我愛自由我用 Linux

轉載連結 我被 Microsoft 恐嚇了！


真開心，已經用 Linux 好多年了，多年前，遇見了 Bruce ，一頭帶我栽進 FreeBSD 的世界，遇見， John 和 Ted 後， 開始使用 Linux，時間真快，1999 到現在，用了 快十年了

想起來，真感恩，這麼多世界一流的開發人員，奉獻心力，現在剩下，下單的系統，還是接國內卷商，換得機會不大，沒像國外的專業，提供開放的交易介面，有一天，我一定要全換掉

不需一天到晚跟著，換電腦升級，還真的蠻無聊的，就像，現在對很多人來說，應該都沒有理由，不繼續用 XP，就算 Win 7 好，難道 XP 不好嗎？

唯一要用的理由，就是這一間公司，沒有新產品就賺不了錢啦

附上一張桌面吧！程式開發，也都是在這上面

2HOST network broken

連續兩天，2HOST 的網路都有問題，這是一直以來，讓我覺的他們的服務唯一不穩定的因素，所以，把 DigEZ 搬到 ThrustVPS 西岸 LA 的機房，一開始，我不是很喜歡 ThrustVPS，大概是他們有限制 vcpu core ，所以入門的 VPS 的 CPU 表現都不好，不過，如果 CPU 一直都不是吃很重，倒也不失是一個很好的選擇

ThrustVPS優點

西岸機房，網路穩定，延遲低，抓學速網路檔案，大約 10M，比(兩)光世代還快

新機器，硬碟讀寫快，有 raid 10

服務效率高， kernel 版本較新

便宜，找不到西岸機房，更便宜的了(不然都找到德國去了)

ThrustVPS缺點

CPU 資源受限，效能較差，redis-benchmark 很明顯，效能不彰

PS: 已經兩天了，我的 2HOST 還是連不到，好險頻寬大，有備份，搬家迅速
更新，2HOST 有回應了，說是把網路卡換了，可以連了，先看看穩定的情形再說吧

滿 1 歲了

親愛的，你來到這一個世界，滿一年了

這一年裡，你從，每天睡覺到每天搗蛋，變化可真大，現在的你走路跌跌撞撞，但是每天都有進步，前天才很驚訝的看到，你自己會爬上床了，進步神速

把拔在你第一次的生日，沒有給你什麼禮物 (馬麻有送你小車車，更凸顯我是個很混的把拔)

是因為，現在只要是新的東西，對你來說，都是新玩具，你對所有沒有見過得東西感到好奇，

早上才看到，你在追著自己的影子。


所以，我給你的禮物，就是對你的一封信，把拔，國文，很不好，常常寫字不知所云，也常常寫錯字，有了電腦以後，更是退化的更厲害，所以你要慢慢看，才會懂



把拔，承諾你

不強迫你作你不想做的事，不管是學業，成績，或是各種的才藝，不把你和別人作比較，你就做你自己就好了，這世界上有各式各樣的人，可以是好人，也可以是壞人，但是你記得，永遠都跟著自己的心走，用心看，不要用眼睛看，才能看清楚



未完....... 你也還不到會認字的時候 ;-)


生日快樂



是一定要的

VPS 比較結果

PhotonVPS

效能不錯，網路延遲短，不過，畢竟同樣 Xen 512 的 plan 打折後還要 16 元 USD


NordictVPS

CPU 效能最好是 i7 ，不過主機是在德國，網路延遲多了一點，要不然還不錯，硬碟效能一般，應該是 RAID 1 而已，算便宜 Xen 512 一個月 8美元左右

ThrustVPS

Xen 512 的只有一個 CPU vcore 所以算是幫別人付錢，給高檔的人去用，需要 CPU 的應用，就不用考慮了，如果不是很需要CPU，算是不錯便宜的 VPS，有美西的機器，網路延遲會比較短， 硬碟效能像是有 RAID 10，網路算不錯

RapidXen

Xen 128 的 plan 效能還好，網路延遲最短，但是限速，一般只有跑到 1M 以下，硬碟慢，價格最貴，所以不用考慮了，要買他的 512 plan 比 Linode 還貴，就直接用 Linode 就好了


2HOST


這就是我一開始用的，結果，繞了一圈，還是他，也可能是因為，最近別家 VPS 很多促銷，所以很多人跳了，所以效能有越來越好，網路的延遲，也在中間，目前大概只有，美東的上班時間，網路的延遲變大，比較有問題，其他，CPU 效能，硬碟 IO 讀寫，網路延遲，都不錯，價格 8 美元左右，還是最超值的選擇



如果，要看細部的數據，請自己往前翻

Xor encrypy decrypt in Python

列了一堆，相關的連結，有興趣的可以看

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2029426/what-is-xor-encryption

http://discussion.forum.nokia.com/forum/showthread.php?91267-Encryption-in-python

http://www.0xcb0.com/?p=331

http://www.downv.com/Linux/download-cxor-10056082.htm

http://www.dlitz.net/software/pycrypto/

http://www.evanfosmark.com/2008/06/xor-encryption-with-python/

http://www.daniweb.com/code/snippet216632.html


http://forum.intern0t.net/perl-python/2144-python-simple-text-encryption-program-new.html

