Tera-byte are offering virual servers for $69 a month.

Is anyone else offering a similar service?

I know that Forsite (http://www.forsite.com/) offers virtual dedicated servers via Ensim.

Frank

http://www.cagedtornado.com/
http://www.remarkablehosting.com/private.php

I'm sure there are more.

Owen

I think www.verio.com offer vps too!

and ***** ( NO!!! just kiddin')

olm.com
superb.net
hostpro.com
interland.com

Thanks for the responses.

There seems to be different interpretations of private virtual servers...

Some folk seem to offer hosting of only one domain but are selling the root access and ability to install whatever you want.

Others seem to allow hosting of multiple domains, presumably each with their own space, control panel e-mail accounts etc.

Is that a fair summary?

I'm looking for the freedom of root and the ability to host several of my domains - not looking to resell. Am I look at the right products?

I may be signing up for one of those Virtual Private servers in the next couple of weeks. Let you know how it goes should it happen.

A private server is just like a dedicated server when it comes to what you can do with it. You can have one site or you can have multiple sites. You can have root and install your own applications.

The difference is how it is sold and for what purpose. Some sell the private server with a basic control panel designed for a single site. Others sell the private server with a virtual hosting control panel that is designed for multiple domain administration. Some sell both. It all depends on what you want to do. You could easily take a private server and install Plesk or Webmin or anything else that will manage multiple sites or do it from the command line.

There is a cool product called vhosts that should work fine in a private server. http://chaogic.com/vhost/

It's up to you.

Originally posted by brookie
Thanks for the responses.

There seems to be different interpretations of private virtual servers...

Some folk seem to offer hosting of only one domain but are selling the root access and ability to install whatever you want.

Others seem to allow hosting of multiple domains, presumably each with their own space, control panel e-mail accounts etc.

Is that a fair summary?

I'm looking for the freedom of root and the ability to host several of my domains - not looking to resell. Am I look at the right products?

Has anyone used any of the ones suggested in this thread?

They seem to have steep setup fees (except Tera-byte, who don't give much detail).

I'd appreciate being able to try out a service before committing. Unlike shared hosting, it's putting many eggs in one basket.

I did not have the virtual private server, but I was with forsite for years and I was very happy. I only left because I got a very good deal on a dedicated box.

Frank

A private server is just like a dedicated server when it comes to what you can do with it. You can have one site or you can have multiple sites. You can have root and install your own applications.


Isn't this pseudo-root access? Or it is true root (as in with Virtual Dedicated Servers)?

Just clearing things so as to know what we are speaking of.

Nick

When it comes to the Ensim Private Servers you get actual ROOT access to your Private Servers filesystem. For example you can do `rm -rf /*` and wipe out your filesystem, just like on a dedicated (don't try this on your servers people).

Don't get messed up with terminology. VPS, VDS, PS are really all the same thing. Different technologies just do it differently.

Originally posted by manuchao


Isn't this pseudo-root access? Or it is true root (as in with Virtual Dedicated Servers)?

Just clearing things so as to know what we are speaking of.

Nick

Don't get me wrong here - not trying to play it smart or anything but...

root access does not mean I can rm -rf my files :-) iServer has been offering this service long before Ensim or Sphera or I don't know who else did.

root (at least to me) means that I have access to the OS and I DO have an OS installed, not a chroot system that has double copies of libs.

root means to be able to do a kernel upgrade on my virtual dedicated server, not be the master of my chroot jail with pseudo-root access.

Unless I am missing something - in which case I'd be glad to be corrected and learn from my mistake.

Nick

The only restriction on the Private Servers from Ensim are that you can not upgrade the kernel. The system runs a special kernel that allows you to have you own root and be the master of your filesystem. It is real root. You have a complete red hat filesystem, no libraries are shared between the private server filesystems. It is really just like having you own dedicated server but with out the server.

Private Servers are isolated in terms of performance, function, fault, and address.

Performance Isolation - heavy traffic and CPU load on one Private Server will not have a negative effect on the other Private Servers.
Functional Isolation - each Private Server has its own set of applications and services
Fault Isolation - errors created in on Private Server will not affect other Private Servers. For example, a bad CGI script can crash a server, but with Ensim's fault isolation, only the Private Server with the script will be affected
Address Isolation - each Private Server has its own set of IP addresses

Originally posted by manuchao
Don't get me wrong here - not trying to play it smart or anything but...

root access does not mean I can rm -rf my files :-) iServer has been offering this service long before Ensim or Sphera or I don't know who else did.

root (at least to me) means that I have access to the OS and I DO have an OS installed, not a chroot system that has double copies of libs.

root means to be able to do a kernel upgrade on my virtual dedicated server, not be the master of my chroot jail with pseudo-root access.

