tankianann — 2012-06-07T22:27:08-04:00 — #1
Is it true that running a website on a VPS will provider better performance? Why is it so?
I know I will have dedicated resources like RAM, but the lower end plans seem to put a cap on the resources rather than give you more flexibility?
E.g. the lowest tier VPS may give you a dedicated 256MB ram, but isn't it better when you have a shared hosting plan on a server with a shared 16GB of RAM so that each website can have their 'bursts' and make use of the memory when needed?
I'm totally noob to this - please advice?
ralphm — 2012-06-07T22:41:08-04:00 — #2
The problem with shared hosting is that they tend to pack many sites onto the one machine, which can slow them all down. Some shared hosts are probably better than others, but it's hard to know for sure what you are getting.
tankianann — 2012-06-07T23:00:10-04:00 — #3
Thanks Ralph. I see. So by going VPS we are actually getting more "reliability" rather than performance... and if we really need reliability + performance, then that kind of hosting won't come at the 'budget' price (with the higher end VPS servers) =P
ralphm — 2012-06-07T23:19:52-04:00 — #4
Hm, not sure, but I think of VPS services as definitely about reliability and performance.
gate2vn — 2012-06-08T04:33:40-04:00 — #5
It really depends on the quality of each vendor. However, with such low end VPS, 256MB RAM, you should only use it for small email server, or testing your script. Shared hosting will be better, especially with someone offering hosting on CloudLinux machine, that each account has its own resources. It will be much better if vendor can provide service on cluster systems.
eastcoast — 2012-06-08T06:08:42-04:00 — #6
Another reason to consider a vps is to allow for custom configuration - perhaps certain apache modules, a particular mysql configuration, or applications such as ffmpeg, imagemagick, node.js, that you would be unable to facilitate on shared hosting.
It is possible to host sites successfully on a vps with small amounts of memory, even 256mb or lower, but they need to be configured correctly and have minimal overhead used by non-essential services, and use more memory efficient applications e.g nginx instead of apache
serverstorm — 2012-06-08T10:59:39-04:00 — #7
Some good recommendations here. The one dimension of an Apache web server that affects its' performance is available memory. Things that challenge available memory therefore are your enemy of performance. Share hosting does not only have multiple web sites crammed onto one machine which share this memory, there is a tendency to enable a greater number of Apache modules than you being able to tune in your VPS.
I liked gate2vp's recommendation of looking into cloud services. An important thing to know about cloud services is although it is overused as a 'buzz' word in at least the larger 'infrastructure providers' they use cloud operating systems. These operating systems work on clustering principles which give you both performance and reliability. The missing part, until recently is the 'pay for use' model that made this technology affordable for us wee developers.
I don't know if cloud pay-for-use services are right for you, but you may consider looking over a few plans and seeing if you can get around your preferred spending budget.
ldcdc — 2012-06-08T16:14:50-04:00 — #8
Personally, I would use a smallish VPS only for reliability and custom configurations. Performance is unlikely to compare to a well managed, similarly priced, shared hosting.
dklynn — 2012-06-08T19:08:22-04:00 — #9
IMHO, there are too many problems with shared hosting - especially when you use the shared mail server. It only takes one spammer (or one account being hacked) to have the entire mail server added to blacklists with the result that your e-mails will be blocked everywhere. Therefore, I find that there is no excuse to use a shared host unless you don't need e-mail - or security for your websites.
VPS is not the magic pill to resolve problems but, with their dedicated IP address(es), that's a start. EC's configuration statement is on point as you can lock-down a VPS (with all its services) far more easily than you can with a shared server. Managed VPSs are the way to go, though, as you can't manage everything unless you're a sysadmin and monitor your server 24/7/365.
Dan(ldcdc)'s comment against using a small VPS is good ... as far as it goes. If you're using Joomla (or other memory hogs), you MUST get a far larger VPS just to cope with the app's voracious appetite (WebHostingBuzz does have specialty accounts, including Joomla, albeit they're shared). The bottom line is to KNOW your requirements and select a VPS level which will meet 99% of the spike (traffic) levels you expect.
shahzad_saeed — 2012-09-26T02:07:53-04:00 — #10
VPS hosting is a good bridge between shared hosting and dedicated hosting. Because it acts as a dedicated server this is a good interim solution for sites that may need a dedicated server in the future but are not yet ready for it.
It depends on your vendor. It is really possible to host sites successfully on a vps with memory like 256mb or lower, what matters is how it is configured. Instead of using Apache, you can use, memory efficient applications such as nginx
serverstorm — 2012-09-26T11:09:32-04:00 — #11
I switched to nginx for the majority of my linux hosting (using VPS). It does make a big performance and even cost difference as one can use a package that has less RAM and still get great web server performance. Good recommendation @Shahzad Saeed ;