VPS versus Shared / Reseller Hosting

Not Quite There: VPS versus Shared Hosting for Forums | Technical Commentaries

So, little known fact: VPS prices are often in line with Reseller and semi-dedicated accounts on the same hosting provider.

VPSes come with a great deal of freedom - and their own share of headaches. If all you need is more of the same, look into your host's reseller/semidedicated/etc. options for getting a similar share of server resources, without the hassle : )

 

I agree with the article. vps, or even dedicated is not necessarily superior to shared.

We gained stability and 3 character search options by going to a vps. Our host uses Parallels and has been fantastic.

 

I have had nightmare scenarios with parallels, personally. Magically vanishing disk quotas for the fail >_>

 

I'm with servint and they have been awesome, who were you with?

 

I broke several VPS providers trying to do odd things. Knownhost, Futurehosting, Ubiquity, WowVPS... Eventually I just gave up on doing odd stuff on VPSes in general : )

 

Interesting. I know Ubiquity uses virtuozzo and not Parallels.


We are quite happy with our vps, and our vps provider. Everyone has different needs.

 

Yeah, I blew up one Parallels VPS trying to install a newer version of glibc : )

 

+1 for ServInt. I cannot say enough about these guys. They're AWESOME!

 

Very useful information about the reselling process... i got my best reselling business from here GoResellers.com : Basic Reseller Program @ $ 69.99/year only.. in here we can get all best reselling process like Hosting etc.,

 

As a hosting provider, I would disagree with you - at least it shouldn't be the case (though you are correct - in some instances it does come out that way - but, you get what you pay for....) considering all of the costs that are incurred on the providers end, which can exceed the end-user sticker price.

We market our VPS' at starting rate of $125/mo. with full management, monitoring, R1Soft CDP backups with 15 day retention, etc. under XenServer, which is a full hardware virtualization engine (nothing is shared of the OS with the host from the guest and vice versa)

While many companies will start off at $50 and claim to offer full management at that price - then ask them what their definition of managed is, as it likely will be fairly limited in reality.

I guess my point is - that not all VPS (managed or unmanaged) accounts are built the same, dependent on the provider.

However, as an aside, most people that are looking at VPS' - don't really need them and are only really in need of a good shared hosting account (or reseller if you want the additional control) and in most cases, a VPS is an unneeded expense. However, this is another discussion for another thread.

 

There is a need to define what is 'Fully Managed'. Several times I have came across with reputable VPS providers, fully managed basically mean, if you require any help with your server, they will provide it upon request.

In the other hand, for a server to be considered fully managed in my own term, the end-user doesn't have to worry about a single thing. Monitoring, security, kernel update, optimisation, security hardening are taken care of without any intervention of the customer. If a load is unusually high, the technician will login to the server and check out the issue, fix it, and detailed out the issue to the customer.

Another point to consider is, is VPS really needed? VPS is needed if you need custom application to be installed where your shared hosting environment doesn't allow and it increases un-needed expenses (software licenses, management, etc..). Likewise, if you are over the system resource limitation, you may actually want to look into a semi-dedicated solution which allows you a higher limit.

 

Thank you friend!!!!!!!! :waiting: