Everybody says they want a dedicated server.. how they are so good.. What's the point of it? I mean, is there a disk (space) difference? bandwidth? cpu? what? What's it so different/good from shared?

What exactly is it anyway? What does it do?

On a shared account you are sharing the server with tens/hundreds of other people. With a dedicated server it is yours alone. You can have one huge site of yours, or you can split it up and host more. Basically you can do what you want with it (legally of course).

You can ask for certain hardware, so an example could be a P4 2.6Ghz, 1GB RAM and 60GB disk with 1000GB transfer per month. It's up to you what you do with it after that.

An important thing to note is that with a shared server your host will fix all problems etc, if it's your server you will have to look after it, or pay extra to get someone to manage it for you.

On a shared account, you share the disk, memory, cpu, and other resources with many other users. You also are stuck with whatever the host installs on the server and you deal with their security policies.

On a dedicated server, you're the boss. You get all the disk, memory, and cpu the box has. You get full root access to install whatever you want and engage in your own security policies. Everything is yours to play with!

There are also virtual private servers, or VPS. That is virtually the same thing as a dedicated server. You still share disk, memory, and cpu with other users, but you are guaranteed a minimum in all resources and are usually bursting to the full capacity of the host server. The end result is a server that feels like it's all yours, yet you're paying just slightly over shared hosting prices.

Hope that helps. :)

So the server is physically at the host place, but i'd have to look after it, physically?

In most cases (unless you go for colocation where you own the server itself and are just paying for somewhere to put it) the people you buy it from will cover the hardware side of things, but you have to look after the software on the server including the Operating System and anything you install on it.

Dedicated servers are great, if you can justify it with your load. Otherwise, the cost can be quite prohibitive.

Problems with dedicated hosting aren't reduced, they are amplified. In addition to the common web-site config/usage problems discussed on here common between shared hosts, you now have the problems of maintaining the software/security of the system running those sites. There are myriad new problems here:

1) SSH, OpenSSL security holes. You have to patch these now.
2) Control panel software. If you want this, you now pay extra for it.
3) Dedicated hosts can be just as crooked as shared hosts, except instead of being out $5-$20/mo. for a month or two in cases of total dissat., you can be out $200/mo. or more for a month or two AND be locked into a 12 month contract.

Again, if you have a tremendous load and need to look into running your own e-mail services, DNS, web, etc. it can make sense; otherwise, for the average site, shared hosting can get the job done.

cuppett's response is dead-on accurate, but can all be avoided by using a VPS instead. If you like the benefits of a dedicated server and don't like the downsides, take a good hard look at VPS and what it offers.

I disagree here. VPS is worse. It's meant as a stepping stone between shared and dedicated, but ends up being a nightmare. You pick up the problems of dedicated whereas you now control this "virtual" dedicated machine where you are in control; however, you now have three levels of a potential failure... the dedicated features you run yourself, the machine/connectivity and this virtualization layer.

The only true VPS that makes sense would be a host based on mainframe VM technology, but that would cost a lot more than the VPS solutions discussed here.

For me, it is really about control and not being restricted. I have a Windows dedicated server and that allows me to deploy ISAPI DLL which is usually not offered through virtual hosting. I can decide what programs I install on the machine, how often I want to do backup and so on.

If you are running a game server, you can install games on your machine without any issue.

With a dedicated server, you decide on the hardware and software aspects of the machine when you order it. You have full administrative root access to the machine so if you encounter any problem, you can fix it right away instead of contacting your web host to fix it for you.

Also I do not like to share resources with others because when someone runs an active site, it could bog down the performance of the other sites on the server. A runaway script can bring down everyone.

A shared hosting plan is like living in a dormitory. You do not decide which bed you get or which room you are in and you just have to bear with others. You probably have to comply to some rules and regulations.

Getting a dedicated server is like renting your own place. You can decide where you want to stay, how each room is decorated, which bed you want to get and you basically get do more because you do not need to share.

I agree, it's a stepping stone between shared and dedicated. VPS isn't supposed to replace dedicated servers (well, that's a different topic). But for someone who doesn't really need more than a shared hosting account but wants full control, a VPS fits right up their alley. It's more cost-effective than a dedicated.

When VDS providers put too many hosts on one machine and they all run cron jobs like update-db at the same time, everyone competes for disk resources. No fun to have everything crawl at 3:00am every sunday.

dont forget kernels you MUST update kernels or risk being rooted

True thats one advantage of a VDS. Since you can't touch the kernel your host has too keep you current :stickout:

Originally posted by mkc
Since you can't touch the kernel your host has too keep you current :stickout:

Or hope they do :D