Do you Need a Virtual Private Server?

[todd]

Notice: This is a discussion thread for comments about the SitePoint article, Do you Need a Virtual Private Server?.
__________

Maybe time for an update? Quite a few things have changed since this article went up - including that virtualization is bundled by default in quite a few Linux distros. Anybody can easily set it up now (well, relatively). Besides cost coming way down from a hosting standpoint, the ease of use is way up too.

[Dan Grossman]

What distros come with virtualization by default? I haven't seen any hosts doing Linux virtualization without Virtuozzo which is commercial... are there open source systems that can compete with that?

[TV paster]

OpenVZ can be offered as well, but I'd say go for Virtuozzo, gives more resources, can be used both on Linux and Windows.

[john8]

KVM, though I don't know how can use it with hosting, but I am using it on my laptop now.
I have a linux (ubuntu) laptop, and based on KVM, I virtualized a windows. It's very fast (based on super pi test).

[esds]

You could check with Sphera or openvz but Virtuozzo is still the most commonly used administration tools for VPS.

[~ServerPoint~]

Most of the small business just require the

But not all. As rule choice depends on the web application company use for web site

[Divisive Cotton]

Just reading this:

# Since you're in control of the server, you are also responsible for all installation, maintenance, security and updates. If you are inexperienced with administering a Linux Server, and are not willing to learn as you go, this may be a big drawback.

What exactly does that involve?

[dklynn]

DC,

That means that the author overlooked the simple fact that VPS's come in two flavors: Managed and UNmanaged.

With a managed server, your "staff" is the host's staff as they will look after software upgrades, server status (downtime) and other problems that may develop. Unmanaged means that you have to be "on it" 24/7 to ensure that your server is running properly. I don't know about you but I need some sleep every day (and rely on my VPS host's staff to keep things running).

Regards,

DK

[freelikehell]

I think its better to get a dedicated server than a VPS.
Nowadays, the price difference is not that much between the two. If you're spending $70 on a VPS, you may as well spend $120 on a dedicated...

[eukhost]

A VPS is a perfect fill-in between shared hosting and a dedicated server. Virtual Private Server is an obvious choice for users looking to upgrade from shared hosting but don't have the budget to go for a dedicated server straight away.

[ldcdc]

If you're spending $70 on a VPS, you may as well spend $120 on a dedicated...

If you spend $15K on a car, you might as well spend $25K on an SUV?

A price differential is usually there, and it's not negligible, for most people. To add to the difference, an entry level dedicated will be using outdated, inefficient hardware. A VPS will more often than not be put on a high end server, with a more advanced configuration overall.

[Karl]

Originally Posted by ldcdc

If you spend $15K on a car, you might as well spend $25K on an SUV?

A price differential is usually there, and it's not negligible, for most people. To add to the difference, an entry level dedicated will be using outdated, inefficient hardware. A VPS will more often than not be put on a high end server, with a more advanced configuration overall.

Yup, a $120 server doesn't usually get you access to a RAID-10 disk sub-system capable of over 500MB/s and lots of concurrent I/O ops per second, or usually dual PSU and other items. We're seeing VDS go down very well some areas of our customer base.

[EastCoast]

Another reason to consider using a vps is scalability. If a site needs to upgrade (or downgrade) capacity then it can be done quicker than if you are tied to hard metal. I can think of an example where a newly launched website was going to have very high initial demand but lower demand after the initial launch. A VPS allowed a higher spec for 1 month to cope with the initial demand, then downgraded to a lower spec after the initial flood had subsided, with the associated prorata cost savings.

[newostar]

You might as well spend the money on a dedicated server I would say.

[Karl]

Originally Posted by newostar

You might as well spend the money on a dedicated server I would say.

Just out of curiosity, what's your thinking behind that?