Linode Nanode (1 GB) vs. Linode Linode (2 GB)
New day, new benchmarks. Today I've spun up brand new instance from Linode to run some benchmarks on. All instances were spun up with Ubuntu 24.04 LTS x64 and all resided in or around the New York / New Jersey area. Enough talk. Here's the data.
Overview
Linode – Nanode (1 GB) | Linode – Linode (2 GB) | |
---|---|---|
Last Benchmarked | Mon, 25 Aug 2025 13:00:52 GMT | Mon, 25 Aug 2025 22:00:52 GMT |
Linux Distro | Ubuntu 24.04 LTS x64 | Ubuntu 24.04 LTS x64 |
Kernel Version | 6.8.0-71-generic | 6.8.0-71-generic |
MySQL Version | 8.0.43-0ubuntu0.24.04.1 | 8.0.43-0ubuntu0.24.04.1 |
Redis Version | 7.0.15 | 7.0.15 |
Location | Newark, NJ | Newark, NJ |
Monthly Price | $5.00 | $12.00 |
RAM (GB) | 1 | 2 |
CPU Cores | 1 | 1 |
Storage (TB) | 25 | 50 |
Storage Type | SSD | SSD |
Transfer (TB) | 1 | 2 |
CPU
Linode – Nanode (1 GB) | Linode – Linode (2 GB) | |
---|---|---|
Vendor | AuthenticAMD | AuthenticAMD |
Model Name | AMD EPYC 7713 64-Core Processor | AMD EPYC 7713 64-Core Processor |
Clock Speed (MHz) | 2,000.00 | 2,000.00 |
CPU Cache Size (KB) | 512.00 | 512.00 |
BogoMips | 4,000.00 | 4,000.00 |
Events per Second | 1,709.10 | 1,666.84 |
Minimum Latency (ms) | 0.28 | 0.28 |
Average Latency (ms) | 0.58 | 0.6 |
Maximum Latency (ms) | 3.53 | 9.85 |
95th Percentile Latency (ms) | 2.03 | 2.03 |
Memory
Memory Read
Linode – Nanode (1 GB) | Linode – Linode (2 GB) | |
---|---|---|
Operations per second | 5,389,227.66 | 2,632,191.94 |
Mebibytes per second | 5,262.92 | 2,570.50 |
Minimum Latency (ms) | 0 | 0 |
Average Latency (ms) | 0 | 0 |
Maximum Latency (ms) | 2.68 | 6.39 |
95th Percentile Latency (ms) | 0 | 0 |
Memory Write
Linode – Nanode (1 GB) | Linode – Linode (2 GB) | |
---|---|---|
Operations per second | 5,415,718.29 | 4,852,051.43 |
Mebibytes per second | 5,288.79 | 4,738.33 |
Minimum Latency (ms) | 0 | 0 |
Average Latency (ms) | 0 | 0 |
Maximum Latency (ms) | 2.63 | 2.32 |
95th Percentile Latency (ms) | 0 | 0 |
File I/O
Linode – Nanode (1 GB) | Linode – Linode (2 GB) | |
---|---|---|
Reads per Second | 2,297.45 | 2,599.90 |
Writes per Second | 1,531.64 | 1,733.27 |
Fsyncs per Second | 4,911.47 | 5,549.02 |
Read Mebibytes per Second | 35.90 | 40.62 |
Written Mebibytes per Second | 23.93 | 27.08 |
Minimum Latency (ms) | 0 | 0 |
Average Latency (ms) | 0.11 | 0.1 |
Maximum Latency (ms) | 4.66 | 3.82 |
95th Percentile Latency (ms) | 0.29 | 0.25 |
Mutex
Linode – Nanode (1 GB) | Linode – Linode (2 GB) | |
---|---|---|
Minimum Latency (ms) | 1,636.97 | 1,640.96 |
Average Latency (ms) | 1,644.52 | 1,650.13 |
Maximum Latency (ms) | 1,650.06 | 1,659.73 |
95th Percentile Latency (ms) | 1,648.20 | 1,648.20 |
MySQL
MySQL Read-only
Linode – Nanode (1 GB) | Linode – Linode (2 GB) | |
---|---|---|
Transactions per second | 7,736.00 | 7,667.00 |
Queries per second | 77,360.00 | 76,670.00 |
Minimum Latency (ms) | 1.18 | 1.18 |
Average Latency (ms) | 1.29 | 1.3 |
Maximum Latency (ms) | 5.12 | 5.17 |
95th Percentile Latency (ms) | 1.47 | 1.5 |
MySQL Write-only
