Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : VPS Hosting : VPS vs Webhosting a small test.

[Southprojects]

Shared Webhosting about $5x month (include cpanel):

http://loadimpact.com/view-test.php?testlogid=106419

versus

a new vps that i am testing: about $30 x month (include $10 for cpanel).

http://loadimpact.com/view-test.php?testlogid=106419

Testing a Wordpress page.

In conclusion, a shared gives more bang-for-your-bucks (costing a 1/6 the price of a vps) but the performance is meh at best even for a small amount of users.

[Maleosx]

VPS
That's why the name is VIRTUAL PRIVATE SERVER Bro...
thats mean the server is completely yours (Private), you can install anything you want and wont affect other VPS on the same machine.
Also you have guaranteed resource which make your site more stable and not too affected by other users activity in the same machine.


But if you don't need to install any weird software, application in the server. and you don't care if your site suddenly slow like snail because someone in the same machine eat all the resource available then you should choose SHARED HOSTING.
If you lucky and get placed on the good node (low users) you'll find shared is more valuable and powerfull than VPS.
But i'm not play with Luck, so i prefer vps.

[linuxclark]

Originally Posted by magallanes

Shared Webhosting about $5x month (include cpanel):

In conclusion, a shared gives more bang-for-your-bucks (costing a 1/6 the price of a vps) but the performance is meh at best even for a small amount of users.

I am pretty sure your VPS let you use more disk space + more ram + more cpu power

[Southprojects]

Originally Posted by linuxclark

I am pretty sure your VPS let you use more disk space + more ram + more cpu power

Usually shares gives more disk space (in this case the hosting is giving me "unlimited" web space). Also the ram and cpu is irrelevant if this can't be extrapolates in speed and number of concurrent users.

So, (if was possible and excluding the burdensome of notification of overuse) :2 shared > 1 vps (thats it in performance and in cost).

But i must agree that shared is only good for personal pages, or may be for parked or with fewest visits and nothing else much.

For anything over a personal webpage, for example a smallbiz, a vps is a nice option and $400 bucks x year is not a big dead after all.

Ps : other advantage of vps is you can optimize your configuration.

[njoker555]

Originally Posted by linuxclark

I am pretty sure your VPS let you use more disk space + more ram + more cpu power

I wouldn't say they'd have more access to RAM unless they pay a lot but they are more likely to get more access to CPU resources than a shared host along with more disk space if ordered.

Most People get VPS for the control and sometimes sites just outgrow shared hosting environments. If you don't have to go to a VPS, I would advise to stay on a shared host because it's generally cheaper and without any worries of management.

[cieslakd]

Originally Posted by magallanes

Usually shares gives more disk space (in this case the hosting is giving me "unlimited" web space).

Hehe. "Unlimited". There's no such thing as "Unlimited". Read your provider TOS, the keyword probably is "web space" ;-)

Also the ram and cpu is irrelevant if this can't be extrapolates in speed and number of concurrent users.

Take bigger traffic and your account will be closed for exceeding CPU/other resources usage. VPS guarantees for you minimum allocated resources (at least better that shared hosting does).

[Southprojects]

fix :in the vps:
http://loadimpact.com/view-test.php?testlogid=108153


Update: (tweaking the server using APC)
http://loadimpact.com/view-test.php?testlogid=109047

result (average for 50 user concurrent):

shared :7 seconds -- $5
vps php-zend "optimizer" : 4 seconds -- $20-$30
vps php apc : 1.2 second -- same $20-$30.

conclusion YAY for a simple optimization, next :compression.

[Bill O]

I think you should also consider SEO factors, I have always heard that shared hosting isn’t good for SEO.

[lolipown]

Originally Posted by magallanes

Shared Webhosting about $5x month

SNIP

versus

SNIP

a new vps that i am testing: about $30 x month (include $10 for cpanel).

Am I the only that thinks this is like comparing apples and oranges? - Before you ask, yes, after registering and lurking for quite awhile on WHT, this thread is the only one that made me post

[FHDave]

Originally Posted by magallanes

Shared Webhosting about $5x month (include cpanel):

http://loadimpact.com/view-test.php?testlogid=106419


http://loadimpact.com/view-test.php?testlogid=106419

They are the same URLs?

[ORiN]

Originally Posted by magallanes

fix :in the vps:
http://loadimpact.com/view-test.php?testlogid=108153


Update: (tweaking the server using APC)
http://loadimpact.com/view-test.php?testlogid=109047

result (average for 50 user concurrent):

shared :7 seconds -- $5
vps php-zend "optimizer" : 4 seconds -- $20-$30
vps php apc : 1.2 second -- same $20-$30.

conclusion YAY for a simple optimization, next :compression.

I am pretty sure you can get a VPS at less than $20/mth with DirectAdmin.

[shikha1987]

dude There's no such thing as "Unlimited

[Bax*]

That test is ridiculous, wait until your shared host fill his server with another 1000+ sites

[RemyHorton]

Even though the shared hosting deals i've used are much more generous (resources per £/$) than the VPSs i've got, i've found the saving is not worth the hassle of how regularly they break sufficently to require a service ticket.