mersenneforum.org Amazon EC2
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2013-04-04, 15:16 #1 patrik     "Patrik Johansson" Aug 2002 Uppsala, Sweden 52×17 Posts Amazon EC2 I've been trying out the Amazon EC2 linux sites the last few days after noticing chalsall's post last week. (The noticing took place last week.) I've attached an image of the benchmarks I got. I also ran some real iterations of double checks and first time tests. (I.e. only double checks with FFT size 1728K running, or only first time tests (possibly of a few different sizes, since I got them at different times) running.) Lines with those timings are given just below the well-known lines. I ran the first tests on their site in Europe, and then I moved to Oregon, since that is slightly cheaper (at least right now). The names follow the same naming convention as Amazon do, or an abbreviation thereof. I have appended "-oreg" to the computer names of the tests in Oregon. The benchmark of t1.micro is somewhat misleading, since you only get those times for a short time. For a longer time you may get a sixth of that throughput. I did not notice any slowing down of the first time tests when running first time tests on all cores versus running first time tests on most cores but double checks on the rest. Spot instances of "Cluster Compute Eight Extra Large" (cc2.8xlarge) in Oregon seems to give the best bang for the buck at present. Edit: I meant to post this in the Hardware forum (not in the GPU subforum). Can someone with mod rights move it, please? Attached Thumbnails   Last fiddled with by patrik on 2013-04-04 at 16:00
2013-04-04, 17:23   #2
chalsall
If I May

"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002

132·59 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by patrik The benchmark of t1.micro is somewhat misleading, since you only get those times for a short time. For a longer time you may get a sixth of that throughput. I did not notice any slowing down of the first time tests when running first time tests on all cores versus running first time tests on most cores but double checks on the rest.
Interesting analysis. Thanks for sharing.

It is known that the t1.micro instances are not really intended for CPU bound jobs -- they can be used for such, but they're slow. They are best for things like low-load web serving, DNS serving, and file transfers into a ECS volume for processing under a larger instance later. (I use them for the latter two applications.)

Quote:
 Originally Posted by patrik Spot instances of "Cluster Compute Eight Extra Large" (cc2.8xlarge) in Oregon seems to give the best bang for the buck at present.
It is also known that the larger VM instances give you better performance, since you tend to get most of the "real" machine.

Also, for this type of work, "Spot" instances are definitely the way to go. For one of my projects (computer vision), it is almost cheaper to rent a EC2 virtual machine than to pay the electricity to run an equivalent machine here in Bimshire. Factor in (no pun intended) the fact that there's no capital expenditure, and I can spin them up only when I need them (and as many as I need), it's a big win for me.

 2013-05-08, 11:22 #3 Manpowre   "Svein Johansen" May 2013 Norway 3×67 Posts interesting This is very interesting, I also see EC2 has GPU cloud with 2x Tesla boards.. any test on this with MfaktC ?
 2013-05-09, 05:54 #4 Karl M Johnson     Mar 2010 3·137 Posts No point, mfaktc does not use dp fp calculations. Last fiddled with by Karl M Johnson on 2013-05-09 at 05:55
2013-05-11, 22:17   #5
Manpowre

"Svein Johansen"
May 2013
Norway

3×67 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Karl M Johnson No point, mfaktc does not use dp fp calculations.
Ahh, Only CudaLucas that does that.. gotcha.

2013-05-11, 23:49   #6
TheJudger

"Oliver"
Mar 2005
Germany

11×101 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Karl M Johnson No point, mfaktc does not use dp fp calculations.
At least no in performance relevant sections. Some screen outputs are calculated as double and sieve initialization and worktodo parsing (checking limits) use very few DP instructions. But again: not performance relevant!

Oliver

 2014-04-19, 14:40 #7 patrik     "Patrik Johansson" Aug 2002 Uppsala, Sweden 1101010012 Posts As a follow-up of this old thread, I just want to say that I have just benchmarked the new servers Amazon provide, especially their c3.8xlarge machine. Compared to the old cc2.8xlarge, iteration times are about 13% lower for the new c3.8xlarge, while being just under 1.2% more expensive per hour with the spot instance prices at their lowest level. (This is while testing 16 exponents with 3840K FFT.) However, it is important to select the correct virtualization type: hvm. You select that when you choose the so called AMI (Amazon Machine Image), containing OS etc. for your instance. Otherwise the iteration times get much worse. Code: File Setup Iterations Avg. time (ms) ============================================================================== c3.8xlarge: bench1 16 workers, 32 threads, paravirtual 1180000 49.6707 bench2 16 workers, 32 threads, paravirtual 130000 49.0276 bench3 16 workers, 32 threads, hvm 3160000 31.7276 bench4 16 workers, 16 threads, hvm 34140000 30.8819 bench5 16 workers, 16 threads, hvm 51190000 30.895 Compare old cluster cc2.8xlarge: bench1 16 workers, 32 threads, hvm 480000 37.5672 bench2 16 workers, 16 threads, hvm 810000 35.5468 Attached Thumbnails   Last fiddled with by patrik on 2014-04-19 at 14:43 Reason: Times are in ms
2014-04-20, 08:51   #8
ET_
Banned

