How much faster is vps hosting compared with shared hosting? Is a 128mb ram vps faster than shared? Thanks
It really depends. It might not be faster at all. What a VPS does specifically is give you dedicated RAM. Most shared providers, for example, are not going to let you use 128MB of RAM. As well, your VPS is "isolated" somewhat from other users, however you are still at the mercy of other users on your node, as far as disk i/o, CPU power, etc., is concerned. Another downside of VPS is that if you are used to using a control panel, you can forget it until you get at least 512MB of RAM. 1GB of RAM is recommended for cPanel. You also have to purchase the control panel license, unless your datacenter gives it to you as well.
Remember, vps is never being a best solution than shared hosting according to your budget. You must go for shared hosting for more professional use. In our servers we have some reseller owner who are running more than 200+ cpanels where as in vps you even cant host anything like such and you will continuously got internal server error if you go for lower ram based vps You are looking for 6-7$ vps, then you will also think about cpanel installation + license fee. 1GB ram based vps from a good provider cost you more than 10$+. A cpanel and bind service will consume 170+MB~300+ ram and then with 700GB ram what you will run? And if that is unmanaged who will maintain your service? And most of the cheap vps provider almost going to deadpool. So rather then vps go for shared/reseller and give a try which is best for you.
It's not easy to say for sure, but my gut instinct would be "no chance!". That's not a lot of RAM and you won't be pushing much traffic or processing at these sort of figures when it has to run an OS and applications. If your budget can only stretch to that size of VPS you'd probably be much better off sticking with a decent shared provider.
You can barely run Cpanel on 512MB which is the lowest it will run on. You'll need a recommended 1GB. As for 128MB? You're better of using a reseller or shared, that way you'll get Cpanel included in the price.
That is some of the worst, inaccurate information I have probably ever seen from a web host that claims to host "thousands of websites". Wait let me guess, you currently do not offer VPS services, so you are recommending nobody use them? Get real... and start offering some useful information that isn't tailored to attempting to get your-self some additional business.
There are really lots of factors that would play into this. Is there a particular shared web hosting service you are trying to compare to a VPS? The answer to that questions is really going to depend from web host to web host. However, usually the only time I see people sign-up for VPS's that have 128MB of ram allocated to them are people who are simply looking for the root access (in other words more advanced users).
as WSWD said (very well said, actually), it is really hard to measure how fast (or faster) a VPS will be compared to shared environment, there are too many things to be considered, and from my experience, the only way to actually know the answer is by trying the service by yourself.
Right on Ferngully!! Take a look at all the rest of his posts around here. They're all the same. He could care less about actually helping people and providing information, and just wants to do whatever he can to get people to sign up for his hosting. What a shame. $10 says he also PMs these people afterward and tells them how great his service is. *sigh*
It seems WSWD joust couging around a littlebit. He did not read my post and just piss here like a blind This ID "sambling" makes post about 6-7$ based vps and I just told him that with such amount he cant run anything coz cpanel license fee is 13~15$/vps and he just only looking for 128mb ram where cpanel can be installed. So the advise is just giving to him that choose reseller/shared is best solution for him than vps. "I dont force any customer to any posts in this thread" to choose us, so why you just piss yourself off? Do you have any idea about the meaning of careless? Seems like you are a shameless person who dont have any business himself and just pushing other person on your stupid brainwash types words.
The OP never mentioned a word about cPanel. At least I didn't see it. Ummmmmm...looking again...nope, still not there. Never asked about how much RAM a control panel would use, how much RAM he would have left over. Never asked about control panel installation, license fee, or managed vs. unamanged service. He asked which would be faster. No? I'll compare tax returns anytime you like.
every vps comes with guaranteed resources, but not with the guaranteed performance. And Remember The performance of the VPS mostly depends on currently the resource allocated. A 128MB cPanel VPS will likely be operational slower even when compared to an oversold hosting provider but a 1024MB or 2048MB VPS with 1 CPU of resouces will be probably faster than your cheap shared hosting provider.
Thanks for all the information, I might just wait until my site grows a bit before a I switch so that I can afford a bigger VPS.
C'mon, that's a little unfair, and technically he is kinda correct. A VPS is not always a better solution than Shared Hosting, and when it comes to lower-spec VPS like the one the OP mentioned, shared hosting is almost always going to be a better solution with a good provider. Notice - I say "almost". What riles me more is the VPSs are sold as some sort of "upgrade" or "next stage" from shared hosting. Moving to a VPS or Dedicated Server is not a minor step for most people because there are technical and management problems to overcome that simply don't exist with shared hosting. It's not just a case of moving to a VPS, sticking on a Control Panel and everything is rosy, and most people don't realize that. I love VPSs, and as a host it has saved us thousands every month in rackspace, and with clustering it's super-reliable, but I don't see it as a "next stage" or "upgrade", I see it as just another solution that suits some people and certain circumstances. There are times when shared hosting is the best solution for a user, other times a VPS is better, and sometimes a dedicated server is better. One thing a VPS is not is a universal panacea that solves all ills, or is the best solution for all users who are having performance issues on shared hosting. In the case of the OP, with 128MB of ram, sticking with a shared account - with a good host with powerful servers - is probably a much better solution for them given the small amount of information available.
