VPS hosting

[ultrono]

Is VPS hosting any better than the regular shared hosting in terms of perfomance/speed, etc?

I'm looking for a reliable VPS package nowadays.. Any recommendations/suggestions would be highly appreciated.

Thanks.

[zhaoke]

Certainly, u will get better performance and speed than shared hosting. if ur host is complaining of excess CPU and memory usage. i recommend http://linode.com, i use their VPS to host my site.

[Gene Steinberg]

Is VPS hosting any better than the regular shared hosting in terms of perfomance/speed, etc?

I'm looking for a reliable VPS package nowadays.. Any recommendations/suggestions would be highly appreciated.

Thanks.

OK, I've been using HostICan's VPS-Extreme service for nearly two months. It's extremely reliable, with great performance and support.

Here's a direct link to their VPS feature page for the cPanel version (they also have a version for Plesk fans):

http://www.hostican.com/hosting/cpanel-vps.php

Peace,
Gene Steinberg

[encryption]

Regarding VPS hosting being better than shared or semi-dedicated hosting, it's a an unfortunate reality made true by webhosts who overcrowd the daylights out of their servers. That is exactly why the buzz of VPS hosting has caught on.

If you find a webhost who doesn't overcrowd his servers, your site will perform flawlessly even on a shared/semi-dedicated environment and your package will definitely be cheaper.

[Gene Steinberg]

Regarding VPS hosting being better than shared or semi-dedicated hosting, it's a an unfortunate reality made true by webhosts who overcrowd the daylights out of their servers. That is exactly why the buzz of VPS hosting has caught on.

If you find a webhost who doesn't overcrowd his servers, your site will perform flawlessly even on a shared/semi-dedicated environment and your package will definitely be cheaper.

With VPS you get full root access and management of your system, similar to a dedicated server. And you are mostly isolated from others on your server, who might abuse the system. I can see advantages in that setup. I was in a shared setup, and had, mostly at least, good performance. So it doesn't seem that the previous host (DreamHost) was overcrowding anything.

However, things are far better with my VPS setup. I don't pay hard-earned money for shell games, my friend.

Peace,
Gene

[encryption]

A VPS is a cheaper option for those seeking root/whm access to their sites and are not wanting to shell out big bucks for a dedicated server. However most members on here looking for an "effective" solution are mainly seeking a dependable place to run a forum without having to worry about the nitty-gritty of backend/management stuff. A VPS just isn't cut out for individuals like these.

Moreover if you find a decent webhost who can customize a semi-dedicated package for you based on your requirement and the webhost knows what they are doing in terms of monitoring server load, you end up with a cheaper hosting option (as compared to a VPS) that will allow your site to perform at least as good (if not better) and the client doesn't have to worry about "managing" the VPS and dedicate more time on their forum.

I can't comment on your "mostly at least, good performance" with DreamHost because I'm not them. I know what I do and I'm basing my opinion on what I provide as a webhost.

[ultrono]

Thanks a lot everyone, for the replies .

I'll definitely checkout HostIcan, Gene Steinberg.

[Gene Steinberg]

A VPS is a cheaper option for those seeking root/whm access to their sites and are not wanting to shell out big bucks for a dedicated server. However most members on here looking for an "effective" solution are mainly seeking a dependable place to run a forum without having to worry about the nitty-gritty of backend/management stuff. A VPS just isn't cut out for individuals like these.

Moreover if you find a decent webhost who can customize a semi-dedicated package for you based on your requirement and the webhost knows what they are doing in terms of monitoring server load, you end up with a cheaper hosting option (as compared to a VPS) that will allow your site to perform at least as good (if not better) and the client doesn't have to worry about "managing" the VPS and dedicate more time on their forum.

I can't comment on your "mostly at least, good performance" with DreamHost because I'm not them. I know what I do and I'm basing my opinion on what I provide as a webhost.

OK, understand that VPS is available with a managed option, so you can have them do the heavy-lifting. Of course that costs extra, and it's not what I have, since I can handle most of that stuff myself (though I ask questions on occasion).

So looking at prices: Semi-dedicated, which I assume means far fewer people on the server, compared to VPS. Price-for-price, and feature for feature, what say you?