農村再造一起變豪宅 Orz

政府的德政壓，反正農民種田也養不活一家，自己看照片吧，以後這片土地的子民自求多福，日後到處是豪宅，沒有田地，都是豪華農舍，或是民宿




用途 --- 豪宅集村開發



要炒地皮，有民代，黑道背景，或是關係的鄉民，點這裡聯絡 http://www.placeking.com/035/showobj.php?t=HF&A1=035&A2=PATTY-KU&A3=PATTY-KU&A4=2

PS: 很想罵髒話，這樣的土地政策，真是財團治國的實踐，士農工商，大家一起來炒地皮

WSGI for Python

有一些很詳細的介紹，和比較，值得一讀

http://nichol.as/benchmark-of-python-web-servers

PhotonVPS TEST

2010-07-16 09:00 bought 2010-07-16 22:10 開通 開始測試 Disk read www:/tmp# hdparm -tT /dev/sda1 /dev/sda1: Timing cached reads: 9942 MB in 1.99 seconds = 4995.05 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 574 MB in 3.01 seconds = 190.87 MB/sec Network www:/tmp# wget http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test --2010-07-16 15:34:38-- http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test Resolving cachefly.cachefly.net... 205.234.175.175 Connecting to cachefly.cachefly.net|205.234.175.175|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream] Saving to: `100mb.test' 100%[===========================================================================================================================>] 104,857,600 10.8M/s in 9.3s 2010-07-16 15:34:47 (10.8 MB/s) - `100mb.test' saved [104857600/104857600] www:/tmp# wget http://ftp.tw.debian.org/debian-cd/5.0.5/amd64/iso-dvd/debian-505-amd64-DVD-1.iso --2010-07-16 15:28:30-- http://ftp.tw.debian.org/debian-cd/5.0.5/amd64/iso-dvd/debian-505-amd64-DVD-1.iso Resolving ftp.tw.debian.org... 140.112.8.139 Connecting to ftp.tw.debian.org|140.112.8.139|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 4692975616 (4.4G) [application/x-iso9660-image] Saving to: `debian-505-amd64-DVD-1.iso' 4% [====> ] 213,035,198 1.41M/s eta 55m 2s tracerout from my home desktop (hinet) to my PhotonVPS host ip terry@debian:~$ traceroute 173.224.209.230 traceroute to 173.224.209.230 (173.224.209.230), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 0.733 ms 0.978 ms 2.219 ms 2 h254.s98.ts.hinet.net (168.95.98.254) 15.678 ms 16.318 ms 17.691 ms 3 TPE4-3301.hinet.net (168.95.100.194) 17.343 ms 17.712 ms 17.797 ms 4 TPE4-3202.hinet.net (220.128.5.174) 18.059 ms tp-e4-t64-1.router.hinet.net (220.128.5.22) 18.962 ms 18.977 ms 5 TPDT-3011.hinet.net (220.128.1.110) 20.465 ms TPDT-3012.hinet.net (220.128.2.110) 19.320 ms TPDT-3011.hinet.net (220.128.3.22) 20.590 ms 6 r4003-s2.tp.hinet.net (220.128.4.253) 20.605 ms 13.820 ms 220-128-7-185.HINET-IP.hinet.net (220.128.7.185) 13.698 ms 7 220-128-7-213.HINET-IP.hinet.net (220.128.7.213) 17.782 ms 18.024 ms r4001-s2.tp.hinet.net (220.128.3.78) 18.190 ms 8 r01-pa.us.hinet.net (211.72.108.225) 156.362 ms r01-pa.us.hinet.net (211.72.108.201) 159.590 ms 160.744 ms 9 r11-la.us.hinet.net (202.39.83.229) 152.592 ms 152.346 ms 171.680 ms 10 unknown.xeex.net (216.151.129.113) 154.102 ms 154.006 ms 172.863 ms 11 xeex.cr1.sjc1.psychz.net (216.151.129.30) 174.068 ms 175.926 ms 175.922 ms 12 unassigned.psychz.net (173.224.209.230) 168.095 ms 148.604 ms 168.852 ms unixbench 5.1.2 ======================================================================== BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.2) System: www.xxx.com: GNU/Linux OS: GNU/Linux -- 2.6.18-164.11.1.el5xen -- #1 SMP Wed Jan 20 08:06:04 EST 2010 Machine: x86_64 (unknown) Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="UTF-8", collate="UTF-8") CPU 0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5520 @ 2.27GHz (5674.8 bogomips) Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET CPU 1: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5520 @ 2.27GHz (5674.8 bogomips) Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET CPU 2: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5520 @ 2.27GHz (5674.8 bogomips) Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET CPU 3: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5520 @ 2.27GHz (5674.8 bogomips) Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET CPU 4: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5520 @ 2.27GHz (5674.8 bogomips) Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET CPU 5: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5520 @ 2.27GHz (5674.8 bogomips) Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET CPU 6: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5520 @ 2.27GHz (5674.8 bogomips) Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET CPU 7: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5520 @ 2.27GHz (5674.8 bogomips) Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET 15:36:37 up 1:30, 3 users, load average: 0.01, 0.03, 0.00; runlevel 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Benchmark Run: Fri Jul 16 2010 15:36:38 - 16:04:53 8 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests Dhrystone 2 using register variables 16353920.9 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples) Double-Precision Whetstone 2657.2 MWIPS (10.0 s, 7 samples) Execl Throughput 1151.6 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples) File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 221910.1 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples) File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 59516.0 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples) File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 660809.0 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples) Pipe Throughput 337014.0 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples) Pipe-based Context Switching 75988.5 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples) Process Creation 3247.1 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples) Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 3297.7 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples) Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1219.1 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples) System Call Overhead 381956.6 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples) System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 16353920.9 1401.4 Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 2657.2 483.1 Execl Throughput 43.0 1151.6 267.8 File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 221910.1 560.4 File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 59516.0 359.6 File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 660809.0 1139.3 Pipe Throughput 12440.0 337014.0 270.9 Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 75988.5 190.0 Process Creation 126.0 3247.1 257.7 Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 3297.7 777.8 Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 1219.1 2031.9 System Call Overhead 15000.0 381956.6 254.6 ======== System Benchmarks Index Score 496.1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Benchmark Run: Fri Jul 16 2010 16:04:53 - 16:33:40 8 CPUs in system; running 8 parallel copies of tests Dhrystone 2 using register variables 96059277.7 lps (10.1 s, 7 samples) Double-Precision Whetstone 19860.3 MWIPS (9.8 s, 7 samples) Execl Throughput 7234.4 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples) File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 140202.9 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples) File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 37087.2 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples) File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 495818.2 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples) Pipe Throughput 2074287.5 lps (10.1 s, 7 samples) Pipe-based Context Switching 547893.3 lps (10.1 s, 7 samples) Process Creation 17365.7 lps (30.1 s, 2 samples) Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 13264.6 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples) Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 2103.4 lpm (60.1 s, 2 samples) System Call Overhead 2104375.0 lps (10.1 s, 7 samples) System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 96059277.7 8231.3 Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 19860.3 3611.0 Execl Throughput 43.0 7234.4 1682.4 File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 140202.9 354.0 File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 37087.2 224.1 File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 495818.2 854.9 Pipe Throughput 12440.0 2074287.5 1667.4 Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 547893.3 1369.7 Process Creation 126.0 17365.7 1378.2 Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 13264.6 3128.4 Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 2103.4 3505.6 System Call Overhead 15000.0 2104375.0 1402.9 ======== System Benchmarks Index Score 1529.8 www:~/redis-2.0.0-rc2# ./redis-benchmark ====== PING ====== 10000 requests completed in 0.57 seconds 50 parallel clients 3 bytes payload keep alive: 1 27.80% <= 2 milliseconds 98.20% <= 3 milliseconds 99.50% <= 4 milliseconds 99.86% <= 5 milliseconds 100.00% <= 6 milliseconds 17574.69 requests per second ====== PING (multi bulk) ====== 10001 requests completed in 0.43 seconds 50 parallel clients 3 bytes payload keep alive: 1 0.03% <= 0 milliseconds 32.41% <= 1 milliseconds 56.89% <= 2 milliseconds 98.53% <= 3 milliseconds 99.97% <= 4 milliseconds 100.00% <= 5 milliseconds 23150.46 requests per second ====== SET ====== 10021 requests completed in 0.28 seconds 50 parallel clients 3 bytes payload keep alive: 1 0.58% <= 0 milliseconds 69.34% <= 1 milliseconds 95.58% <= 2 milliseconds 99.98% <= 3 milliseconds 100.00% <= 4 milliseconds 36307.97 requests per second ====== GET ====== 10015 requests completed in 0.26 seconds 50 parallel clients 3 bytes payload keep alive: 1 0.97% <= 0 milliseconds 76.25% <= 1 milliseconds 96.81% <= 2 milliseconds 100.00% <= 3 milliseconds 38968.87 requests per second

