VPS vs Dedicated

[Omniscient]

I wanted to discuss the two methods of hosting that are likely for larger sites that want more control and shared hosting can't service.

1. VPS (Virtual Private Server)- A VPS is like a dedicated server but it's using virtualization software to split up a single server into many. Resources are divided up by the master software that controls virtualization. Most VPS packages I see offer small amounts of ram like 256mb or 512mb. Some even smaller. This is a widely suggested offer for those wanting managed dedicated yet cheap solutions. I have never personally needed a VPS but I price them out around the $20-$100 range at reputable sources.

Liquidweb is a reputable place offering a solid package: Liquidweb VPS Deals




2. Dedicated - IMHO this is the way to go if you want real power and have moved past shared hosting. A dedicated server is often self managed but many providers will do management for you. With a dedicated you'll have the same access as a VPS (root) but you'll probably have more resources like ram and hard drive space.

My main issue with a VPS is that you may quickly outgrow it and adding ram is normally costly in a the VPS world. Example would be a 256mb package for $30 then to use 512mb they want $30 more. It's just unreasonable considering you can get 1gb low end servers for $50.

Here are a couple places I would recommend for dedicated:
http://iweb.com/dedicated/server-deal/
http://www.superbhosting.net/dedicated-s...ervers.php
http://www.limestonenetworks.com/servers...tsale.html

[Grizzly]

Honestly, if you've moved past shared hosting a VPS isn't the way to go. Look at it this way, you're coming off a server with an average of 12GB of RAM onto one that has what....half a gig at most? More than likely your host was allowing you to stay on more than your normal allotment anyway.

Your pricing is pretty spot on. Pricing really depends on whether you want managed or not.

I started my old hosting company with a VPS. I've been in the hosting industry for about 7 years now and would honestly say a VPS is a waste of money, IMHO. Your site will suffer if you've outgrown shared hosting.

Another big thing to consider, which most people don't, is that most hosts have load balancing plans in effect. Such as a server dedicated to SQL. So all SQL queries are run off a seperate server than your Apache.

[Gone]

Most large sites can still run on a VPS, unless high ram usage. Dedis are only really needed for high high high usuage forums, and hosting.

[Omniscient]

I can see VPS used for special environments like a private network, gaming server, or even IRC channel. But most shared hosts are setup very well to handle large http serving. They have massive ram, multiple CPU's and load balancers. Better to share with 1000 users imho than to be on a VPS.

However choosing a good shared host is important. If you go too cheap you'll just deal with crap. SF itself is on Dreamhost and we run very smoothly. I have one account with DH with about 40 sites. Rarely is there problems and I don't have to worry about server management as I do with HF which is on 3 servers actually.

[Jamza]

For my needs (which was running a fairly large site + a game server) I felt I was under utilising my resources on a Dedicated server I had with 1and1 (do NOT go near 1and1 for servers). I then move to a VPS from Linode.com and I was completely satisfied. A VPS was fine for what I was doing.

I still think moving from Shared Hosting to a VPS is better than moving from Shared Hosting direct to a Dedi box.

[Grizzly]

Really what it all comes down to is what type of a site do you run? Is it ran off a database, and as such will cause a high amount of load once you start getting x amount of concurrent visitors?

[Gone]

I can see VPS used for special environments like a private network, gaming server, or even IRC channel. But most shared hosts are setup very well to handle large http serving. They have massive ram, multiple CPU's and load balancers. Better to share with 1000 users imho than to be on a VPS.

However choosing a good shared host is important. If you go too cheap you'll just deal with crap. SF itself is on Dreamhost and we run very smoothly. I have one account with DH with about 40 sites. Rarely is there problems and I don't have to worry about server management as I do with HF which is on 3 servers actually.

Holy crap. 40 sites... All active services/forums?

[manipulate]

Isn't Dreamhost the one that lets you build your own Apache/PHP if you want to?