Unless I am missing something - in which case I'd be glad to be corrected and learn from my mistake.

Nick

Most of the VPS listed here (possibly w/ the exception remarkable hosting and a few others) are fairly expensive for what they are. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I see it Virtual Private Servers don't make much sense above say $70 (or maybe even $50) a month. I can get a low end dedicated server with the same transfer and much much more CPU time, (5% of 1 ghz machine ~= 50 mhz (not really, but close enough)), disk space, and transfer for less than $100 a month (and don't tell me you can't--you can). You then have the increased reliablility of having a truely private server (since I can easily imagine circumstances which would bring down the whole server regardless of the virtualization software used) and increased security (if a hack is known for the VPS software and if one site on the server is hacked...) and greater privacy. I know they are a few benefits (such as someone to restart the computer when a problem occurs and to patch the important things) but it seems to me it'll only work on the low end of the hosting spectrum.

A VPS could only work for fairly light sites, CPU wise. For low a requirment site a low priced VPS would be a great combo, but for even moderately heavy sites a dedicated (or several virtual accounts if price is an issue) would work better.

Does this make sense or am I off track here?

Owen

Owen, you may want to do a search here, as this topic has been discussed before. No, you don't get "5% of 1 ghz machine ~= 50 mhz". If no one is using the CPU, then you get the full processor. It is not a limit on max, but on what you are guaranteed. If everyone is using the CPU, you are guaranteed 5%.

Also, it isn't whether you can find some peice of crap Celeron, 32 RAM box or a RAQ for $99, it is about providing a smooth, scalable route for growing customers. Also, the Ensim VDS includes a CP, and is usually a managed solution. I really would like to see a place that offers a managed dedicated box with a nice CP for around $79.00/mo. Cobalts come close, but they are Cobalts and have no RAID (except for 4r's).

There are also quit a few more advantages which can be read by doing a search.

Originally posted by Owen


A VPS could only work for fairly light sites, CPU wise. For low a requirment site a low priced VPS would be a great combo, but for even moderately heavy sites a dedicated (or several virtual accounts if price is an issue) would work better.

Does this make sense or am I off track here?

Owen

That would be one of my concerns too, since I plan on trying out Remarkable Hosting to host one of our fairly busy sites, currently on a dedicated. We'll see how it goes.

That would be one of my concerns too, since I plan on trying out Remarkable Hosting to host one of our fairly busy sites, currently on a dedicated. We'll see how it goes.

Then you should ask them what they use for the physical server. By the sounds of it, the put 19 - 20 VDS on a server. If they have a 1 GHz - 1 GB RAM server and OLM for example uses a (2) 1GHz PIII with 4 GB's of RAM, then it would be better with OLM.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
No, you don't get "5% of 1 ghz machine ~= 50 mhz". If no one is using the CPU, then you get the full processor. It is not a limit on max, but on what you are guaranteed. If everyone is using the CPU, you are guaranteed 5%.


Sorry, I know that. I should have said under the worst circumstances. However if ISP fills the server up w/ CPU intensive site (and presumably they all will be since that's a prime reason to get a VPS) then this will probably be most of the time. Also, if there's twenty sites and half of them are doing something then that leaves at most 10% for you. (So no one complains, I know this is an oversimplification :))

Also, it isn't whether you can find some peice of crap Celeron, 32 RAM box or a RAQ for $99, it is about providing a smooth, scalable route for growing customers. Also, the Ensim VDS includes a CP, and is usually a managed solution. I really would like to see a place that offers a managed dedicated box with a nice CP for around $79.00/mo. Cobalts come close, but they are Cobalts and have no RAID (except for 4r's).

There are also quit a few more advantages which can be read by doing a search.

