I've been lurking on this wonderful forum for a month before finally gathering the courage to post... ;)

I've been maintaining seven sites for a few years (three big ones, four very small ones), and am trying to decide what is a good upgrade path. Here's what I came up with after reading all these posts :


Shared Hosting - Cheapest solution (between $10-$30), but also the most limited. Must share a server with hundreds of sites. Practically no control over the server. Essential OS security patches, software upgrades, etc., is done for free by the web hosting staff.

Virtual Server - Much more expensive than shared hosting, but cheaper than dedicated ($70-$150). Have root access, with full control over the virtual server. Shares the machine with 10-15 other sites. Basically the exact same thing as dedicated, except you have restrictions on the system resources (is this correct??). Server comes installed with essential software, but OS security patches and software upgrades must be done by the user (is this correct as well??)

Dedicated Server - Most expensive solution (start at $100 and up). Total control of the server. May have issues with some software installation. All system maintenance, OS patching and software upgrades are done by the user.


You can probably notice that the system maintenance is a huge issue for me. I have absolutely no experience with it. I can learn, but I don't think I will have the time to keep up sufficiently... my biggest fear is that someone will exploit an unpatched bug and gain access to the server.

Am I being overly paranoid? Perhaps. ;)

I'm currently leaning toward the virtual server solution. I gain added control, and would be able to put all 7 sites on the same server. Software installation is not a huge issue since I only need the standard stuff (mysql, php, perl, apache). I'm looking at tera-byte.com (http://www.tera-byte.com) , olm.com (http://www.olm.com) , superb.net (http://www.superb.net) , and remarkablehosting.com (http://www.remarkablehosting.com) .

Does anybody have any suggestions, advice, or corrections? I would really appreciate any help for this confused newbie ;)

Hello,

If security patches for dedicated servers are your only concern you may want to contact a few comapnies about dedicated servers. A lot will manage a dedicated server for you free of charge, and keep your server up to date on the latest security patches if you ask them.

Originally posted by jingoro
Dedicated Server - Most expensive solution (start at $100 and up). Total control of the server. May have issues with some software installation. All system maintenance, OS patching and software upgrades are done by the user.[/B]

Welcome to WHT! Just thought I'd mention a split between this catagory:

What you described could be called unmanaged dedicated.

Managed dedicated services are available so you get all the benefits of dedicated, without some of the concerns you might have (well, not without the concerns, but...). An example of this is http://www.rackspace.com (linux servers starting around $300), but you can also put up a bid request from providers here at WHT and get some other pricing (see our Requests Forum).

Just something you may have overlooked...

Hello,

I am a huge support of virtual (private) servers as an alternative to dedicated. The fact is that most sites do not need a full-dedicated server; it is a waist of money and resources. In the past I managed a hosting company with 700 dedicated servers. 95% of the never used more than 10% of the server resources.

Shared accounts are good for small sites where security and performance is less of a concern.

Virtual Servers are good for sites where more control is needed over the environment and security. If you are not using more than 50% of the system resources then it is a waist to go to a dedicated server. To answer your question: Specifically Ensim Private servers provide a guaranteed QOS/SLA over system resources. You are not restricted but instead are assigned a specific slice of the physical server. You have control over the OS and can apply patches and updates with limited restrictions. For example, you may not want to update apache because it may have been specifically configured and compiled for the environment (if you are using the Ensim CP). But you can easily update telnet, ssh or other system RPM's. Depending on the provider these servers are fully managed and updated by the host.

Dedicated servers are good for very large sites with heavy traffic and where there is a lot of CGI/PHP or server side processing. WHT would be a good example.

Originally posted by Chicken


What you described could be called unmanaged dedicated.

Managed dedicated services are available so you get all the benefits of dedicated, without some of the concerns you might have (well, not without the concerns, but...). An example of this is http://www.rackspace.com (linux servers starting around $300), but you can also put up a bid request from providers here at WHT and get some other pricing (see our Requests Forum).

Just something you may have overlooked...

Thanks for the info! I've never even heard about those options...

Got another question... is there such a thing as managed virtual servers? remarkable makes an excellent point about the resources, and I'm becoming convinced that virtual servers are the way to go. Dedicated would be a waste of money, since I don't need that much processing power.

bump ;)

I've been doing tons of searches but can't find any mention of managed virtual servers. I guess they just don't exist :(

By default Virtual/Private Servers are mostly managed. For example Ensim Private Servers are manged by their Control Center. Everything is automated in the backend. To update files in the Private Server I just have click a few buttons.

Originally posted by jingoro
bump ;)

I've been doing tons of searches but can't find any mention of managed virtual servers. I guess they just don't exist :(

So Matthew, what kind of sever is it that you host virtual/private sever accounts on and how many per server as compared shared hosting? I do not see any specs for the servers on your site.

Also, why is this called minimum usage? What is the maximum allocation?

Minimum CPU % 2 5 10 10
Minimum Bandwith % 2 5 10 10

I am looking to move my large site which is currently hosted on a shared account.

thanks

We currently have Intel PIII 700 MHz+ with a minimum of 1GB Ram. Depending on the type of account you purchase there will be from 6 to 14 private servers on the box. I have a calculation that figures the about of available virtual memory by the allocated memory for the plan. Believe me, my goal is not to over load the servers.

The usage is considered minimum because you will never get less than the QOS amount. You are allowed to burst past the % up to 90% but never go below it. As other Private Servers become active the system throttles back more active servers to balance the usage between all the private servers (if you know telcom think if Frame Relay), There is a special kernel that has a scheduler for the CPU and bandwidth. I could never allocate more than 90% of the physical server. 10% is reserved for the physical server.

Feel free to email me HERE (matthew@remarkablehosting.com) for more information.

<<MOD NOTE:>>
Matthew emailed me asking if he could respond to this post and I told him what I tell everyone else. You may respond to direct questions on the forum, with direct answers. I also asked him to please include a 'contact me for more information' link to keep further commercial discussion off the board.
<</MOD NOTE>>