"Luigi"
Aug 2002
Team Italia

2×3×5×7×23 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by patrik As a follow-up of this old thread, I just want to say that I have just benchmarked the new servers Amazon provide, especially their c3.8xlarge machine. Compared to the old cc2.8xlarge, iteration times are about 13% lower for the new c3.8xlarge, while being just under 1.2% more expensive per hour with the spot instance prices at their lowest level. (This is while testing 16 exponents with 3840K FFT.) However, it is important to select the correct virtualization type: hvm. You select that when you choose the so called AMI (Amazon Machine Image), containing OS etc. for your instance. Otherwise the iteration times get much worse. Code: File Setup Iterations Avg. time (ms) ============================================================================== c3.8xlarge: bench1 16 workers, 32 threads, paravirtual 1180000 49.6707 bench2 16 workers, 32 threads, paravirtual 130000 49.0276 bench3 16 workers, 32 threads, hvm 3160000 31.7276 bench4 16 workers, 16 threads, hvm 34140000 30.8819 bench5 16 workers, 16 threads, hvm 51190000 30.895 Compare old cluster cc2.8xlarge: bench1 16 workers, 32 threads, hvm 480000 37.5672 bench2 16 workers, 16 threads, hvm 810000 35.5468
Are there price differences between hvm(AMI) and paravirtual?

Luigi
---

 2014-04-20, 12:16 #9 patrik     "Patrik Johansson" Aug 2002 Uppsala, Sweden 42510 Posts As I understand there are free AMI's for either paravirtual or HVM, and you pay the time you have the instance (and for storage and I/O). However, I can't access the details of my bill yet. I'm actually not sure that it is the virtualization that matters, but that is the only difference in the description that I can find between the two images I've tried. Last fiddled with by patrik on 2014-04-20 at 12:16 Reason: spelling
2014-04-20, 16:11   #10
ET_
Banned

"Luigi"
Aug 2002
Team Italia

2×3×5×7×23 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by patrik As I understand there are free AMI's for either paravirtual or HVM, and you pay the time you have the instance (and for storage and I/O). However, I can't access the details of my bill yet. I'm actually not sure that it is the virtualization that matters, but that is the only difference in the description that I can find between the two images I've tried.
I see. Thanks!

luihgi

2014-06-17, 18:04   #11
Mark Rose

"/X\(‘-‘)/X\"
Jan 2013

37×79 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by ET_ Are there price differences between hvm(AMI) and paravirtual? Luigi ---
Not directly. The newer generation HVM hardware (m3/c3/r3/i2/g2) is about 40% cheaper than the older PVM hardware. The m3 instances can also run PVM, but I would always run HVM if possible as there's way less jitter with disk and network IO.

On-demand pricing is cheaper than buying if you only need it for a short time. If you are running hardware for more than a few months per year, you're way better off buying a reservation than paying on-demand pricing (can be up to 70% cheaper). Reserved pricing is competitive with running your own hardware if you have to pay someone to maintain that hardware, network, etc.

If you're looking to rent hardware for crunching primes Digital Ocean is a far better deal. For $5/month, you'll get a VPS that will give performance of about half a c3.large that would cost you$75/month on-demand.

AMIs are usually free, but they will charge more per hour if you run Windows or other paid AMIs.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post ixfd64 Lounge 20 2018-04-24 06:53 GP2 Cloud Computing 154 2017-03-29 16:02 kladner Science & Technology 7 2017-03-02 14:18 ixfd64 Factoring 3 2012-06-06 08:27 jasong jasong 14 2007-12-13 21:02

All times are UTC. The time now is 22:06.

Thu Oct 28 22:06:55 UTC 2021 up 97 days, 16:35, 0 users, load averages: 1.10, 1.18, 1.24