Just as an example, a HostGator semi-dedicated account with 25GB storage and 500GB bandwidth is $74.95 per month. That's higher than VPS plans that offer more features, such as HostICan's $44.95 VPS-Rage.

Peace,
Gene

[Gene Steinberg]

Thanks a lot everyone, for the replies .

I'll definitely checkout HostIcan, Gene Steinberg.

They have kept my sites up and running with great performance, which is why I recommend them.

Peace,
Gene

[encryption]

OK, understand that VPS is available with a managed option, so you can have them do the heavy-lifting. Of course that costs extra,

Hence I mentioned that a semi-dedicated/shared environment will be a far more competitive option than a VPS.

So looking at prices: Semi-dedicated, which I assume means far fewer people on the server, compared to VPS.

Yes a semi-dedicated server is one where the number of clients on a server are so small, that due to a significantly larger $ value per package (as compared to a shared environment) paid by each client, helps recover the hardware costs quicker and so the webhost doesn't need to add any additional clients on the server (I don't chase after the last buck). If the webhost prefers, he may still have the option to add a few more accounts until the load climbs to an acceptable level and doesn't jeopardize the performance of the server for all accounts.

That in my opinion is a near perfect ratio of Resource to $ Revenue distribution from a webhosts and clients perspective.

The above guarantees better performance for client accounts and offers far greater distribution of BW + HD Space (again, as compared to a shared environment) and all that on an a server that is completely managed by the webhost.

You can't compare a VPS server setup to a simple run-of-the-mill server setup by a webhost, that has WHM/CPanel (or other Control Panel) installed on it. Apples and Oranges amigo.

With all the additional software that ends up being installed on every partition of a VPS server including the VPS software itself, a VPS based server will nearly always be notably more expensive and the webhost will simply pass on all the resulting costs to the customer.

While its true for webhosts who are more interested in $ and choose to overload their servers as a result, they end up creating a shared environment that's a nightmare to host on. Hence I always stress, "if the webhost knows what he is doing" in nearly all of my posts.

On the other hand, a VPS setup, in my opinion, is potentially a "waste" of $$ and overall processing power thats not only available to a server but could have been made available to all customers.

Firstly, a VPS Server setup will dedicate significantly more CPU/RAM to accommodate all the different softwares/operating systems installed on each slice of the server. Then, it will go on to further dedicate a fixed amount of CPU/RAM on a per client basis.

So you now have a situation where the remaining (or burstable) resources are not only limited in availability, but there will also be clients on the VPS server who definitely don't use all the resources being dedicated to them.

As a result, these "wasted" resources (or resources dedicated to other softwares on the server) could have been easily passed on to the remaining clients on the server helping improve the overall performance of all accounts on the server.

At the end of it all, with a VPS based setup, you're now left with a server who's resources are being ineffectively used, is more expensive (compared to a semi-dedicated server) and the webhost is offering no server management for clients unless they pay extra for it.

Price-for-price, and feature for feature, what say you?

When it comes to hosting dynamic content, Storage and Bandwidth are potentially the most insignificant considerations to make when choosing a webhost to host a growing forum.

Just as an example, a HostGator semi-dedicated account with 25GB storage and 500GB bandwidth is $74.95 per month. That's higher than VPS plans that offer more features, such as HostICan's $44.95 VPS-Rage.

As I said, I'm not hostgator so I have no opinion for why the offer what they offer. However please feel free to post what "more features" HostICan offers.

[Gene Steinberg]

Hence I mentioned that a semi-dedicated/shared environment will be a far more competitive option than a VPS.



Yes a semi-dedicated server is one where the number of clients on a server are so small, that due to a significantly larger $ value per package (as compared to a shared environment) paid by each client, helps recover the hardware costs quicker and so the webhost doesn't need to add any additional clients on the server (I don't chase after the last buck). If the webhost prefers, he may still have the option to add a few more accounts until the load climbs to an acceptable level and doesn't jeopardize the performance of the server for all accounts.

That in my opinion is a near perfect ratio of Resource to $ Revenue distribution from a webhosts and clients perspective.

