lightsail instance disk performance

2

why lightsail instance's disk performance is so poor? I've launched 40 usd instance 8gb one it has 30mb/s I/O. my crappy old HDD laptop can max out 100mb/s I/o. AWS charges a premium for the lightsail instance but performance is very poor. is it only me or everyone is getting the same low hardware instance being allocated?

asked 2 years ago886 views
3 Answers
2

Hello, I have tested several VPS and I confirm that lightsail has very low performance discs. Attention that it is not true that EC2 is better from this point of view, from the tests the performances are the same.

AWS Lightsail 1CPU 2GB (Frankfurt) Disk write: 67 MB/s Disk read: 68 MB/s

AWS EC2 1CPU 2GB (Frankfurt) Disk write: 67,50 MB/s Disk read: 68,10 MB/s

Really very low compared to other VPS tested:

DigitalOcean AMD 1CPU 2GB (Frankfurt) Disk write: 935,00 MB/s Disk read: 1536,00 MB/s

Aruba Cloud 1CPU 2GB (Frankfurt) Disk write: 745,00 MB/s Disk read: 1228,80 MB/s

answered 2 years ago
0

Lightsail instances aren't intended for high performance.

If you need high performance, you probably want to look into EC2.

profile picture
David G
answered 2 years ago
  • well in the same price other cloud providers are giving better performance than ec2 actually, DO has average 600-700mb/s I/o linode has 1gb/s I/o. i'm not looking for a powerful machine with 1gb/s I/o but at least in this modern time 100mb/s should be the standard norm.

  • If you need high performance, and AWS isn't providing the performance/$ ratio you need, switch to the other provider.

    Every user is different, every application is different, go with the provider that satisfies your requirements the best.

  • Indeed EC2 has the same low performance detail on disk depending on the used instance.

    Now I understand that if AWS may not meet the use case, it makes sense to use another Cloud, but I also agree that AWS should improve, even more so for the amounts charged, mainly in terms of bandwidth and disk usage and when compared to other Clouds, some with lower inclusive prices and great uptime.

    AWS needs to improve mainly on disk and limited CPU Burst in the long term close to other Clouds. In any case, for the majority of use cases it will serve very well and there are always options with more IOPS, with overall more constant overall performance and uptime.

0

The performance of the disks really leaves something to be desired, but perhaps depending on the use case it is not so relevant, but any system that uses disk caching will suffer a lot, I recommend using Redis or Mencached if you use smaller instances and with a lower performance disk.

They mainly need to optimize the disks and CPU performance in the long term, which has been inferior to some Clouds. An interesting comparison: https://www.vpsbenchmarks.com/compare/lightsail_vs_docean It would be interesting for AWS itself to make Bencharmks of each instance even for the purpose of comparing the options.

answered a year ago

You are not logged in. Log in to post an answer.

A good answer clearly answers the question and provides constructive feedback and encourages professional growth in the question asker.

Guidelines for Answering Questions