Actually, I created an in-depth breakdown of many attributes of plans from companys that have been mentioned here about 2 months ago, and JUST as I was about to upload it here, I accidently erased the file!!
Now two months later, with all hope of recovery of my hardwork gone, I decided to spend the day and visit some sites, collect data, and post my comparison matrix.
In a nutshell, I've ran my sites on virtual hosting, tried a dedicated server, and now feel that VPS might be right for me. I'm paying about $30 for my reseller acount now on http://acunett.com/, so hopefully I can find a plan under $40 that meets my needs. (Yeah, I don't think my sites warrant a dedicated server.)
My comparison matrix might be handy to anyone else looking for a low-cost VPS plan. Though keep in mind companies are always (a) changing specs/prices (b) going out of business (c) having their support team taking rollercoaster rides.
Perhaps with the help of you all, I can keep my file updated. So, if you see data which I need to add/edit to a company I listed, or a company that SHOULD be added, please let me know.
Disclaimer: I know there are many many more VPS companys in the world, but I don't plan to list them all! I'll only added ones that this community reports on. Also, the companys listed may not be "the best", and some just "average." Again, I just did a search to find out what plans people were talking about, and then visited their sites.
It seems I can't connect to www.burst.net website. Not sure if they are down or it has to do with my network connection. If anyone has time, please visit their site and grab me the info I need for their best under $50 VPS plan.
Darn, wish there was a way to edit posts, so I don't like a fool talking to myself!
I've been thinking of the following comment which was posted my a member here...
In the same sense, all VPS's should be slower than being on your run-of-the-mill shared server, assuming that server isn't overloaded. There's simply more software in between your applications and the hardware. VPS's should give you better minimum performance, but worse peak performance. Whether you'd ever notice the decrease is questionable, but if you moved from an overloaded shared server to a VPS, you should definitely see an increase in minimum/average performance.
I'm on a shared account now (Reseller/Plesk). This comment has me a bit worried about moving to a VPS. Should it?
Whew, my fingers are killing me from contacting companies!
Below is the latest update to my comparison. I've updated some information from the first 1/2 dozen companies that have contacted me (thanks!), and added some non-WHT VPS companies (ie, they don't live here )
To help answer my own question concerning the quote in my previous post, I've contacted at random a dozen people who are running vBulletin on VPS plans for their feedback.
Finally, I should state that for other people looking at VPS plans, please remember that although "specs" are important, service, staff, company, ("little details") are just as important! (i.e. My comparision might focus on specs, but my final choice, as yours should, will take other factors into consideration.)
I'll be uploading a new version of my comparison in the next post. Before that, I'd like to share some comments I received from the the various companies I contacted. I have of course removed names. I hope by posting some of the information I was provided, it might help people who are looking at VPS plans to consider issues that they haven't thought of before...
Here are the comments (which I found interesting) from various sales staff...
We do not 'manage' your server (can anyone define what that even means?). However we work hard to provide great support to whatever requests we get. We operate a decent, honest business. We work hard to treat our customers well and provide a professional service -- we have been providing VPS services for a number of years and our server and support setup is very mature, stable and well-tuned.
The bottom line is this - we want you as a customer "long" term. We will accomplish that by providing a good service, at a fair price, backed by friendly and knowledgeable support engineers. We have been in business over four years now and most of our new customers come by way of referrals.
I won't bore you with the good and bad of capping each VE or not capping, you can read WHT for the pros and cons, but you'll see we consistently score in the top 2 or 3 on UnixBench testing. Providers that score poorly will pooh-pooh it, which is fine because customers eventually test our "Equal Share" configuration over a hard-cap and say "Wow!
My suggestions for conducting a true, non-biased VPS comparison would be to purchase an account from each, and run a standard http request/cpu load/disk io benchmark on each and compare the results. For example, we can claim 200GB of bandwidth and dual 3GHz processors, but it is dependent on the oversale ratio each business strategy maintains. Raw numbers, although valuable and acurrate, paint a very small picture of the service you are likely to receive.
If you plan to run a dynamic site (i.e. database driven), then 128MB for a VPS simply is not enough. You really need to go with at least 256MB, or your vBulletin and CMS will start to report problems.
We don't feel a public forum is required; our support ticket system handles all our customer's needs.
Virtuozzo based VPS will give you hands down the best performance, based on our extensive research and testing.
When you outgrow a shared VPS server, you can upgrade to what we call a dedicated VPS server. Not many (any?) providers are offering this, and you face the same old problems of out-growing your current host, and having to search for a dedicated.
We choose to be very honest and open with our clients, evidenced by our "no-hassle" guarantees. You can try our VPS for 30 days -- if you don't like it, we'll give you a 100% refund, including setup fees, no questions asked.
I wouldn't consider any server doing VPS with only 4GB of RAM.
Please note we are very security minded and offer a secured /tmp setup, firewall, and a few other things to lock down the VPS before we turn it over to our customer.
We're slowly moving to Opteron systems as we are finding them to be much faster than the Xeon's for hosting VPS's. We use Opteron 242 processors which equal or beat the Xeon 3.06GHz's (you can search the web for benchmarks if you want to see proof). Since the Opteron's memory controllers are better, have more cache, do better in a multi-processor configuration, have superior process spawning (a big thing), and generate less heat / use less power they have won us over. Also, when Virtuozzo finally releases a 64-bit version them they will perform even better than they do now.
Do not consider a VPS without a RAID option. Also on that note, find out what kind of RAID it is that they are actually running. For instance, a software RAID or a RAID on an IDE or SATA drive will still be far more inferior to a SCSI RAID.
We do not allow things like irc on the network, etc.
(Carlos Note: I stay away from companies that allows IRC.)
DDOS mitigation devices are extremely expensive
he only thing that really will mater in your case is the amount of guaranteed RAM for your virtual server. That will determine how many threads of Apache can run simultaneously for example. Do not even look at the MAX RAM numbers, they are irrelevant.
What is 50% CPU? Do they plan to only put 4 VPSs on a Dual XEON server? There is something seriously wrong there...