Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    93

    Question VPS vs. Shared Hosting

    I think there is not much different between budget VPS and Shared Hosting (just a guess; correct me if I'm wrong), at least in performance. The main advantage of VPS is that upon high CPU load, the server will shut down and you need to start it (similar to Dedicated Servers), but in Shared Hosting, the account will be suspended and you need to ask the support team to re-activate the account and this may make you trouble. Am I right?

    Please comment to clarify the difference

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    771
    With VPS hosting, you need much more knowledge on how to run servers. Performance can be faster than shared hosting, depending on the host you're with and how well you've optimized the VPS itself. You can run custom software or have particular rare features enabled as well.

    Shared hosting is heaps easier to use, performance may be better (again, depending on how overloaded the node is on either of them) and you have access to a paid control panel (typically outside the range of a budget VPS).

    To answer your CPU load question specifically - you may still be suspended if you overuse the CPU. If it's equal share, you'll be suspended for not sharing.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamson View Post
    With VPS hosting, you need much more knowledge on how to run servers. Performance can be faster than shared hosting, depending on the host you're with and how well you've optimized the VPS itself. You can run custom software or have particular rare features enabled as well.

    Shared hosting is heaps easier to use, performance may be better (again, depending on how overloaded the node is on either of them) and you have access to a paid control panel (typically outside the range of a budget VPS).

    To answer your CPU load question specifically - you may still be suspended if you overuse the CPU. If it's equal share, you'll be suspended for not sharing.
    This means that the suspension is done by the provider and I cannot re-activate it by root access?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,149
    Quote Originally Posted by etrader View Post
    This means that the suspension is done by the provider and I cannot re-activate it by root access?
    Yes.

    Your idea of VPS vs shared hosting is 100% wrong.
    They still very much share the ability to be suspended, be it for CPU or other abuse.

    VPS also needs you to know how to administer the server.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    93
    Then, the only way of being free is dedicated servers?
    (of course, content abuse is always a problem, but I mainly mean CPU usage)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,149
    Quote Originally Posted by etrader View Post
    Then, the only way of being free is dedicated servers?
    (of course, content abuse is always a problem, but I mainly mean CPU usage)
    Yes.
    VPS is still shared hosting, albeit with (a lot) more control. That's all.

    But you should note that VPS limits are much higher than shared hosting; unless your site is truly a busy site, a good VPS host should have no problems with your needs.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    30
    shared is a good starting point to scope how your site is doing and you can relatively cheap prices. If the site then becomes kick ass with traffic then just transfer it to a VPS where as the other members have said you get further control and ability to add custom stuff that you would not be able to do on a SWH account
    Wahid
    Domains | Web Hosting | SSL | VPS | Dedicated Servers | Cloud and more
    www.123-reg.co.uk | www.webfusion.co.uk/.com/.es

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    449
    Quote Originally Posted by etrader View Post
    Then, the only way of being free is dedicated servers?
    (of course, content abuse is always a problem, but I mainly mean CPU usage)
    The thing is most larger VPS vendors are moving to cloud based networks where you have nice features like high availability (automatic failover of server is down) which you won't get in a dedicated server. Also if you pay enough money you will find VPS vendors who do not oversell their resources.

  9. #9
    You usually get to use more resouces like CPU/memory with Shared hosting accounts, well when comparing Shared to lowend VPSs anyway. You just have more control with a VPS. Lowend VPSs are good for web developers as they get to test custom software that can only be installed with "Full Root Access".

    Shared is usually the way to go for standard sites with small-medium traffic.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    533
    For a VPS one has the advantage of selecting the webserver, whereas most shared host use Apache with the prefork mpm. Depending on your site, you may be able to drastically reduce your CPU usage with a more efficient webserver like nginx.


    Tuxlite.com Complete LAMP and LNMP script for Debian and Ubuntu.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,943
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamson View Post
    With VPS hosting, you need much more knowledge on how to run servers. Performance can be faster than shared hosting, depending on the host you're with and how well you've optimized the VPS itself. You can run custom software or have particular rare features enabled as well.

    Shared hosting is heaps easier to use, performance may be better (again, depending on how overloaded the node is on either of them) and you have access to a paid control panel (typically outside the range of a budget VPS).

    To answer your CPU load question specifically - you may still be suspended if you overuse the CPU. If it's equal share, you'll be suspended for not sharing.
    This right here is pretty much dead on.

    If you are running sites that are not mission critical, and demo or start ups then shared is an option. You are pooled resources, will typically have to pay for a dedicated IP and there will be limits on some of the scripts you can run.

    VPS will give you more freedom, and fits many clients sold on 'needs'.

    Some, like myself, prefer dedicated for both development of new scripts and what not. But simply the freedom, and what not. It does not say it is the best always, just a matter of preference.

    Good luck sire.
    BLAZINGSWITCH | sales /@/ blazingswitch.com
    SEO HOSTING | ARIN/RIPE/APNIC | 250+ CLASS-B | CLEAN IPv4 LEASING | 1G UNMETERED
    HIGH SPEED WEB HOSTING SOLUTIONS | ENTERPRISE GRADE HARDWARE

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    93

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by tsj5j View Post
    Yes.

    Your idea of VPS vs shared hosting is 100% wrong.
    They still very much share the ability to be suspended, be it for CPU or other abuse.

    VPS also needs you to know how to administer the server.
    Correct me if I'm wrong. Shared hosting is a dedicated server which has been offered to different clients; so if a client uses much CPU or memory, he will be suspended by the administrator.

    VPS is a dedicated server divided to small parts, as each client install his own OS. When a client uses more than allowed (e.g. burstable RAM), his OS will shut down. Thus, he can re-boot the OS by root access.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-04-2010, 10:38 AM
  2. VPS Hosting, Shared Hosting & Reseller Hosting Control Panel
    By RoyalSapphire in forum Software & Scripts Requests
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-07-2009, 10:05 AM
  3. VPS Hosting, Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting or Dedicated Hosting clients needed!
    By RoyalSapphire in forum Other Web Hosting Related Requests
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-18-2009, 01:01 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-23-2009, 07:11 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •