode is more expensive, so don't expect DigitalOcean to double the amount of cores without charging you more. It doesn't just work like that.
Simon West commented
Linode also seems to be considerably more expensive than Digital Ocean.
This is why I want to host another application at Linode. The SSD/HDD comparison doesn't matter since I'll be caching files heavily anyway.
Thanks for the feedback, however the situation is a bit more complex. When it comes to a cloud or a VPS provider there is no "apples" to "apples" comparison of CPU possible. This is because unlike RAM which is strictly segregated, CPU and disk IO are not strictly segregated but shared.
This means that it is impossible to really accurately predict how that utilization will playout in a production environment with mixed workloads from different customers on the same hypervisor.
Our plans for RAM do scale linearly because this is the resource that we have absolute control over, we also scale our HDD space linearly for the same reason, except the smallest plan starts with a bit more HDD space as a bonus because if we scaled linearly there it would come with 10GB to start and we felt that was a bit on the small side so we bumped it up.
When it comes to CPU it is important to not forget that in cloud environments or VPS it is not always the CPU that gets taxed, but instead the bottleneck becomes the disks. This is because if you review your CPU usage and your applications you will see that often times your CPU usage is also tied to reading/writing from the disk. As a result when disk IO runs out your CPU usage spikes. This is because an application is "waiting" on the disk to either finish a write or a read before it can process the next instruction, as a result your CPU usage begins to increase even though there is actually more CPU available.
This is why we went with an all SSD cloud because we know that more often than not most customers workloads will tie up the disk before they tie up the CPU. So while we may provide fewer cores by having faster disks underlying the infrastructure you get more CPU. This is because even disk IO isn't completely saturated all of your read and write requests are finishing faster as well so the CPU can move on to the next instruction.
That is why the best way to really compare two hosts is to run a production environment on each and compare the price to performance. Running benchmarks is helpful but unfortunately with benchmarks they aren't really mimicking a real production workload because they usually just like to hammer things in a very predictable manner, where as a production setup has much more randomness built into it.
The way that we have setup our infrastructure is to allow for bursts in CPU to be processed faster again with the idea that if there are also SSD drives that will have a larger workload clear through faster and then cause less overall contention. So while you may get less "cores" you get more of the core for processing.
The last item to consider is your actual application. Depending on your stack or application it may not be very multi-threaded, so even if you have 8 cores you end up really utilizing only one.
Ultimately I would recommend setting up a second app, web, db, or whatever server and running it in production on another provider, whether it be us or someone else, and then compare the CPU utilization and ms response times against price.
Think of it like this, you can have two cars that have 500hp, but why does each one accelerate 0-60mph differently? That's because many factors come into play such as aerodynamic drag, gear ratios, powerloss through the drivetrain, grip, rolling resistance, etc.
It's the same here, because there is no specific CPU unit, unlike RAM where 1GB = 1GB, this means that a direct comparison isn't possible.