AWS and the volume equation

Despite being one of the the worldwide most used block storage solution, Amazon’s General Purpose SSD is far away from being a general and versatile solution. Unlike other providers selling volumes based on device type and an hourly price per gigabytes, AWS made the choice to create products adapted to usages.

EBS : The Block Storage solutions

Behind the name of Elastic Block Store, 5 storage classes are available:

  • Magnetic: Historical Block Storage solution provided by AWS. As its name indicates, this product is powered-up by spinning disk making it inherently slow: 200 IOPS and 100 MB/s. But in the end of 2000s, it wasn’t a low-cost but a general purpose.
  • Throughput Optimized: Dedicated to large chunk processing, this product aims an optimal throughput. Still with HDD but efficient for Big Data or log processing.
  • Cold HDD: In the same branch than Throughput Optimized but with lower price and performance. Useful for data with less frequently accessed volume like cached data storage.
  • General Purpose SSD: This is the common volume type used by consumers and shouldn’t be taken as a standard SSD Block Storage. Firstly GP-SSD, is capped at 16KIOPS which is pretty low for an intensive workload. Secondly, its maximum performance are constrained by a credit system not letting you benefits permanently from the best performance. These both arguments make GP-SSD more appropriate for non-intensive workloads that do not require permanent charge.
  • Provisioned IOPS SSD: It’s an answer to the changing performance of General Purpose. This product allows user to define and pay for an amount of maximum IOPS going up to 64KIOPS. It makes possible storage-bound workloads but at a high price of $0.065 per provisioned IOPS.

Local storage

Block Storage isn’t the only one solution provided by Amazon Web Services, since I3 series, local NVMe-SSD are available for High-IOPS workloads. Let’s compare similar solutions on paper: i3.large vs r5.large + 500GB GP SSD.

Flavor CPU RAM Storage Monthly price
i3.large 2 16 475GB local NVMe-SSD $135
r5.large 2 16 General Purpose SSD $168.4

As you can see on table and chart below, for an equivalent solution in term of basic specifications, it’s much more worth opt in for the i3. Also, the NVMe devices are attached locally to I3 VMs without block storage creating a real gap in terms of IOPS and latency:

Features matter a lot

To do the a comparison of Block versus Local storage is inappropriate without taking in account features. In fact, despite its general lower performance Block Storage is a key component of Clouds’ flexibility and reliability. Where a Local device may focus on latency, Block is attractive by all its features such as snapshot/backups, replication, availability and more.
Here a small comparative table outlining general pro and cons:

Block Local
Latency Low to high Very low
IOPS Low to high High to very high
Replication Yes
Price Low to very high Included with instance
Size Up to +16TB Fixed at instance startup
Persistence Unlimited Instance lifespan
Hot-plug Yes No

We see that there are clearly 2 usages: A non-guaranteed high performance and a flexible one.

Top 10s Cloud Compute debriefing

We recently release our Top 10 for Cloud Compute North America and Europe. With the help of our automated platform we tested near to 20 cloud providers and selected the most interesting per region. These studies outline performance/price value of Cloud Computes and bound Block Storages. We focus on maximum performance delivered by general purpose infrastructures, their associated costs and where is the best efficiency per dollar spent.


For each provider, we tested 4 sets of VMs:

Category CPU RAM Extra storage
Small 2 4 100
Medium 4 8 150
Large 8 16 200
XLarge 16 32 500

From all the performance and pricing data we collected, the vendor selection was agnostically done, only by numbers with the following key metrics:

  • Hourly price
  • CPU Multi-thread performance
  • Volume IOPS
  • Volume bandwidth

Inherent biases

1. Hourly prices

De facto, most of the hyperscalers are penalized by the documents’ approach. Despite they could propose computing power at the edge of technology, the design of our subject doesn’t take in account the long term billing options such as 1 year or 3 years. These options are only proposed by big players such as Alibaba, AWS or Azure and you can consider up to 60% of discount if you subscribe to them.

2. Volume throttling

Next, hyperscalers generally throttle volume performance, where small and medium size vendors let you reach 3GB/sec and/or 1MIOPS with block storage, the big players stop around 3000 IOPS. This may seem low but it is guaranteed, where the possible 1MIOPS are neither stable nor predictable.

3. Compute focused

Finally, documents focus on compute: virtual machines and volumes, but cloud providers have so much to propose and especially big players. Server-less, Object Storage, DBaaS, with the variety of existing services, the whole value of a cloud vendors cannot be just about Cloud Compute.

Our insights at a glance

For those who don’t want to read the reports, here’s a small list of the leading providers:

Provider Price Compute Storage Region
Hetzner Very aggressive Average Average Europe
Kamatera Low Average High Worldwide
UpCloud Average High Guaranteed very high Worldwide
Oracle Cloud Average Average High Worldwide

What next ?