Linode – Nanode (1 GB) | Linode – Linode (2 GB) | |
---|---|---|
Transactions per second | 5,729.00 | 5,875.00 |
Queries per second | 57,290.00 | 58,750.00 |
Minimum Latency (ms) | 1.16 | 1.18 |
Average Latency (ms) | 1.74 | 1.7 |
Maximum Latency (ms) | 19.56 | 5.64 |
95th Percentile Latency (ms) | 2.3 | 2.35 |
MySQL Read/Write
Linode – Nanode (1 GB) | Linode – Linode (2 GB) | |
---|---|---|
Transactions per second | 2,905.00 | 2,923.00 |
Queries per second | 29,050.00 | 29,230.00 |
Minimum Latency (ms) | 2.54 | 2.53 |
Average Latency (ms) | 3.44 | 3.42 |
Maximum Latency (ms) | 9.03 | 8.89 |
95th Percentile Latency (ms) | 4.25 | 4.33 |
MySQL INSERT
Linode – Nanode (1 GB) | Linode – Linode (2 GB) | |
---|---|---|
Transactions per second | 8,887.00 | 8,563.00 |
Queries per second | 88,870.00 | 85,630.00 |
Minimum Latency (ms) | 0.67 | 0.67 |
Average Latency (ms) | 1.12 | 1.16 |
Maximum Latency (ms) | 6.15 | 24.59 |
95th Percentile Latency (ms) | 1.42 | 1.52 |
MySQL Bulk INSERT
Linode – Nanode (1 GB) | Linode – Linode (2 GB) | |
---|---|---|
Transactions per second | 1,608,842.00 | 1,492,342.00 |
Queries per second | 16,088,420.00 | 14,923,420.00 |
Minimum Latency (ms) | 0 | 0 |
Average Latency (ms) | 0.01 | 0.01 |
Maximum Latency (ms) | 340.01 | 353.28 |
95th Percentile Latency (ms) | 0 | 0 |
MySQL SELECT
Linode – Nanode (1 GB) | Linode – Linode (2 GB) | |
---|---|---|
Transactions per second | 165,329.00 | 167,040.00 |
Queries per second | 1,653,290.00 | 1,670,400.00 |
Minimum Latency (ms) | 0.05 | 0.05 |
Average Latency (ms) | 0.06 | 0.06 |
Maximum Latency (ms) | 10.74 | 3.88 |
95th Percentile Latency (ms) | 0.08 | 0.08 |
MySQL SELECT (Random Points)
Linode – Nanode (1 GB) | Linode – Linode (2 GB) | |
---|---|---|
Transactions per second | 9,736.00 | 9,579.00 |
Queries per second | 97,360.00 | 95,790.00 |
Minimum Latency (ms) | 0.37 | 0.37 |
Average Latency (ms) | 1.03 | 1.04 |
Maximum Latency (ms) | 4.34 | 5.74 |
95th Percentile Latency (ms) | 1.32 | 1.34 |
MySQL SELECT (Random Ranges)
Linode – Nanode (1 GB) | Linode – Linode (2 GB) | |
---|---|---|
Transactions per second | 9,526.00 | 9,718.00 |
Queries per second | 95,260.00 | 97,180.00 |
Minimum Latency (ms) | 0.39 | 0.32 |
Average Latency (ms) | 1.05 | 1.03 |
Maximum Latency (ms) | 5.19 | 3.9 |
95th Percentile Latency (ms) | 1.34 | 1.32 |
MySQL UPDATE (Indexed)
Linode – Nanode (1 GB) | Linode – Linode (2 GB) | |
---|---|---|
Transactions per second | 8,339.00 | 8,384.00 |
Queries per second | 83,390.00 | 83,840.00 |
Minimum Latency (ms) | 0.7 | 0.72 |
Average Latency (ms) | 1.2 | 1.19 |
Maximum Latency (ms) | 5.67 | 6.08 |
95th Percentile Latency (ms) | 1.58 | 1.67 |
MySQL UPDATE (Non-Indexed)
Linode – Nanode (1 GB) | Linode – Linode (2 GB) | |
---|---|---|
Transactions per second | 8,527.00 | 9,018.00 |
Queries per second | 85,270.00 | 90,180.00 |
Minimum Latency (ms) | 0.7 | 0.67 |
Average Latency (ms) | 1.17 | 1.11 |
Maximum Latency (ms) | 5.57 | 4.82 |
95th Percentile Latency (ms) | 1.5 | 1.42 |
MySQL DELETE