deployment with daemontools

daemontools 最早由 D. J. Bernstein 開發，真是好東西，這麼早就做出來了，這麼久了，還是這麼好用


Pylons deployment with daemontools

Deploying a Django Site using FastCGI

RapidXen Review 的體驗

紀錄一下新的體驗

score for RapidXen 6/10 xen 2.6.32.12-RX-domU-static Los Angeles, California

結論

網路只有 ping 直到台灣不錯，下載速度並不快 (所以選在LA或是美西的VPS都不錯，延遲時間很短 )
network speed to taiwan, sucks 0
disk read performance, sucks 0
cpu performace, OK 1
service, sucks 0

You just skip this provider to save your time and money.

2010-07-14 09:00 買了 RapidXen
2010-07-14 11:00 在IRC 上面問怎麼沒有開通的 email 通知，客服說要 7~24 小時才會處理好，美國真是人性化，不願意自動化，才會有工作機會
2010-07-15 08:14 接近24 小時，過去了，沒有任何通知信，目前的感覺，這一家也不是什麼好貨色，爛到爆，2010 年了，還有這樣人力開通的，在IRC 上面問，怎麼這麼慢？，他們說，他們要避免濫用，還註冊的攻擊，另一點就是會 hold chinese order，但是我等了24小時，在 IRC 上面問，問為什麼還沒有記資料來，抱怨沒有開通，所以又進入了懲罰清單 penalty list，會等更久，果然令人想罵髒話，customer service sucks, If you complain more they will keep you wait longer, make you feel sucks more.

