Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: VPS or Dedi

  1. #1

    VPS or Dedi

    I have been looking into VPS as a stepping stone to a dedi box, but looking at the specs of VPSs I wonder if a Dedi would a better long term choice.

    I have about 35 sites, most of which use less than a 1Gb of traffic but one that uses 12Gb month and is steadily increasing, this site uses phpBB and mySql as well as ASP for the main site, so I am looking for a VPS/Dedi that can handle ASP, PHP, mySql preferrably with HELM though that is not essential. The other sites that I host use either PHP or ASP.
    Ask me about my m8y

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ashburn, VA
    Posts
    172
    VDSes are a great stepping stone for users with sites that are beginning to take off... In the long run however, they can end up costing much more than a dedicated machine simply because most hosting companies require you to move up the next best VDS plan (which gives you more space, bandwidth, etc.) but you might just need more ram, so you end up paying more for things you don't actually need. My advice would be to try out hosting your sites on a VDS, see what the resource usage is like, and if it's excessive, start looking for a reliable dedicated provider.
    Alexander McMillen
    President and CEO - Sliqua Enterprise Hosting, Inc. - AS32740
    Serving up scale and service since 2002. Is your mission critical?
    1-877-4-SLIQUA - http://www.sliqua.com - http://www.isyourmissioncritical.com

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    695
    A good VPS done right is better than a low-mid dedicated.

    Too many VPS providers however are putting profit before quality.
    A good VPS can handle 35 sites without any problems.
    Ultra High Performance UK VPS without compromise.
    HPe servers, Intel NVMe DC P3700/P4600 SSD
    https://clustered.net

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,041
    Agreed, a decent Linux VPS can outperform many dedicated servers, not to mention the fact that your data on a Linux VPS is most likely sitting on a powerful RAID array, versus a single 80GB drive in your Celeron dedicated box.

    If your looking for a Windows VPS -- steer away, Windows VPS hosting is certainly not a "step up" from shared hosting, in fact it's a step down. If your not ready to get a dedicated Win2k3 server, stick with your shared/reseller Windows account.

    -Sean

  5. #5
    thanks for the comments all, though seankoons, claiming that Windows VPS is not a 'step-up' requires backing up with facts, I certainly don't see it as a step down provided it is done correctly, which also applies to Linux does it not?
    Ask me about my m8y

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    695
    Linux is far superior as an OS especially when its a VPS.

    Windows on a VPS is something we would not even consider.
    Ultra High Performance UK VPS without compromise.
    HPe servers, Intel NVMe DC P3700/P4600 SSD
    https://clustered.net

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,041
    Quote Originally Posted by acec
    thanks for the comments all, though seankoons, claiming that Windows VPS is not a 'step-up' requires backing up with facts, I certainly don't see it as a step down provided it is done correctly, which also applies to Linux does it not?
    I can go on and on for days as to why it's a step-down, but I'll spare you the nitty gritty details. My experience in saying Windows VPS is a step down from actually selling them and running them for the last 6 months -- a practice that we [ZONE.NET] have now dropped like a bad habit. No matter how well you secure your hardware nodes or how many different anti-virus programs you run and how many SA's you hire, your always going to have 1 or 2 VPS's on a node that gets compromised/hacked/infected, and whether your running VMWare or Virtuozzo or MS Virtual Server, the response is always the same: 'reboot hardware node' or 'reload OS' -- that is completely unacceptable.

    Rebooting hardware nodes every other day or week is not what we're about, so we refuse to now sell a product in which we now know for a FACT we cannot provide 99.9% uptime on -- no matter how much money you throw at these machines, it comes down to just plain sloppy programming on Microsoft's part. Our Linux VPS nodes have uptimes of 50+ days, when a reboot happens you better bet it was planned in 2 weeks in advance, and there was a damn good reason -- not the case with Windows!

    Ofcourse, this is all just my companies experience with Windows VPS's, your mileage may differ. But consider this, the entire hosting market has Windows VPS's at a price tag of $70+ USD, for pathetic resources (256MB, 10GB space, 200GB bandwidth). That's insane. We refuse to sell a VPS product that comes that close to the price of a dedicated machine, it just does not make sense. So that's why I say, if you need Windows that badly, either stick with Shared hosting or get yourself a dedicated Win2k3 server.

    -Sean

  8. #8
    Good VPS gives you almost as much CPU speed as dedicated, so I vote for VPS. Although, there are some dedicated for the same price as more expensive VPS.

  9. #9
    thanks for your insight sean, much appreiated
    Ask me about my m8y

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,041
    Quote Originally Posted by acec
    thanks for your insight sean, much appreiated
    Well, you asked for it, and you got it

    Also, keep in mind this has just been our personal experience with Virtuozzo for Windows, and you can hear very good things about it from different companies. Remember, your mileage may vary.

    -Sean

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Gilroy CA.
    Posts
    468
    Sean, you guys should really consider bigger VPS solutions. Adding maybe 768m and 1gb VPS options.

    When looking at VPS there are issues to consider. If you get 512 megs you aren't paying for kernel space and disk buffers. so compared to dedicated 512 a VPS gives you more memory. And because it's a shared box they are going to go to more trouble to keep it running, secure, and backed up. If you buy a cheap box with one hard drive and no backup and you lose the hard drive, you're screwed. Also on a VPS if you are running stuff off hours you probably have a lot more processing power to work with.

    The down side is that VPS can be oversold and that other users can slow things down. The memory limit tends to be more of a hard limit than just hitting swap like on a dedicated box.

    From what I see if you are thinking in terms of not needing a mighty box then VPS can be about 1/2 the cost of dedicated and a better deal. I don't know of anyone selling 4gb vps servers though so it's not something you want to run Spam Assassin on for a big email operation. MySQL can be either slow or a memory hog is not configured right.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,041
    Quote Originally Posted by mperkel
    Sean, you guys should really consider bigger VPS solutions. Adding maybe 768m and 1gb VPS options.

    When looking at VPS there are issues to consider. If you get 512 megs you aren't paying for kernel space and disk buffers. so compared to dedicated 512 a VPS gives you more memory. And because it's a shared box they are going to go to more trouble to keep it running, secure, and backed up. If you buy a cheap box with one hard drive and no backup and you lose the hard drive, you're screwed. Also on a VPS if you are running stuff off hours you probably have a lot more processing power to work with.

    The down side is that VPS can be oversold and that other users can slow things down. The memory limit tends to be more of a hard limit than just hitting swap like on a dedicated box.

    From what I see if you are thinking in terms of not needing a mighty box then VPS can be about 1/2 the cost of dedicated and a better deal. I don't know of anyone selling 4gb vps servers though so it's not something you want to run Spam Assassin on for a big email operation. MySQL can be either slow or a memory hog is not configured right.
    Thanks for the suggestion, Marc. We're looking into offering a new low-end VPS and a new high-end VPS. Haven't done the exact pricing yet but it'll be there soon enough.

    -Sean

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Gilroy CA.
    Posts
    468
    You might also create a web page for sizing VPS needs with example usages. For example, if you had 500 domains that was all static content then it takes a far smaller server than one that has one domain with heave traffic and a MySQL backend. For a lot of people 256 megs is plenty. For others 512 isn't enough.

Posting Permissions

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