Jump to content
Victor Leigh

Shared vs Vps vs Dedi

Recommended Posts

A server is our home in cyber space. They come in many sizes and shapes. The main ones are shared, vps and dedicated. They all have different costs, with, generally speaking, shared hosting being the cheapest and dedicated servers being the most expensive. Briefly their main features are as follows:

 

Shared hosting

 

This is a hosting structure where you share resources like hard drive space, bandwidth and ram. When you talk about share hosting, you do not actually talk about the bandwidth or the amount of ram that you get per plan. When you pay for your shared hosting, you look at how much space you are getting. So the more space you want, the more money you pay.

 

This is actually the cheapest way to get hosting. The disadvantage is that you are sharing the same resources with, sometimes, hundreds of other users on the same physical server. Think of it as living in a dormitory with a lot of people. You have an individual bed and a private locker but, if the person next to you is a heavy snorer, then you would have a hard time getting a good night's sleep.

 

If you want more privacy, then you may consider the next level in hosting.

 

Vps hosting

 

Vps is the acronym for Virtual Private Server. The keyword here is virtual. A vps may seem to be a private server but it's only in a virtual sense. What actually happens is that you are still sharing resources with other users on a physical server. The diffference with shared hosting is that you are allocated a defined amount of resources to use. So when you look for a vps, you consider the amount of hard drive space, bandwidth and ram that is bundled with the plan. The more you want, the more you pay.

 

Think of a vps as a self-contained apartment. The person in the next apartment may be a heavy snorer but it makes no difference to you because you cannot hear him. You do meet him when you go in and out of your apartment because both of you are in the same buildiing. If you want to take your privacy up to another level, then you need to get your own building. Which would take you to the next level of hosting.

 

Dedicated server

 

Now you have the entire physical server to yourself. There is no one on the same server sharing resources with you. When you shop for a dedicated server, you will take into account not just the hard drive space, bandwidth and ram. You also consider the type of microprocessor, the type of hard drive and the type of ram. There are a lot more details involved in managing a dedicated server than in using a vps.

 

Think of a dedicated server as a private building. It's all yours. Which means that you take care of security, amenities, incoming/outgoing traffic and a host of other things to keep the building running in good shape.

 

So, what are your experiences with hosting? Do you have any particular preferences? If there any reason for your choice?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great write up, Vic. :) Hopefully this has helped others decide which hosting is best for their site. For smaller websites and forums that don't need a ton of resources and the like, Shared is fine. Need a little more? VPS is probably good for you, need the whole thing to yourself? aka Mr. Greedy? Dedi is your only reliable option. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine some of you probably have tried managed hosting plans as well as unmanaged hosting plans. The price you pay, of course, is different. So the question is, does the difference in price justify the additional cost?

 

 

It does, greatly. Typically with a managed server, you worry about your website, not configuring, securing, maintaining etc. A lot of people who either don't know how to perform tasks or just don't have the time will benefit from a managed service.

 

For example, changing LiteSpeed settings, building php, enabling functions and configuring a firewall.

 

An unmanaged server on the other hand is just that. The company provides the server itself, and makes sure it's running & online, nothing more. Sometimes you'll have companies that go above and beyond for unmanaged services as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From my personal experience, most of the work in managing a server is at the beginning when you set it up. After that, it runs, more or less, by itself. I have seen some companies that offer management services for the first month, some for a fee, some for free. Do you think that might be an advantage to the user? Like in terms of savings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From my personal experience, most of the work in managing a server is at the beginning when you set it up. After that, it runs, more or less, by itself. I have seen some companies that offer management services for the first month, some for a fee, some for free. Do you think that might be an advantage to the user? Like in terms of savings.

 

It could, and it could also be a good idea. That is something I will look into possibly offering with our unmanaged VPS's. As far as managed go, they're managed at all times, monitored etc etc.

 

I do like the idea though of a one time fee to configure the server. The only thing that could become a problem is having to tell a customer there's a fee each time there's a request for something - this is why we have managed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can always give your clients a choice.

 

They can either choose to pay the one-time setup fee plus a case-based service charge or they can choose to pay a monthly management fee. Those who expect their sites to run without much problems would opt for the first choice while those who expect their sites to require a lot of daily maintainance would opt for the second choice. Of course, those who can handle their sites by themselves, would try to save money by choosing the unmanaged option.

 

Choice, from what I have read somewhere, is a marketing tool.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can always give your clients a choice.

 

They can either choose to pay the one-time setup fee plus a case-based service charge or they can choose to pay a monthly management fee. Those who expect their sites to run without much problems would opt for the first choice while those who expect their sites to require a lot of daily maintainance would opt for the second choice. Of course, those who can handle their sites by themselves, would try to save money by choosing the unmanaged option.

 

Choice, from what I have read somewhere, is a marketing tool.

 

True, you've got a good point there and I could see this working out good for the company offering it as well as the customer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good write up Victor.

 

The only thing I would say is that for completeness, you could also add:

 

Self Hosting

 

But that is not usually an option.

 

The main reason why I didn't include self-hosting is that it's not something that I would recommend to anyone. There are a lot of things involved in self-hosting and in most cases, it's not viable and not cost-efficient. That is not to say that it's possible. Actually there is one other possibility that I did not mention, which is co-location.

 

Co-location, or colo as it usually called, involves buying an actual server and having it installed in a data center. With colo you can actually go into the datacenter and lay your hands on your server because it is yours. Colo is only cost-efficient if you are talking about running a few dedicated servers at one time. Still it's not the recommended hosting solution unless you have a very special reason to use it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...