These documents will be renewed and their methodology improved. We want to bring more infrastructure characteristics like network and RAM. In the pursuit of objectivity, we think that we must diversify our reports to answer real life problematics such as:

  • Small and medium size providers
  • Hyperscalers
  • Country based
  • Provider origin based
  • Object storage, CDNs, DBaaS, Kubernetes, etc

We also want to digitalize this kind of report. Instead of just PDF, we wish to let consumer explore data with a web application. This will also let user appreciate more than 10 vendors without decrease reading quality.

For the meantime, do not hesitate take a look at our document center.


dd is not a benchmarking tool

There is a widely held idea in the Internet that a written snippet will be universally valid to test and produce comparable results from any machine. Said like that, this assertion is globally false but a piece of code, valid in a context, can do a lot of road on the web and easily fool a good amount of people. Benchmarks with dd are a good example. Which Unix nerd didn’t test his brand new device with dd ? The command outputs an accurate value in MB/sec, what more ?

The problem is already in benchmark conception

If I quickly get the dd’s user manual or more simple, the help text, I can read:

Copy a file, converting and formatting according to the operands.

If my goal was to benchmark a device, it already appears that this tool is not the most appropriate. Firstly, I don’t aim to copy anything but just read or write. Next, I don’t want to work with files but with block device. Then, I don’t need the announced features about data handling. The three points are really important, because they show how much the tool is inappropriate.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t denigrate dd. It personally saved me tons of hours with ISOs or disk migrations. But use it as a standard benchmark tool is more a hack than a reliable idea.

The first issue: The files

A major misconception of benchmark is in what I want to test and how I’ll do it. Here, our goal is HDD/SSD performance and pass by a filesystem can create a big biais in your analysis. Here the kind of command findable on the Internet:

dd bs=1M count=1024 if=/dev/zero of=/root/test

For those not familiar with dd, the above command creates a 1GB file containing only zeros at root user’s home: /root/test.  The authors generally claim the goal is to collect performance of the device where the file is stored, it’s poorly reached. Storage performance are mainly affected by a set of caches/buffers from the user level to the blocks located in SSD. File system is the main entry for users but as it is a software, it can hide you the reality of your hardware as good as well as bad.

By default, dd toward a file systems uses an asynchronous method, meaning that the if the written file is small enough to fit in RAM, the OS won’t write it on drive and will wait the most appropriate time to do so. In this configuration, the command’s output will absolutely not represent storage’s performance and as only volatile-memory is implied, dd displays very good performance.

At Cloud Mercato, as we want to reflect infrastructure performance, we bypass file system as much as possible and directly test device by its absolute path. So from our benchmark you know your hardware possibilities and can boost them with the file system of your choice. There’s only few cases where files are involved such as test root volume in write mode, you mustn’t not write on your root device directly or you’ll erase its OS.

Second issue: A tool without data generation

dd is designed around the concept of copy, it is also quite well explained by its long name “Data Duplicator”. Fortunately in Unix everything is a file and kernels provide pseudo-files generating data. There are:

  • /dev/zero
  • /dev/random
  • /dev/urandom

Under the hood, these pseudo-files are real software and suffer from this. /dev/zero is CPU bound but because it only produces zeros, it cannot represent a real workload. /dev/random is quite slow due to its high randomness and /dev/urandom is too intensive in term of CPU cycles.

Basically, you may not reach the storage maximum performance if you are limited by CPU. Moreover, dd isn’t a multi-thread software, so only one thread at once can stress the device decreasing chances to get the best.

Third: A lack of features

It is said, dd is not a benchmarking tool, if you look at the the open-source catalog of storage testing and the common features, dd, not being intended for this purpose, it is out of competition:

  • Single thread only
  • No optimized data generation
  • No access mode: Sequential or random
  • No deep control such as I/O depth
  • Only average bandwidth, no IOPS, latency or percentiles
  • No mixed patterns: read/write
  • No time control

This shortened list is eloquent, Data-Duplicator doesn’t provide the necessary features to be declared as a performance test tool.

Then the solution

Here are real benchmark tools that you can use:

FIO is really our daily tool (if not hourly), it brings to us possibilities not imaginable with dd like IO depth or random access. vdbench is also very handy, in a similar concept than FIO, you can create complex scenario such as imply multiple files in read/write access.

In conclusion, benchmark is not only a suite of commands ran in a shell. Executed tests and expected output really depend of context: What do you want to test ? Which component should be implied ? Why this value will represent something ? Any snippets taken on the Internet may have its value in a certain environment and be untruthful in another. It’s up to the tester to understand these factors and chose the appropriate tool to her/his purpose.