VPS hosting

[HostAG]

If you are starting now, I would definitely choose shared hosting. If your needs grow and you become more skilled, you can upgrade later to VPS.

 

[Alex - A2 Hosting]

VPS is shared too. It is right, that you have more rights but its not true that you have more performance.

You can run a Server with a lot VPS, so you can run a shared hosting with a lot customers. But you can run a shared hosting with a few customers and have a best performance.

Yes and no. VPS is much more isolated compared to shared, albeit not everything but significantly more isolated. This can have a huge impact in terms of reliability.

You can run a VPS with just your site, from a reputable provider that doesn't overload a box the only way up is a dedicated server. Shared hosting with a few customers just isn't going to happen (unless you're paying a significant premium for it) as a host needs to profit in order to have a sustainable business -- That wouldn't be the case if you have your average shared package with just a few clients on it.

I mean sure, you might get lucky and end up on a new server the host has just put out but given time the server will be more populated than just a few accounts. Again, of course this is unless you're paying a premium but if so, why not just consider a VPS?

 

[cheapdedicated]

I mean sure, you might get lucky and end up on a new server the host has just put out but given time the server will be more populated than just a few accounts. Again, of course this is unless you're paying a premium but if so, why not just consider a VPS?

Many times people will still stick to premium shared hosting instead of moving to VPS because as you know shared hosting is always 100% managed by the provider. A good VPS that is fully managed in many cases will be slightly more costly than an average shared plan. BUT I agree with your analysis.

 

[Alex - A2 Hosting]

Many times people will still stick to premium shared hosting instead of moving to VPS because as you know shared hosting is always 100% managed by the provider. A good VPS that is fully managed in many cases will be slightly more costly than an average shared plan. BUT I agree with your analysis.

If the provider is putting more than a few clients on the box as someone posted above, sure. If it is just a few accounts then the shared package would have to cost significantly more than what you can get for a quality VPS.

As for 'premium packages', there is only so much upgrading on a shared package that can be done before a VPS becomes essential (mainly ram and CPU limitations).

In most cases you might get a business package (or upgrade option) which grants you 1 GB ram on top of the 'normal' limit and double the CPU. After that, you're going to need a VPS be it managed or unmanaged.

 

[deependranimiwa]

With VPS you have the control of your site.

 

[AviarHost]

Shared hosting is a way for hosting companies to put a large number of users on the same server. A server is nothing more than a computer with a processor, memory, and a hard drive — just like your own home computer. If you ever grew up in a household with a single computer used by the whole family, then you’re probably already familiar with some of the upsides and downsides of shared hosting.

A VPS (Virtual Private Server) is a technically superior solution in almost every single way. Technically, VPS servers are actually still “shared” environments (in as much as there will still be more than one user running on the same physical machine) but the technology used to assign resources and keep users separate is much more sophisticated.

 

[Blue rock hosting]

A VPS is a lot like a dedicated server with a root access (SSH) with more control over your server,You can install run different software that you may need to run. OF course as long as the OS will support it.

 

[spicyhost]

Shared hosting is name itself indicates Shared.in single server customer can host multiple websites, with multiple domain. it is economic and good for small websites.

VPS (Virtual Private Serve)r ,more Secure then Shared Hosting,customer will get more control on VPS,and you can load havy websites.

 

[WebHostWala]

Shared Hosting will have limitations on resources/ ROOT access etc. Whereas Virtual Private Server(vps) acts like a dedicated server,with ability to have own set of services.

 

[ughosting]

It depends on what you are doing and what your skills levels are.

If you are starting out and have no hosting skills (assuming Linux here), then unless you are ready for a steep learning curve, a VPS may not be for you, especially if you are on a tight budget, as you will need either apache/nginx skills or a control panel to manage them for you.

I wonder how much control you need.

If you chose a CloudLinux host almost all popular extensions are available to switch on, or off, depending on your needs. Ticking/Unticking a box is a lot easier than having to compile PHP with the correct extensions. Also on CloudLinux, your different users (thinking reseller) can all have different combinations of extensions and PHP versions.

As to isolation, an OpenVZ VPS has exactly the same containerised isolation that a CloudLinux user has, only the resource controls on CloudLinux are far more granular than OpenVZ affords the host, so stability and reliability differences fall away.

Just like a VPS a CloudLinux host will be able to sell you more resources should you outgrow your account. And just like a VPS, you will be able to monitor your resource usage on MTRG graphs.

If you want absolute control, then a VPS is what you need, but as previously stated, this comes down to your skill level.

If you are looking to host others and you choose a VPS over a reseller account, then you will be looking for a control panel, but again in reliability stakes (why you may choose a VPS) a commercial control panel like cPanel or DirectAdmin, will cost you extra, but in my opinion deliver you more reliability than an OpenSource panel. Few hosts trust their direct customers to an OpenSource panel, though for commercial reasons offer them to their VPS customers.

Also with a VPS, it will be down to the user to ensure regular backups are performed, whilst with a good hosting account, this happens regularly and automatically. (We backup our customers hourly and offer 3 hourly archives for 7 days, and daily archives for 31 days with a self-restore mechanism.). A VPS control panel would offer you rudimentary backups, but again, it's likely that you will need to rent more space to backup to.

On a VPS, you will be responsible for patching the OS and patching the control panel. This is something your host will have done many times before. They will have full backups and change control to ensure they can revert to a known state if the worst happens.

Ourselves, we rarely recommend VPSs to people who don't know what they are doing, and even if they do know what they are doing, only if they have need of more resources than we are willing to offer on our shared hosting platform.

 

[ughosting]

A quick comment.

If you are a single user, using a small VPS, then Webuzo, from the guys who run Softaculous, is a great little single user, multi-project control panel.

At $2.50 a month on a VPS you could do alot worse.