2010-07-15 17:04 原來有人抱怨，還等了三天，只是，他會把你踢出來，不給你買，哇，真跩，第一次看到這樣做生意的，超過24小不理你，還怪你抱怨他慢，然後就是 Chinese 該死，要等更久，我一定要試試，一定把數據記下來，看到底值不值接受這樣客服 http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=934659&highlight=RapidXen

2010-07-16 11:04 一樣，沒有消息，基本上可以不用是這一家了，就算打折過後，也不會比 Linode 便宜，選他不如直接用 Linode 就好了

2010-07-16 17:53 通了，測試中


網路速度

RapidXEN

Saving to: `debian-505-amd64-DVD-1.iso.1'

4% [===> ] 226,991,022 860K/s eta 85m 35s


2HOST

Saving to: `debian-505-amd64-DVD-1.iso'

2% [=> ] 139,673,008 2.78M/s eta 34m 20s



NordicVPS

Saving to: `debian-505-amd64-DVD-1.iso.2'

1% [> ] 78,339,342 2.39M/s eta 55m 6s

基本上，我試過的每一家，網路都比 RapidXen 快， NordicVPS 有時候比 2HOST 快，不過他的機房比較遠


CPU
terryh:~# cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
cpu family : 15
model : 65
model name : Dual-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2216
stepping : 2
cpu MHz : 2399.998
cache size : 1024 KB
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 1
wp : yes
flags : fpu de tsc msr pae cx8 cmov pat clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt lm 3dnowext 3dnow up rep_good pni cx16 hypervisor lahf_lm cmp_legacy extapic cr8_legacy
bogomips : 4799.99
TLB size : 1024 4K pages
clflush size : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management: ts fid vid ttp tm stc

DISK read

terryh:~/unixbench-5.1.2# hdparm -tT /dev/xvda1

/dev/xvda1:
Timing cached reads: 1010 MB in 2.00 seconds = 504.33 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 92 MB in 3.09 seconds = 29.82 MB/sec


真是驚人的慢
Unixbench

========================================================================
BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.2)

System: terryh: GNU/Linux
OS: GNU/Linux -- 2.6.32.12-RX-domU-static -- #1 SMP Fri Jul 9 12:19:17 PDT 2010
Machine: x86_64 (unknown)
Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="UTF-8", collate="UTF-8")
CPU 0: Dual-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2216 (4800.0 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, AMD MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSCALL/SYSRET
10:23:10 up 1 day, 9:48, 1 user, load average: 0.39, 0.24, 0.15; runlevel 2

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Run: Fri Jul 16 2010 10:23:10 - 10:51:44
1 CPU in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests

Dhrystone 2 using register variables 10367411.9 lps (10.2 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 2267.5 MWIPS (9.9 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 1101.3 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 186946.1 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 56563.0 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 460470.8 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 280758.1 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 51376.1 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 2242.8 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 1543.3 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 218.6 lpm (60.2 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 292819.3 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)

System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 10367411.9 888.4
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 2267.5 412.3
Execl Throughput 43.0 1101.3 256.1
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 186946.1 472.1
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 56563.0 341.8
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 460470.8 793.9
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 280758.1 225.7
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 51376.1 128.4
Process Creation 126.0 2242.8 178.0
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 1543.3 364.0
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 218.6 364.4
System Call Overhead 15000.0 292819.3 195.2
========
System Benchmarks Index Score 328.9


redis-benchmark



====== SET ======
10038 requests completed in 0.71 seconds
50 parallel clients
3 bytes payload
keep alive: 1

16.59% <= 2 milliseconds
47.73% <= 3 milliseconds
88.00% <= 4 milliseconds
96.31% <= 5 milliseconds
99.96% <= 6 milliseconds
100.00% <= 7 milliseconds
14039.16 requests per second

====== GET ======
10032 requests completed in 0.72 seconds
50 parallel clients
3 bytes payload
keep alive: 1

15.43% <= 2 milliseconds
46.07% <= 3 milliseconds
88.77% <= 4 milliseconds
95.87% <= 5 milliseconds
99.85% <= 6 milliseconds
100.00% <= 7 milliseconds
13991.63 requests per second

====== SET ======
10038 requests completed in 0.71 seconds
50 parallel clients
3 bytes payload
keep alive: 1



PS: 這一系列的 VPS 文章，就到我找到好又便宜的，就不寫了，基本上，怎麼選才能找到好的供應商呢？基本的原則，就是他的 VPS node 都賣光光，就是好的

NordicVPS 體驗

是一家在德國，及美國都有資料中心的 VPS 供應商

我用的是在德國法蘭克福的 XEN 512 plan ，一個月大約 7.9 美元，缺點是網路有時慢一點，還有網路節點太多了點，到台灣接近要跳 28 個節點，這一個問題，說起來要怪台灣自己沒有什麼網路建設，連到歐洲，還要先連到美國，利用美國的網路連歐洲，就是自己網路建設擺爛，也怪不了別人，由中國連應該會好一點，目前沒有提供 32 bit 的作業系統