RonBrown, You make some good points, but a properly-operated VPS should absolutely be better than a shared hosting account. It should be an upgrade in most instances, as you are moving from shared, non-dedicated resources, to dedicated resources. Most importantly, you are going to have far less users on a VPS server than you are on most shared servers. Of course, those users might be doing much more intensive "stuff".. Disk I/O can often be much less on VPS servers. Not always, of course. The VPS servers are normally going to be much more robust as far as CPU is concerned. That's all good and well, but the greatest advantage to VPS is dedicated resources. In a good Xen VPS, you are going to get dedicated RAM, sometimes dedicated CPU, etc. That can be huge. You also have the fact that you are allowed to use more resources than you would ever be allowed to use on a shared host. There is not going to be a limit to the number of processes you can run, you aren't going to face the strict inode limits that most hosts impose, etc. You get far more control and far more resources. I see providers above saying that they allow people to use 1GB - 2GB of RAM, etc., but then you look at their plans and prices and it doesn't add up. Eight clients at a couple dollars a month isn't going to pay for a server, let alone garner any profit. So clearly, if they are allowing those kinds of numbers, the servers are extremely oversold. That's where the VPS comes into play. It is an upgrade in that you are being guaranteed certain resources. Of course, if you get a bad provider, it doesn't really matter what form of hosting you choose. Things are going to be bad. One issue you have right on the money is the management and control panel. A lot of people don't realize VPSs do not come with a control panel, don't realize how much said panels cost, etc. And of course, they get way in over their head with an unmanaged VPS and then complain because the company won't help them. It's a whole different beast for sure, and if you don't know what you're doing, an unmanaged VPS isn't really for you.
I think this was certainly the case when VPSs first appeared. Now you see VPSs being offered with ludicrously small amounts of RAM such as 128MB, running on a single disk, and with relatively slow processors, and you have to start questioning the viability of such an offering and whether it really is an "upgrade" or little more than a poor substitute for shared hosting. Now it appears to be a case of the lowest common denominator, offering technically incompetent products to customers who think they are moving up when they are actually downgrading the performance potential. That's probably true, but not always the case when you you total up all the sites on all the VPSs on a single physical host. But its difficult to be able to backup some statements because there's no set pattern between different hosts. Disk I/O is something that depends on the customers and one which hosts have little control over. In this instance the best solution (as a host) is to provide the fastest and most robust system you can - SAS drives (or fast SATA), hardware RAID controllers, RAID10 or RAID60 disk arrays - and hope it is enough. Careful monitoring soon picks up any problems. As a Windows host I agree entirely with the dedicated resources, but I'm not sure that's the same for all virtualization platforms. I often read posts here about how CPU-usage in a VPS isn't protected from other users, so obviously with some virtualization platforms resource usage isn't that dedicated or isolated. Absolutely, but you've selected one of the better virtualisation platforms, and since Windows Hyper-v is based on the Xen code it has the same features. But it seems other platforms don't provide these high level of dedicated resources and isolation from abusive users. However, even now, that dedicated resource is being endangered. The latest Hyper-V R2 SP1 now provides memory-overcommit. As a feature it has enormous advantages, but like everything else it will be abused by those trying to make a fast buck and end up causing more problems than it solves. I wouldn't baulk at a couple of shared hosting customers using 1-2GB of RAM on most of our shared hosting plans. Sure, it doesn't add up when you assume that everyone is using it but for a couple of users who weren't also abusing things like the CPU or Disk I/O I don't see it being a problem. Then again, most of our shared hosting servers have 60GB of DDR3 min, so there's usually plenty of free memory. True, but that's the rub. How does a customer know they are bad? Mind you, that's nothing new and it's always been that way. I couldn't agree more, but that's why I don't think VPSs should be seen as the next natural stage. I agree that it can be an "upgrade" in resource availabilty if it comes with decent specification, but I don't agree it's a natural step-up from shared hosting for very many people. As we both see, a VPS (like a dedicated server) is a different proposition. I'm not saying many people can't make that transition, but it's not for everyone, and in some cases sticking with shared hosting or moving to fully managed hosting (MUCH MUCH more expensive) is the best option for them. My parents run and operate their own web site on shared hosting, but I wouldn't, for all the money in the world, ever suggest they move to a VPS or dedicated server unless it was fully managed. They're not stupid people, but they aren't system admins, and it takes more than just a VPS and a control panel to make it safe, secure, reliable, and workable. We're both on the same page here, but I often see so many people saying "upgrade to a VPS" as if it's the most natural thing in the world when it isn't always the best solution and that isn't always sound advice.
gosh, this is a long thread. well for OP, you might refer to this blog post http://www.lowendbox.com/blog/lowendbox-featured-on-hacker-news/ Thats the guy who have first hand experience using 64MB vps hosting his site who have almost 5k visitors. End of the day, VPS gives you the control you need. you can configure anything you need and might need in the future. Always a better investment. And with VPS having backup utility, you can move around quite easily in case the provider is not up to your expectation. There is plenty of reputable low end / budget vps providers around. just check the summarize list at http://lowendstock.com . cheers!
Well...that's no different from shared hosting. You can do exactly the same with shared or reseller hosting.
128MB is very low for a vps. If you are not a nix guru and will use some control panel for it- it will eat this ram.