many webhosts advertise: Shared hosting, Dedicated servers, Reseller plans, etc...

others advertise: Virtual Private Servers, Dedicated, Reseller


and then i've seen a couple cover all 4 categories....


it's always appeared to me that Shared and Virtual hosting are the same thing, so what's the difference? what are the 'requirements' that are usually followed to define each category?

Virtual gives you root access (supposedly) while shared does not.

after thinking about it a bit, i'm surmising that Shared is generally just an ftp-access hosting acct (with php,cgi,sql, all the usual)

and Virtual is more of the same, + ssh access? is that right, or am i off base?

edit:lol, so i guess i was right

thanks for confirming that ;-)

You can have SSH with a shared account, but more freedom on a VPS.

okay, so define more freedom? if someone on a shared acct has ssh access, how would they have less freedom than a similar VPS user with ssh? (what's the best way to limit)

In some cases, they would be identical, but if you have a real VPS from someone like ServInt, you would be able to modify apache and the like.

The limitation is the 'jail.' It allows you to only modify things in your account.

okay, cool, thx

yeah, i was looking at the Jailed shell option in my WHM panel yesterday, and i enabled it for one of my accounts... it's weird, but having Jailed enabled allowed me to roam the whole server, whereas having a regular bash shell limited me to my own space..

i figured it would have been the other way around

a true VPS runs a virtual server, with its own filesystem and kernel, that cannot be accessed by other virtual servers. It's not just a jail or an ssh account.

See vmware, UML, virtuozzo and the like.

i think you need to realise that there are three things you are talking about:

Shared Hosting - You share the server with other people
Virtual Domain Hosting - The server hosts multiple "virtual" domains...
Basically the same thing, when used in the context of this forum.

Virtual Dedicated servers(VDS/VPS) - The server literally splits it's self into 1..2..3... however many are needed. Each run's its own OS, software etc. and you can have root access to your "virtual server" and do whatever you want. System resources are shared between virtual servers, although it can be set up so that there are hard limits (eg 3 accounts on the server, with a 50 or 33% max resources cap on each, to prevent someone totally obliterating the other guy's speed)

okay, shared hosting and virtual domain hosting, i know how to do via WHM/Cpanel

regarding VDS, is this an option worth offering, and are there any cost-effective means of offering it, that you would recommend?

If you just want the basics - a site, server-side scripting, some database support (mySQL, pgsql possibly), limited SSH and email then go for shared hosting on cPanel/hsphere/whatever.

If you need more - to run your own server applications, configure the system how you want it, heck, run an X server if you're crazy then you'd need a VDS.

Your chances of being on an oversold VDS box are much much less likely than getting a shared host on a "lets try and pack the entire population of china into a shoebox" host.

Thats the main difference between Cpanel and Hsphere. Cpanel doe shared hosting while hsphere does VPS. Hsphere allows you to edit your apache file (each client has their own mini apache) and, if allowed by the host, be able to edit their own dns/bind file, among many other things. That's why Cpanel doesnt come cloe to Hsphere. Not even the same leaque.

unless I am quite mistaken, hsphere does not do vps.

If it is a VPS, the customer should be able to, for example, use xitami instead of apache and djbdns instead of bind.

http://psoft.net/promo/vps.html

....and you "can" do what you said...

omg, i'm looking at the features, it's amazing... i just got WHM/Cpanel with my server, but that software is nothing compared to what Hsphere can do... :-O

multiserver management, that's something that i'll definitely be needing, plus billing, etc.. daaaang

thx for posting that link

Originally posted by intel352
omg, i'm looking at the features, it's amazing... i just got WHM/Cpanel with my server, but that software is nothing compared to what Hsphere can do... :-O

multiserver management, that's something that i'll definitely be needing, plus billing, etc.. daaaang

thx for posting that link

LOL. Yep. Us Hspherers keep telling people, but you are the first I've seen to actually go read up and "see" the difference.

Pricing is different too. With Hsphere, you have to order 100 licenses minimal to get it ($4.50 each?). So it's $450 + $95 install. So that's $545? Sounds expensive. But a one year license for Cpanel is $625. At $60 per month for two years, Cpanel is over $1400. With Hsphere...unless you get more licenses, $545 is all you would "ever" pay.

unless you purchase support after the first year ;-)

my concern is, it doesn't appear to support Redhat 9 (current OS on my new webserver)

also, the themes are pretty shite, but other than that, i want it, lol

shame i can't purchase the licenses in smaller bundles, so that i could try 1 for a bit to see how i like/dislike it

heh, i was getting all hyped up on cpanel, since fantastico is available for it (and for the servers that i lease, cpanel is $20/mo, which i don't mind), but WHM is so disorganized, and the cluster function doesn't work yet, from what i've been reading... (even if it did, i doubt i'd trust it to work properly, lol)


the automation features of H-sphere are enticing, as well... hrm...
i guess it wouldn't hurt to get a small personal loan, lol

Thats it's one major fault, it doesnt yet support RH9. That's because they have to build a bunch of RPM's for each RH version to support it.

In reality, only the primary CP machine needs to be older Redhat...the others can be newer. One of my web machines is 8.0 and have had no problems. I'm sure it would do fine at 9.0

my other option is FreeBSD 5.1, have you ever had any experience with FreeBSD?

heh, they only support FreeBSD 4.9... insert the classic Homer 'Doh!'...

LOL...No, no exp with FreeBSD. We can blame Redhat...they obsolete their versions after they are only a year old. RH is getting worse than Microsoft.

Actually, I've found some of the Fantastico installs to be buggy and not work right. Nothing you should use to make your decision over!

Most hosts I've talked to said that their customers wanted it but rarely used it, so it isn't very crucial.