terry@terry:~$ traceroute 188.40.21.88
traceroute to 188.40.21.88 (188.40.21.88), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 3.819 ms 3.664 ms 4.008 ms
2 h254.s98.ts.hinet.net (168.95.98.254) 18.672 ms 19.914 ms 21.820 ms
3 TPE4-3301.hinet.net (168.95.100.198) 20.112 ms 21.911 ms 22.149 ms
4 TPE4-3202.hinet.net (220.128.5.174) 23.043 ms 23.282 ms 30.787 ms
5 TPDT-3011.hinet.net (220.128.3.22) 24.079 ms TPDT-3011.hinet.net (220.128.1.110) 24.553 ms TPDT-3012.hinet.net (220.128.2.170) 24.344 ms
6 r4003-s2.tp.hinet.net (220.128.2.121) 24.675 ms 13.918 ms 13.834 ms
7 r4001-s2.tp.hinet.net (220.128.3.42) 14.592 ms 220-128-7-209.HINET-IP.hinet.net (220.128.7.209) 15.573 ms 220-128-7-213.HINET-IP.hinet.net (220.128.7.213) 15.830 ms
8 r01-pa.us.hinet.net (211.72.108.217) 144.031 ms 147.047 ms 147.910 ms
9 r02-pa.us.hinet.net (202.39.83.9) 149.645 ms 149.950 ms 149.687 ms
10 12.94.42.5 (12.94.42.5) 150.094 ms 150.512 ms 150.244 ms
11 cr2.sffca.ip.att.net (12.122.114.74) 152.256 ms 145.959 ms 146.431 ms
12 cr2.sffca.ip.att.net (12.123.15.249) 146.009 ms 146.576 ms 147.348 ms
13 ggr3.sffca.ip.att.net (12.122.136.13) 148.238 ms 145.292 ms 145.701 ms
14 att-gw.sanfran.level3.net (192.205.33.82) 148.615 ms 149.203 ms 149.754 ms
15 vlan99.csw4.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.68.18.254) 152.019 ms 152.663 ms 153.306 ms
16 ae-94-94.ebr4.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.69.134.253) 155.105 ms 156.029 ms 157.745 ms
17 ae-2-2.ebr2.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.135.186) 217.692 ms 220.555 ms 223.110 ms
18 ae-6-6.ebr2.NewYork2.Level3.net (4.69.141.22) 220.646 ms 223.272 ms 223.407 ms
19 ae-1-100.ebr1.NewYork2.Level3.net (4.69.135.253) 218.361 ms 218.965 ms 220.418 ms
20 ae-3-3.ebr2.Washington1.Level3.net (4.69.132.89) 223.256 ms 224.563 ms 225.125 ms
21 ae-41-41.ebr2.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.69.137.49) 317.569 ms 316.868 ms 318.948 ms
22 ae-82-82.csw3.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.69.140.26) 317.328 ms ae-72-72.csw2.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.69.140.22) 324.085 ms ae-82-82.csw3.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.69.140.26) 319.405 ms
23 ae-1-69.edge3.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.68.23.11) 316.215 ms 319.606 ms ae-3-89.edge3.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.68.23.139) 319.650 ms
24 HETZNER-ONL.edge3.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (212.162.40.206) 310.752 ms 300.234 ms 302.646 ms
25 hos-bb1.juniper2.fs.hetzner.de (213.239.240.243) 308.332 ms hos-bb1.juniper1.fs.hetzner.de (213.239.240.242) 311.535 ms hos-bb1.juniper2.fs.hetzner.de (213.239.240.243) 310.499 ms
26 hos-tr4.ex3k13.rz10.hetzner.de (213.239.227.238) 312.012 ms hos-tr2.ex3k13.rz10.hetzner.de (213.239.227.174) 313.512 ms 312.964 ms
27 fra02.de.glbldc.com (188.40.136.196) 315.109 ms 306.433 ms 305.286 ms
28 vserver88.glbldc.com (188.40.21.88) 315.846 ms 307.739 ms 316.697 ms



UnixBench 4.1

==============================================================
BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 4.1-wht.2)
System -- Linux www.xxx.com 2.6.18-164.11.1.el5xen #1 SMP Wed Jan 20 08:06:04 EST 2010 x86_64 GNU/Linux
/dev/sda2 15481840 2608208 12087200 18% /

Start Benchmark Run: Tue Jul 13 04:54:47 UTC 2010
04:54:47 up 23:10, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.42, 1.20

End Benchmark Run: Tue Jul 13 05:05:05 UTC 2010
05:05:05 up 23:20, 2 users, load average: 13.74, 6.14, 3.31


INDEX VALUES
TEST BASELINE RESULT INDEX

Dhrystone 2 using register variables 376783.7 16605225.1 440.7
Double-Precision Whetstone 83.1 1637.7 197.1
Execl Throughput 188.3 4444.7 236.0
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 2672.0 171429.0 641.6
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1077.0 47289.0 439.1
File Read 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 15382.0 1469103.0 955.1
Pipe-based Context Switching 15448.6 298339.2 193.1
Pipe Throughput 111814.6 1029200.3 92.0
Process Creation 569.3 9798.1 172.1
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 44.8 1246.2 278.2
System Call Overhead 114433.5 1294781.3 113.1
=========
FINAL SCORE 268.9


