PDA

View Full Version : Is VPS really an altervative?



khaosan
12-27-2007, 03:17 AM
It seems to me VPS is glorified shared hosting. Is dedicated better?

K

transilvania
12-27-2007, 10:21 AM
Surely a dedi is much better.

dbihosting
01-01-2008, 10:12 PM
Not always. Depends on your situation.

mr_brain
01-02-2008, 01:11 PM
If you do not need guaranteed ressources, a vps is ok for your.

A dedi is especially good for security, e.g. storeing billing-data, etc. on it.

hostcritiq
01-02-2008, 08:48 PM
VPS is good if you want dedicated amount of memory and cpu at all times. But the problem is, having a good chunk of dedicated memory in a VPS plan, like 2 GB RAM, will cost you just as much as having your own dedicated server.

You can find a dedicated server for dual core with 2 GB memory for less than $140/month with unmetered 10mbps bandwidth.

And for very high traffic sites, VPS just can not handle a site with 250 MB of Ram or 512 MB of RAM. You need atleast 2 GB to 4 GB to function well.

But for small traffic sites, VPS is fine. But make sure you get a provider with a fast network, fast cpu and a lot of memory. I think network is crucial here, make sure they don't have an overloaded network, otherwise, page loading will be slow.

If performance is your thing, dedicated server is the way to go. But keep in mind, if you know nothing about linux server, you should go with a provider that has server management, so they can implement all the latest patches and server security programs for you. Otherwise, it is guaranteed to be hacked =p

~ServerPoint~
01-03-2008, 02:51 AM
Go to the WHT - there are therad caled dedicated vs VPS with about 1.2K posts. I'm more then sure that in that thread all things are spotlighted and all thisgs are reviewed.

sid07
01-07-2008, 12:24 PM
VPS is good if you want dedicated amount of memory and cpu at all times. But the problem is, having a good chunk of dedicated memory in a VPS plan, like 2 GB RAM, will cost you just as much as having your own dedicated server.

You can find a dedicated server for dual core with 2 GB memory for less than $140/month with unmetered 10mbps bandwidth.

And for very high traffic sites, VPS just can not handle a site with 250 MB of Ram or 512 MB of RAM. You need atleast 2 GB to 4 GB to function well.

But for small traffic sites, VPS is fine. But make sure you get a provider with a fast network, fast cpu and a lot of memory. I think network is crucial here, make sure they don't have an overloaded network, otherwise, page loading will be slow.

If performance is your thing, dedicated server is the way to go. But keep in mind, if you know nothing about linux server, you should go with a provider that has server management, so they can implement all the latest patches and server security programs for you. Otherwise, it is guaranteed to be hacked =p


Nicely said , yea I also am of the same opinion for a smaller site its always better to go for shared hosting as they are much cheaper to maintain .

grimlins
01-08-2008, 10:31 AM
Sometimes semi-dedi is a good variant.

redhotservers
01-09-2008, 04:10 PM
VPS is good if you want dedicated amount of memory and cpu at all times. But the problem is, having a good chunk of dedicated memory in a VPS plan, like 2 GB RAM, will cost you just as much as having your own dedicated server.

You can find a dedicated server for dual core with 2 GB memory for less than $140/month with unmetered 10mbps bandwidth.

And for very high traffic sites, VPS just can not handle a site with 250 MB of Ram or 512 MB of RAM. You need atleast 2 GB to 4 GB to function well.

But for small traffic sites, VPS is fine. But make sure you get a provider with a fast network, fast cpu and a lot of memory. I think network is crucial here, make sure they don't have an overloaded network, otherwise, page loading will be slow.

If performance is your thing, dedicated server is the way to go. But keep in mind, if you know nothing about linux server, you should go with a provider that has server management, so they can implement all the latest patches and server security programs for you. Otherwise, it is guaranteed to be hacked =p

right on target

alemcherry
01-16-2008, 05:27 PM
There is no way you can compare shared hosting with VPS. VPS is for small/medium sites who need root access/full contorl of their server. Shared hosting is for basic not critical sites.

~ServerPoint~
01-17-2008, 05:24 AM
Sometimes semi-dedi is a good variant.
Now it is the same as VPS. Have another name to have one more competitor request in SE.

Alcatrazz
01-22-2008, 04:23 AM
Hostcritiq, thanx for a very detailed and valid explanation.

A high-end VPS is definitely better than a low-end dedicated server in the majority of cases.
But a low-end VPS is definitely better than a shared hosting.
There are lots of companies that provide both types of VPS:
VPSlink.com, Serverpoint.com, VPSland.com,
A2hosting.com.

~ServerPoint~
01-23-2008, 05:27 AM
Thank you for warm words Alcatrazz. But I think that choise doesn't depend at all on the high or end level at all. There a lot of ather factors.

SiSHCO
01-25-2008, 05:43 PM
VDS is good solution for 10 or 15 web sites. If you want to host more then sites you need to dedicated server.

espero
02-10-2008, 08:45 AM
I do not agree with people who claim that VPS is always better choice than shared hosting.
Very import is to find good company for sharing hosting who do not oversell.
They are a couple companies where i have some sites with more than 50.000 unique visitors monthly and all sites run without any problem.
If you know hosts company that run powerful server with maximum number of 100 clients per server and with at least 4GB of memory then you can without any problem chose to be hosted by them.

ASP-Hosting.ca
02-19-2008, 03:49 PM
Dedicated is definitely better than VPS, especially if you run resource-hungry website utilizing lots of CPU and memory.

Ahmad
02-20-2008, 11:58 AM
high-end vps is better than low-end dedicated .

shakir
03-09-2008, 11:34 AM
Dedicated hosting is the best. And shared is nothing but giving small space and some other features. VPS is given a part of server with full controll on that part. Dedicated is giving a server completely on it u have full controll

Friend5
03-13-2008, 10:12 AM
Dedicated is much better than a VPS on all the terms.

clint999
05-05-2008, 04:03 AM
VDS is good solution for 10 or 15 web sites. If you want to host more then sites you need to dedicated server.

Callisto
05-05-2008, 05:22 AM
Not all sites need the amount of resources that dedicated packages offer, so VPS gives you this opportunity to save some costs but have the amount of control over you server analogous to that provided by the dedicated server.
And at the moment I think there are more discount deals concerning VPS than dedicated plans. At least looking at the plans of Asmallorange.com, Solidhost.com and GlobalTap.com, I see that their vps deals giveyou a lot of resources along with discounts.

clint999
05-05-2008, 04:01 PM
Not always. Depends on your situation.

randytaylor789
04-26-2011, 04:28 PM
But the difficulty is, having a superb chunk of devoted hardware in a VPS system, similar 2 GB RAM, give outlay you righteous as some as having your own devoted server.