virtual private server

Permabanned
Joined
10 Mar 2005
Posts
453
i own a web design business. I would like to know is there any benefits to having a vps over a standard server?

ps

need to keep my costs down, so any further reccomendations are welcome!
 
The one advantage is cost, you're looking at say, £29.99/month instead of at least twice that for a cheap dedicated server.

Something you may want to look at is simply a reseller package with a host - this absolves you from admin of the server.
 
A VPS is generally a full root environment, along the same lines as a dedicated server but with shared hardware.

The main benefit is that you have more flexibility with regard to configuration - you can create your own httpd.conf, php.ini, my.cnf, etc and have guaranteed resources however, unless you're paying for a managed package, you will require some experience in looking after a Linux server.

HTH :).
 
Another vote for 2host :)

VDS/VPS (whatever you'd prefer to call them) are a great idea if you need stability (ie, don't want other shared sites affecting yours) or flexibility (try out your own compilations, etc), and/or don't need the full power of a dedi :)

It's always easy to upgrade, too...however one downside is that when things go titty-up you don't have a remote reboot whereas on a full dedi (with a decent company;)) you should have access to one for instant reboots.
 
Isn't there a major downside of a VPS compared to a dedicated server in the throttling action of the virtual server software e.g. limited to x amount of CPU time/max CPU usage, and only a certain allocation of the shared memory? In that VPS are great for basic server usage, but as soon as you want to do anything fairly heavy-duty you run into big performance issues? I can see the benefit of VPS over shared as those minimum allocated resources will be guaranteed, but I'm unsure how that affects performance.
 
Augmented said:
Isn't there a major downside of a VPS compared to a dedicated server in the throttling action of the virtual server software e.g. limited to x amount of CPU time/max CPU usage, and only a certain allocation of the shared memory? In that VPS are great for basic server usage, but as soon as you want to do anything fairly heavy-duty you run into big performance issues? I can see the benefit of VPS over shared as those minimum allocated resources will be guaranteed, but I'm unsure how that affects performance.

You certainly wouldn't want to do anything too CPU/IO/Memory intensive or performance critical on a small VDS. 256MB RAM and 'fair usage' of a high end CPU is generally sufficient in my experience for cPanel/WHM, all associated services and 80-100 low usage sites without degrading performance too much.

The real benefit of a VDS over shared hosting, as I said above, is flexibility and configurability. If you're considering it solely for performance reasons, it's a bad move, you might as well stay with shared hosting or go for a full dedi IMO.

Beansprout said:
It's always easy to upgrade, too...however one downside is that when things go titty-up you don't have a remote reboot whereas on a full dedi (with a decent company) you should have access to one for instant reboots.

Certain companies are currently working on a reboot panel for VDSs ;).
 
Back
Top Bottom