UnixBench 5.1.2



========================================================================
BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.2)

System: www.xxx.com: GNU/Linux
OS: GNU/Linux -- 2.6.18-164.11.1.el5xen -- #1 SMP Wed Jan 20 08:06:04 EST 2010
Machine: x86_64 (unknown)
Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="UTF-8", collate="UTF-8")
CPU 0: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (6685.0 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET
CPU 1: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (6685.0 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET
CPU 2: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (6685.0 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET
CPU 3: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (6685.0 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET
14:50:04 up 3 days, 9:05, 4 users, load average: 1.66, 1.71, 1.18; runlevel 2

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Run: Thu Jul 15 2010 14:50:04 - 15:14:17
4 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests

Dhrystone 2 using register variables 14338210.6 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 2982.6 MWIPS (9.9 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 1155.5 lps (29.9 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 308608.0 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 77009.4 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 3060.4 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 3138.7 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (16 concurrent) 385.8 lpm (60.1 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 736.5 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 416088.7 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)

System Benchmarks Partial Index BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 14338210.6 1228.6
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 2982.6 542.3
Execl Throughput 43.0 1155.5 268.7
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 308608.0 248.1
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 77009.4 192.5
Process Creation 126.0 3060.4 242.9
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 3138.7 740.3
Shell Scripts (16 concurrent) --- 385.8 ---
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 736.5 1227.4
System Call Overhead 15000.0 416088.7 277.4
========
System Benchmarks Index Score (Partial Only) 432.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Run: Thu Jul 15 2010 15:14:17 - 15:39:13
4 CPUs in system; running 4 parallel copies of tests

Dhrystone 2 using register variables 32845851.0 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 10906.2 MWIPS (8.5 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 3433.6 lps (29.8 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 863458.1 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 230032.5 lps (10.1 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 7666.0 lps (30.1 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 6183.3 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (16 concurrent) 444.1 lpm (60.3 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 924.7 lpm (60.1 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 1161191.6 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)

System Benchmarks Partial Index BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 32845851.0 2814.6
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 10906.2 1982.9
Execl Throughput 43.0 3433.6 798.5
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 863458.1 694.1
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 230032.5 575.1
Process Creation 126.0 7666.0 608.4
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 6183.3 1458.3
Shell Scripts (16 concurrent) --- 444.1 ---
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 924.7 1541.1
System Call Overhead 15000.0 1161191.6 774.1
========
System Benchmarks Index Score (Partial Only) 1072.8

DISK

[root@www tmp$hdparm -tT /dev/sda1
/dev/sda1:
Timing cached reads: 10950 MB in 1.99 seconds = 5500.80 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 256 MB in 3.01 seconds = 84.92 MB/sec


redis-benchmark


[root@www redis-2.0.0-rc2$./redis-benchmark




====== PING ======
10012 requests completed in 0.25 seconds
50 parallel clients
3 bytes payload
keep alive: 1

5.44% <= 0 milliseconds
77.44% <= 1 milliseconds
96.50% <= 2 milliseconds
100.00% <= 3 milliseconds
40208.84 requests per second

====== PING (multi bulk) ======
10006 requests completed in 0.23 seconds
50 parallel clients
3 bytes payload
keep alive: 1

5.68% <= 0 milliseconds
80.94% <= 1 milliseconds
99.26% <= 2 milliseconds
100.00% <= 3 milliseconds
42944.21 requests per second
====== SET ======
10000 requests completed in 0.22 seconds
50 parallel clients
3 bytes payload
keep alive: 1

7.45% <= 0 milliseconds
84.34% <= 1 milliseconds
99.19% <= 2 milliseconds
99.91% <= 3 milliseconds
99.94% <= 4 milliseconds
99.97% <= 5 milliseconds
99.99% <= 7 milliseconds
100.00% <= 8 milliseconds
44843.05 requests per second

====== GET ======
10000 requests completed in 0.23 seconds
50 parallel clients
3 bytes payload
keep alive: 1

6.45% <= 0 milliseconds
83.29% <= 1 milliseconds
98.85% <= 2 milliseconds
99.82% <= 3 milliseconds
99.85% <= 4 milliseconds
99.88% <= 5 milliseconds
99.89% <= 6 milliseconds
99.91% <= 7 milliseconds
99.93% <= 8 milliseconds
99.95% <= 9 milliseconds
99.99% <= 10 milliseconds
100.00% <= 11 milliseconds
43859.65 requests per second



其他不貼了



就差網路節點有點多了，最佳 CP 值很有機會，cpu 還是 i7 的，最後不知道是不是他

Thrust::VPS aka DamnVPS unixbench score

I tried, comes the result.

千萬不要用這一家，最近在各個地方發折價的消息，嚴重超買 oversold ，我買的 512 plan，在完全沒有 覆載下測試，原本只是效能差，現在連 Disk IO sucks 都跟著爛掉了，

DamnVPS just make you feel worse than damn it.

