VDS vs Quality Shared

[Joobs]

What is the difference between a good VDS host compared to a good shared host?

I've read reports saying VDS is better/secure because everything is "seperate", but I have also read that shared hosting is only a problem with poor quality hosting companies and that a good shared host is just as secure as a VDS and can be better/faster if you run forums or a CMS. So I am a bit confused as to what the real facts are. Assume I am talking about good OcUk recommended hosts and not some cheap overseller unsecure type companies.

I know there are a few hosting experts on these forums and I was hoping they could clear this up.

If it makes any difference the type of sites I host usually run a CMS like Drupal, Wordpress, or ExpressionEngine.

 

[celliott]

In theory a VDS can be more secure because each VDS on the node is isolated from eachother. Since you will be the only website on the VDS you don't have the problem of making sure user's keep up with updating their scripts and patching them from exploits etc. This has to be done on a shared server or you will get high load and allsorts of problems. It all comes down to how well the host manages their servers and monitor's their clients activity. One bad user on a shared server is going to have an impact on every other user on the server.

Then again VDS/VPS can be expensive and it's down to you to manage it unless you get a managed one.

Look away from Dreamhost and the other stupidly priced hosting providers who offer hundreds of gigs of space for like $4/Month and realisticly there isn't much in it. A good shared host that doens't oversell it's resources will most likely be faster than any VDS. Especially since your sites are all based on a MySQL database. For starters it will take a fair bit of optimization to get MySQL running well on a VPS with a small amount of RAM.

This isn't advertising, so im not going to state the name. However I co-own/manage the servers for a small host and we run servers with C2D E6600's, 2GB Ram, Raid 1 and load them very lightly. i.e. load on our servers is always <1.00 at the moment with the exception of maintainence. If you compare this sort of processing power to a VDS with 200MHz CPU and 256MB Guaranteed RAM there is going to be significantly more performance on the shared hosting than the VDS.

 

[Adz]

If you're looking for performance then good quality shared hosting will almost always be better and far more cost effective. You do however need to choose your provider wisely - ensure they're UK based, well established with a contact address and telephone number (which works) on the website.

The primary use of a VDS is for security and configurability (custom software, compiler suite, etc) where shared hosting will not provide and full dedicated is cost prohibitive. Unless you are taking a managed package (relatively expensive) or are familiar with Linux webserver administration then steer clear.

If you're looking at the ochostreview list, please note that my above comments do not refer to Register1's 'VDS' product as it's not one in the traditional sense. It's more akin to shared hosting.

 

[blade007]

From various places it seems that VDS, i.e. you rent an independent portion of a server, then what other people do doesn't affect your sites and if a VDS goes down it's only the one portion that goes down .. the others keep running. It's like a cheapo-mans server box.

However, in my experience real VDS is not "cheap". Probably look at about £400 a year upwards. For your own server box it's about £1500 and up and you'll need to licence all the Cpanel and stuff yourself (another from £120 a year). The RAM will probably be narrow (maybe 256mb) which is not really that much for running heavyduty mySQL.

On the otherhand a good sharedhost running a beefy server with loads of RAM (4Gb), quad core (Kentsfield), and some fast 15K SCSI RAID hard disks should be very good. Plus all the server management, CPanel updates, mySQL tweaking, server balancing, and other maintenance is done for you. (did I mention Vidahost's T3 server? )

I run 2 accounts because I have a reseller account for all commercial clients on a beefy shared server that, after a year, seems to run very very fast 24/24. I have also a smaller account for my own private use on a different server. I believe in keeping personal away from professional.

You can find some good reviews OChostreview.

 

[Joobs]

If you're looking at the ochostreview list, please note that my above comments do not refer to Register1's 'VDS' product as it's not one in the traditional sense. It's more akin to shared hosting.

Register1 was a company i was thinking about using. If you can (as I guess it's someone elses company), can you explain how their VDS differs from a normal VDS? Will it have the mysql performance of a shared host? I will probably send them off an email, but I wouldn't mind hearing an independent explanation on these forums.

I actually help run a site which is on vidahost, and I find them to be excellent. But I am now in the process of getting my own hosting and was thinking of giving register1 a try as VDS sounds better than shared hosting and maybe just to try out a different company. But I guess I'm just a bit confused since both companies have a excellent reputation but use a different technology but which is apparently still quite similar!

 

[Adz]

A VDS (virtual dedicated server) generally gives you full root/administrator access - exactly the same as you would have on a full dedicated server. Unless you have a management package this requires sound knowedge of the operating system and software you wish to run in order to make any proper use of it.

The Register1 product, as far as I'm aware, is simply shared hosting with a chroot jail for the web processes for security reasons. It shouldn't have any effect on MySQL performance.

I understand Vidahost and Register1 both use fairly high spec servers (compared to many smaller virtual hosting providers) so you shouldn't have any problems with either.

Edit: Can I just add that open-source CMSs are generally quite inefficient and therefore slower compared to a lighter bespoke system. You may want to look into having something developed for you.