You could probably pick up a 1GB VPS and a Webuzo license for under $15 a month.

 

[Yogesh Patil]

Hi friends how do vps hosting differs from shared hosting

Shared Vs VPS hosting
1. All the resources are shared among all the members using the same shared server, whereas in a VPS all the resources are available to one single user.
2. Shared hosting is cheaper as compared to VPS hosting.
3. In shared hosting you do not get the root access to the server unlike VPS hosting, which gives you full control over your server.
4. Specific ports are not allowed to be open in shared hosting but it is possible in VPS, specially for game servers.
5. Resources like RAM, disk space, bandwidth, OS, etc. can be updated in VPS but not in Shared hosting.

 

[easyhostmedia]

1. All the resources are shared among all the members using the same shared server, whereas in a VPS all the resources are available to one single user.
2. Shared hosting is cheaper as compared to VPS hosting.

well not all true

1. All the resources are shared among all the members using the same shared server, whereas in a VPS all the resources are available to one single user.

All the resources are shared among all the members using the same allocated area of a VPS (ususally a reseller plan) whereas in a VPS is just a shared plan on a dedicated server, but allows a single user root access to a partition of the dedicated server (VPS)

2. Shared hosting is cheaper as compared to VPS hosting.

not these days, you can pick up a VPS cheaper than some shared plans

 

[ughosting]

5. Resources like RAM, disk space, bandwidth, OS, etc. can be updated in VPS but not in Shared hosting.

This is also untrue. Our CloudLinux servers can allocate from 1% of CPU to 64CPUs and we control.

CPU, Memory, I/O, IOPS, Bandwidth, LiteSpeed Processes

I doubt your host has as much control over your VPS as we have on a user level.

Our VPSs start at approximately the same prices as our shared hosting, as there is less day to day management.

 

[whmcsguru]

1. All the resources are shared among all the members using the same shared server, whereas in a VPS all the resources are available to one single user.

Not necessarily true.
With a VPS, you're still subject to the whim of hosters, and you're still going to run into issues with people who shouldn't have root access abusing the hell out of hardware.

With shared hosting, as mentioned by ughosting, you can have limitations placed by resources, through both cloudlinux and through Litespeed.

2. Shared hosting is cheaper as compared to VPS hosting.

This really depends on the company. I can get a VPS for about $10/month from a solid provider that'll run all of my sites and maintain root access. Shared hosting cheaper than that is usually not so reliable.

4. Specific ports are not allowed to be open in shared hosting but it is possible in VPS, specially for game servers.

Not true. A good hosting provider will open up a port in a shared hosting server, if a valid reason is given. it's not that hard to do.
Adding to this, with the features planned in cloudlinux, this should be even more possible.

5. Resources like RAM, disk space, bandwidth, OS, etc. can be updated in VPS but not in Shared hosting.

Again, not true. A solid host will have appropriate plans setup, so that the limits can increase per plan. IE:
Plan A has :
XX memory
XX CPU
XX I/O

Plan B has:
YY Memory
YY CPU
YY I/O

Even the OS could theoretically be changed (though it would require a proper DNS cluster setup, and one wouldn't really want to go there).

 

[Future-Hosting]

Shared hosting is the lowest cost option. As the name implies, each server hosts a number of different clients and they share the resources of that server between them. This is a great way to get a site up and running quickly with minimal investment. However, the resources that each shared hosting server has are limited and must be shared. Load spikes can cause a site to perform sub-optimally or use up its resource allocations quickly.

VPS plans are also hosted per server, but each of them is in a completely separate server environment with guaranteed resource allocation exceeding that of most shared hosting plans. Virtual private servers cost more than shared hosting, but they provide considerably more flexibility and better performance. Users also have complete control over their own VPS and can install and configure its software as they require. They are the best choice for businesses that need more control over their hosting environment than shared hosting can offer and expect to have a significant number of daily visitors. Check out this post from my company blog for a bit more info: www.futurehosting.com/blog/shared-hosting-vs-vps-which-is-right-for-your-business/

 

[Alex - A2 Hosting]

Not true. A good hosting provider will open up a port in a shared hosting server, if a valid reason is given. it's not that hard to do.
Adding to this, with the features planned in cloudlinux, this should be even more possible.

This can be argued the other way. A solid host would not open ports for a customer as it can add additional security issues. A host should already have any relevant ports opened for whatever services they provide and adjust them accordingly when required.

Again, not true. A solid host will have appropriate plans setup, so that the limits can increase per plan. IE:
Plan A has :
XX memory
XX CPU
XX I/O

Plan B has:
YY Memory
YY CPU
YY I/O

I disagree with the solid host comment here. Different hosts will operate in different ways, just because they don't offer different limits per plan doesn't make them any less of a solid provider than a host that does.

Now we do offer different resource allocations with our shared packages (and the ability to purchase an addon for more resources) but any company that doesn't, doesn't make them any less solid than us or vice versa.

There are very valid points for a host to enable offering different resources and there are also very valid points for a host not to make such an offering.

 

[easyhostmedia]

Shared hosting is the lowest cost option.

Not always. i have a 100 GB space 1TB bandwidth VPS for $2 a month that was on special through WHT and is reliable.

yes it is unmanaged, but if you are willing to look around and do a bit of research you can find such deals

 

[technicalguy]

With a VPS you get your own ressources (RAM and disk space) and you get an access to 1 or more CPUs. There is a new kind of VPS called hybrid server where you also get one or more dedicated CPUs.

 

[ClaudiuVirtono]

First off for a beginner is more indicated a share hosting account because all apps and the entire server are managed by the hosting provider.When you have a VPS you need a little bit more knowledge because you will manage the server yourself also if you want a control panel will cost you more because you have to pay for the cpanel license.