XEN RAM 512 PV，and this plan only get one virtual core, the 1G plan get 2 virtual core

[root@www unixbench-4.1.0-wht-2]#cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 26
model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5520 @ 2.27GHz
stepping : 5
cpu MHz : 2260.998
cache size : 8192 KB
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 11
wp : yes
flags : fpu de tsc msr pae cx8 sep cmov pat clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht syscall nx lm constant_tsc up rep_good nonstop_tsc pni ssse3 cx16 sse4_1 sse4_2 popcnt hypervisor lahf_lm
bogomips : 4521.99
clflush size : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management:

[root@www unixbench-4.1.0-wht-2]#

==============================================================
BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 4.1-wht.2)
System -- Linux www.digez.com 2.6.33.3 #1 SMP Thu May 13 22:30:34 BST 2010 x86_64 GNU/Linux
/dev/xvda1 15481840 875544 13819864 6% /

Start Benchmark Run: Fri Jul 9 09:25:31 UTC 2010
09:25:31 up 15 min, 1 user, load average: 1.20, 0.45, 0.34

End Benchmark Run: Fri Jul 9 09:36:51 UTC 2010
09:36:51 up 26 min, 1 user, load average: 11.68, 5.21, 2.57


INDEX VALUES
TEST BASELINE RESULT INDEX

Dhrystone 2 using register variables 376783.7 4714790.9 125.1
Double-Precision Whetstone 83.1 1288.6 155.1
Execl Throughput 188.3 1560.9 82.9
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 2672.0 49626.0 185.7
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1077.0 13473.0 125.1
File Read 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 15382.0 415792.0 270.3
Pipe Throughput 111814.6 303484.5 27.1
Pipe-based Context Switching 15448.6 63447.0 41.1
Process Creation 569.3 3347.0 58.8
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 44.8 402.9 89.9
System Call Overhead 114433.5 269713.0 23.6
=========
FINAL SCORE 83.7

[root@www unixbench-4.1.0-wht-2]#df -h
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/xvda1 15G 856M 14G 6% /
tmpfs 249M 0 249M 0% /lib/init/rw
udev 249M 512K 249M 1% /dev
tmpfs 249M 4.0K 249M 1% /dev/shm
[root@www unixbench-4.1.0-wht-2]#hdparm -tT /dev/xvda1

/dev/xvda1:
Timing cached reads: 12366 MB in 1.99 seconds = 6229.16 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 668 MB in 3.01 seconds = 222.27 MB/sec



VPS 甘苦談

2host 便宜，穩定，可是超賣，效能到了美國上班時間，就會慢下來，網路速度不錯

HazeNET 便宜，效能最好，網路速度不錯，可是一天當機好幾次，我的 VPS 現在還是離線中

Thrust::VPS 便宜，網路速度不錯，可是機車的是 512 RAM 的 node 限制只有一顆 CPU，網路上別人說，unixbench 4.1 跑起來，沒有 200 分的可以丟了，他不到 100 分，不超賣，也不會給你用壓，用了幾天，還蠻穩定的，跟 2host 比起來，算是比較有人管，網路速度，也不錯，分數不高，算是便宜穩定的

ramhost 口碑不錯，可是機車，已經沒有了空的 node 了

Linode 口碑很好，可是價錢很硬，即使很多空的 node 賣不掉，就是不降價

結論就是，2host 加減用，有好的，評估一段時間在跳了，還好，我的系統，整理的ok，搬家打不到幾行指令就搞定

國外VPS比光世代還快

真是天下最大的笑話，由國外，下載國內的 FTP 站的速度，比我們的種花電信，還要快

說什麼發展數位內容，雲端技術，光是網路建設不進步，只知道壟斷，吸老百姓的鈔票，真不知道要發展什麼

terry@www:/tmp$ wget http://ftp.tku.edu.tw/debian-cd/5.0.3/amd64/iso-cd/debian-503-amd64-CD-1.iso
--2010-07-08 16:33:44-- http://ftp.tku.edu.tw/debian-cd/5.0.3/amd64/iso-cd/debian-503-amd64-CD-1.iso
Resolving ftp.tku.edu.tw... 163.13.240.201
Connecting to ftp.tku.edu.tw|163.13.240.201|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 678301696 (647M) [application/x-iso9660-image]
Saving to: `debian-503-amd64-CD-1.iso'

100%[===================================================================================>] 678,301,696 10.3M/s in 69s

2010-07-08 16:34:54 (9.31 MB/s) - `debian-503-amd64-CD-1.iso' saved [678301696/678301696]

NEW VPS HazeNet

買了新的 VPS

RAM 1024 MB，OpenVN，現在 40% OFF，花了 8.4 USD，真是超值，網路實測，封包不掉，到台灣學術往錄下載 ISO 檔，2host 因為是沒有限速，可以跑到1~3M之間網路速度，2host 算是大勝，因為 10TB ，幾乎算是不限頻寬， HazeNet 的VPS 大約在 600 KB/s 左右，跟我選的規格上面限速的差不多，他可以選，UNMETERED 5mbit，或是 500GB @ 50mbit，我暫時還是跑不限流量的，在 SolusVM 的管理介面裡，所有的資訊都會跟 VPS 的狀態同步，資訊比 2host 的圖表資料多，不過接下來，就看穩定性，還有看他們會不會跑路了

http://hazenet.co.uk/vps.html#



==============================================================
BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 4.1-wht.2)
System -- Linux www 2.6.18-194.3.1.el5.028stab069.6 #1 SMP Wed May 26 18:31:05 MSD 2010 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
/dev/simfs 41943040 494132 41448908 2% /