I don't know... a raq from rackshack w/ 300 gigs of transfer (more than 10x that of the VPS listed here), 450 MHz CPU 100% of the time (say 4-5x the power under the worst circumstance), and 2x the RAM, and 10x the space for $99. Sure the control panel is not as good, but if you're getting so much more for less I don't understand why someone would pay $100 for a VPS. (And many other companies have similarly priced servers... 99servers.com is a useful resource for reading about this.) If we were talking about $50 servers, I would agree with you. But you can get a decent computer for $100/month.

I did do a search and haven't found any particularly interesting. Maybe you can point me in the right direction?

Personally, I'm interested in VPS because my site isn't powerful enough for a dedicated (or profitable...yet :)), but I have a need for many seperate sites with seperate databases. This makes a low cost VPS very attractive to me.

Owen

Personally, I'm interested in VPS because my site isn't powerful enough for a dedicated (or profitable...yet ), but I have a need for many seperate sites with seperate databases. This makes a low cost VPS very attractive to me.

This is what they are there for.

Also, it isn't really to land a new sale for new customers, but it is perfect for a current customer base. Imagine having a host you love. Your site is no longer able to be hosted on a shared server. If you can not afford a dedicated from them, you might move to save money. But if they have an upgrade path, chances are you will stay with the host.

Originally posted by Owen

Personally, I'm interested in VPS because my site isn't powerful enough for a dedicated (or profitable...yet :)), but I have a need for many seperate sites with seperate databases. This makes a low cost VPS very attractive to me.

Owen

Amen! You hit it right on the head. This is what VPS's are for. I'll tell you what else they are for.

Let's say you want a off site DNS server that does not require a huge load.. a VPS for under $50 will do the job just fine..

Let's say you want an offsite MX Spool server. Then a VPS will be more than enough.

Let's say you want a hosting appliance but can only pay under $90 per month.. A VPS is perfect.

Let's say you have a Ecommerce site and you are worried that being on a shared server is too risky.. A low end VPS will do the job just fine.

And lets say that in any of the above examples you need to grow? Very easy. The resources can be increased all the way to 100% making it a dedicated server.

Do I love the private server concept? YES.

I would say that the security issue alone is worth the move to a VPS system - of course provided that you can't yet afford to have a dedicated server. With VPS other people can't read your file at all, unlike the normal shared hosting.

Hi,

(First post, hope I don't mess up...)

I've had a virtual server with Tera-Byte for about a month and I have been very pleased so far. Their support is quick and helpful (especially Steve) and everything has run smoothly except for a few misunderstandings in the beginning. The server speed has been great too.

My site is not very demanding with only a couple of minor CGI scripts. I don't know much about servers (yet! I will learn... :-)), and a DS would have been too much of a challenge right now. For me a VS is perfect. What I needed was the bandwidth (it's a graphics site with lots of downloads) which is very expensive here in Scandinavia. I actually payed more ($90) for only 15GB with my old host!

~ Helena

Originally posted by remarkable



And lets say that in any of the above examples you need to grow? Very easy. The resources can be increased all the way to 100% making it a dedicated server.

Do I love the private server concept? YES.

I'm looking into the possibility of adding one of these to our services.

a virtual private server makes sense if you need more then virtual hosting.

The following is what I found about VPS's after testing products from Ensim, Sphera, and freevsd.

First off, I would like to say I am probaby biased since our company chose Ensim about a year ago for our VDS platform.

Sphera seens to be a nice control pannel and a very nice interface but what it lacks is the ability to have everything completely virtualized. (last I checked) Everything I know about sphera is atleast a year old now but at the time it was basically a chrooted environment that had a control pannel and was really nice for hosting companies, especially ones that had resellers.

Freevsd seems to be the same type application except without the price or support. It is not as fully featured and still has the same chrooted environment.

One advantage of VDS's like those are that most things are symlinked so the amount of space used up per account is under 20 megs.

Ensim, Like I said is who we decided to go with. The reason you will not find $50 ensim accounts is that ensim "offers" their product at a $30/mo per private server. Each private server uses up more resources than a Sphera or freevsd server because it run's it's own kernel. It also does not symlink binaries so a typical install runs between about 200meg empty to 450 meg with all of the apps. Ensim does not recomend puting more than 30 on one server. At current time, the company I work for (www.im1.com) has had no more than 15-20 per server. Ensim is truly virtualized and despite what one of the earlier posts has said, I heard that "theoretically" you could replace the private server's kernel with a new on although I know no company would dream of supporting such a thing. Most of the customizations of the kernel is at the physical server level.