Is VPS really an altervative?

[khaosan]

It seems to me VPS is glorified shared hosting. Is dedicated better?

K

[transilvania]

Surely a dedi is much better.

[dbihosting]

Not always. Depends on your situation.

[mr_brain]

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]

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~]

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]

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]

Sometimes semi-dedi is a good variant.

[redhotservers]

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]

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~]

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]

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~]

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]

VDS is good solution for 10 or 15 web sites. If you want to host more then sites you need to dedicated server.

[espero]

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.