Linode – Nanode (1 GB) | Linode – Linode (2 GB) | |
---|---|---|
Transactions per second | 80,676.00 | 81,105.00 |
Queries per second | 806,760.00 | 811,050.00 |
Minimum Latency (ms) | 0.05 | 0.05 |
Average Latency (ms) | 0.12 | 0.12 |
Maximum Latency (ms) | 10.37 | 6.01 |
95th Percentile Latency (ms) | 0.34 | 0.33 |
Redis
Linode – Nanode (1 GB) | Linode – Linode (2 GB) | |
---|---|---|
PING_INLINE per Second | 47,528.52 | 47,687.18 |
PING_MBULK per Second | 48,332.53 | 47,801.15 |
SET per Second | 46,882.33 | 47,036.69 |
GET per Second | 47,483.38 | 47,846.89 |
INCR per Second | 44,228.22 | 46,554.93 |
LPUSH per Second | 47,058.82 | 46,663.56 |
RPUSH per Second | 46,948.36 | 47,415.84 |
LPOP per Second | 45,829.52 | 44,722.72 |
RPOP per Second | 46,598.32 | 46,274.87 |
SADD per Second | 46,926.32 | 46,382.19 |
HSET per Second | 47,192.07 | 46,598.32 |
SPOP per Second | 47,778.31 | 47,687.18 |
ZADD per Second | 43,535.05 | 46,403.71 |
ZPOPMIN per Second | 47,393.37 | 47,483.38 |
LRANGE_100 (first 100 elements) per Second | 31,836.99 | 30,339.81 |
LRANGE_300 (first 300 elements) per Second | 17,771.46 | 16,812.38 |
LRANGE_500 (first 500 elements) per Second | 12,277.47 | 11,745.36 |
LRANGE_600 (first 600 elements) per Second | 10,720.41 | 10,308.22 |
MSET (10 keys) per Second | 43,290.04 | 41,339.40 |
Redis Average Latency (ms)
Linode – Nanode (1 GB) | Linode – Linode (2 GB) | |
---|---|---|
PING_INLINE | 0.73 | 0.73 |
PING_MBULK | 0.72 | 0.72 |
SET | 0.74 | 0.74 |
GET | 0.73 | 0.73 |
INCR | 0.77 | 0.74 |
LPUSH | 0.74 | 0.74 |
RPUSH | 0.73 | 0.73 |
LPOP | 0.75 | 0.77 |
RPOP | 0.75 | 0.76 |
SADD | 0.74 | 0.75 |
HSET | 0.74 | 0.74 |
SPOP | 0.73 | 0.73 |
ZADD | 0.80 | 0.75 |
ZPOPMIN | 0.73 | 0.73 |
LRANGE_100 (first 100 elements) | 1.10 | 1.16 |
LRANGE_300 (first 300 elements) | 1.99 | 2.07 |
LRANGE_500 (first 500 elements) | 2.80 | 2.92 |
LRANGE_600 (first 600 elements) | 3.21 | 3.37 |
MSET (10 keys) | 0.81 | 0.83 |
Conclusion
From the friendly robots:
After analyzing the benchmark results for the two Linode instances, it's clear that the Linode (2 GB) instance offers slightly better performance across most metrics compared to the Linode Nanode (1 GB) instance, particularly in Redis operations and MySQL OLTP tasks. The Linode (2 GB) instance shows higher RPS rates and lower latencies in Redis benchmarks, as well as better throughput and lower latencies in MySQL operations. While both instances perform well, the Linode (2 GB) instance is more suited for workloads that require higher RAM and CPU performance, such as memory-intensive applications, database operations, and I/O-heavy tasks. Conversely, the Linode Nanode (1 GB) instance is ideal for lighter workloads, such as small web servers or applications that do not require extensive CPU or memory resources.
From the friendly human:
If you found this VPS Showdown helpful in your search for a hosting provider, please consider supporting my efforts by signing up using my referral link for Linode.
You can also support me directly by buying me a coffee.