The above guarantees better performance for client accounts and offers far greater distribution of BW + HD Space (again, as compared to a shared environment) and all that on an a server that is completely managed by the webhost.

You can't compare a VPS server setup to a simple run-of-the-mill server setup by a webhost, that has WHM/CPanel (or other Control Panel) installed on it. Apples and Oranges amigo.

With all the additional software that ends up being installed on every partition of a VPS server including the VPS software itself, a VPS based server will nearly always be notably more expensive and the webhost will simply pass on all the resulting costs to the customer.

While its true for webhosts who are more interested in $ and choose to overload their servers as a result, they end up creating a shared environment that's a nightmare to host on. Hence I always stress, "if the webhost knows what he is doing" in nearly all of my posts.

On the other hand, a VPS setup, in my opinion, is potentially a "waste" of $$ and overall processing power thats not only available to a server but could have been made available to all customers.

Firstly, a VPS Server setup will dedicate significantly more CPU/RAM to accommodate all the different softwares/operating systems installed on each slice of the server. Then, it will go on to further dedicate a fixed amount of CPU/RAM on a per client basis.

So you now have a situation where the remaining (or burstable) resources are not only limited in availability, but there will also be clients on the VPS server who definitely don't need all the resources being dedicated to them.

As a result, these "wasted" resources could have been easily passed on to the remaining clients on the server helping improve the overall performance of all accounts on the server.

At the end of it all, with a VPS based setup, you're now left with a server who's resources are being ineffectively used, is more expensive (compared to a semi-dedicated server) and the webhost is offering no server management for clients unless they pay extra for it.



When it comes to hosting dynamic content, Storage and Bandwidth are potentially the most insignificant considerations to make when choosing a webhost to host a growing forum.



As I said, I'm not hostgator so I have no opinion for why the offer what they offer. However please feel free to post what "more features" HostICan offers.

I'm not here to list HostICan's features. That's something you can check via the links. However, I did point out that their VPS is cheaper than the semi-dedicated system from one particular host.

But since you're in the business, what would you recommend for a company with four popular sites, roughly one million monthly page views, a WordPress blog, a vBulletin forum and two lesser open source forums with regular growth and pushing well over a terabyte of bandwidth a month?

Just wondering.

Peace,
Gene

[encryption]

Since you dished out the names of the webhosts as a comparison, the least you could do is highlight the relevant information you mention in your post.

As for giving a recommendation, I personally evaluate each customer's site before proposing a package to them. I can't give you an opinion (definitely not for a semi-dedicated server") based on 2 lines and definitely not based on "page views"

You are the first individual to ask me for a quote based on page views.

Btw did you even read what I posted or are you simply responding in search of an answer that will give you an edge in this conversation ?

[Gene Steinberg]

Since you dished out the names of the webhosts as a comparison, the least you could do is highlight the relevant information you mention in your post.

As for giving a recommendation, I personally evaluate each customer's site before proposing a package to them. I can't give you an opinion (definitely not for a semi-dedicated server") based on 2 lines and definitely not based on "page views"

You are the first individual to ask me for a quote based on page views.

Btw did you even read what I posted or are you simply responding in search of an answer that will give you an edge in this conversation ?

I also mentioned bandwidth, and the type of sites too, but since you're asking:

www.macnightowl.com
www.rockoids.com
www.theparacast.com
www.techbroadcasting.com

I'm quite curious what you think about what I should be doing, if not VPS?

Peace,
Gene

[encryption]

I'm not here to provide you with a hosting solution, I'm merely laying out the differences between a VPS and a semi-dedicated hosting arrangement and why one is better than the other in my opinion.

[Gene Steinberg]

I'm not here to provide you with a hosting solution, I'm merely laying out the differences between a VPS and a semi-dedicated hosting arrangement and why one is better than the other in my opinion.

I have my hosting solution and I am thoroughly pleased with it.

You suggest that semi-dedicated is superior to VPS, and also that it's cheaper. I am not necessarily disputing your statements about the configuration of such systems. However, my price comparison between two hosts that are considered in the lower-cost arena shows that VPS was far less expensive with more features in the critical areas of storage and bandwidth.

I'm happy to see other specifics if you wish to offer them.

Peace,
Gene