Start Benchmark Run: Tue Jul 6 20:18:41 MSD 2010
20:18:41 up 6:11, 1 user, load average: 0.03, 0.03, 0.00

End Benchmark Run: Tue Jul 6 20:29:08 MSD 2010
20:29:08 up 6:21, 1 user, load average: 11.50, 5.26, 2.36


INDEX VALUES
TEST BASELINE RESULT INDEX

Dhrystone 2 using register variables 376783.7 18596539.0 493.6
Double-Precision Whetstone 83.1 1446.7 174.1
Execl Throughput 188.3 16969.6 901.2
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 2672.0 345072.0 1291.4
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1077.0 98371.0 913.4
File Read 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 15382.0 2285021.0 1485.5
Pipe-based Context Switching 15448.6 891549.4 577.1
Pipe Throughput 111814.6 3107472.1 277.9
Process Creation 569.3 41569.8 730.2
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 44.8 2667.6 595.4
System Call Overhead 114433.5 2556660.4 223.4
=========
FINAL SCORE 571.3


順便在貼一下前一篇 2host Xen 512 MB 的 VPS 分數


BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 4.1-wht.2)
System -- Linux www.?????.com 2.6.18-164.15.1.el5xen #1 SMP Wed Mar 17 12:04:23 EDT 2010 x86_64 GNU/Linux
/dev/sda1 10321208 2974096 6822824 31% /

Start Benchmark Run: Tue Jun 29 17:17:07 CST 2010
17:17:07 up 5:08, 3 users, load average: 0.19, 0.17, 0.21

End Benchmark Run: Tue Jun 29 17:27:23 CST 2010
17:27:23 up 5:18, 3 users, load average: 16.73, 7.01, 3.15


INDEX VALUES
TEST BASELINE RESULT INDEX

Dhrystone 2 using register variables 376783.7 10227540.3 271.4
Double-Precision Whetstone 83.1 1484.0 178.6
Execl Throughput 188.3 1972.1 104.7
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 2672.0 108726.0 406.9
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1077.0 35313.0 327.9
File Read 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 15382.0 1262429.0 820.7
Pipe-based Context Switching 15448.6 230394.6 149.1
Pipe Throughput 111814.6 1214489.5 108.6
Process Creation 569.3 3573.8 62.8
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 44.8 591.7 132.1
System Call Overhead 114433.5 1044142.2 91.2
=========
FINAL SCORE 181.0


PS: 分數不代表一切，也不代表，效能你可以全用，不過爽度也蠻重要的，HazeNet 算是非常新的 VPS，可能等他一切都穩定了才知道，到底行不行，我三天，被換了，兩個 IP，老闆說，他放在 isp 的 server 出了點問題，所以現在是 offline 的

2host 心得

一開始使用時候，做一些壓力測試分數不算是突出的 VPS，可是實際使用起來，穩定性還不錯，網路連美國本土，還有台灣速度都還不錯，頻寬一個月10T 幾乎是無限使用，我根本用不完，網站跑起來，速度一點也不輸給，原本放在種花電信的速度，所以開始不用把 server 再放在自己家中，雖然管起來也很輕鬆，不過，要響應節能減碳，既然，自己的 server 用電一個月都花得比買 VPS 還貴，乾脆就用 VPS 吧，目前用一個星期來，很滿意，除了，有一次，我跑壓力測試，測的太兇，把 512 MB 的記憶體，還有 1G 的 SWAP 吃光光，機器自己 reboot 外，目前用起來，還蠻穩定的，跑兩個站，用 Django跑 fastcgi 再 nginx 後面，吃不到 200 MB （32 bit OS 可以吃更少），不過提供的 kernel 有點舊了，我用的是 Debian 2.6.18-164.15.1.el5xen，server 穩定就好了，也不必一昧的追新，這是使用一個星期的感想

這一星期，一直在比其他 VPS 的穩定性， unixbench 分數，還有就是網友的口碑，最好的是 Linode 不過價格就很硬了，現在記憶 512 MB的方案 19.95 元美金，和 2host 7.99 元美金貴了很多，雖然硬碟空間，還有 unixbench 及 redis-benchmark 的分數比較高，不過便宜是王，只要穩定性不差，就好了，另一家是 ramhost 口碑不錯，資訊很公開，有實際每一台主機的狀態，算是沒有超賣有口碑的 VPS 供應商，不過他是 OpenVZ 的我比較不喜歡，還是喜歡 Xen 的 VPS，資源分的比較乾淨，所以這完全是對個人口味的選擇。

另一點重要的是，他提供的價錢很迷人，頻寬很大，所以定期的備份是一定的，怕哪一天他跑路，這是不管用哪一家都必須注意的問題

再穩穩跑一陣子，以他連美國本土的速度優勢，程式交易，下美國的商品，應該延遲就可以贏很大了


最後說說缺點

管理介面的數值報表幾乎沒有，

硬碟空間，我選的 512 MB 的這一個方案只有 10G 的硬碟空間，Debian 只有 64 bit 可以選



還有更便宜的，像是新公司 http://hazenet.co.uk/