Better about dedicated hosting?

[COOLORANGEFREEZE]

Just why is dedicated hosting better than shared?

Is a managed dedicated server a blessing?

I'm asking these questions due to expense and possibly the "better" flow of a website on a dedicated host. I am a bit spooked by having my site run poorly due to shared server issues, lots of traffic on my site, and my lack of real-world knowledge in dealing with these issues. So is a managed, dedicated server a good idea?

And what is a good resource for info on say purchasing a server for my place and running from there?

Opinions? Pros and cons?

[felgall]

Dedicated hosting means that you have the entire web server and can run whatever software on it that you like (within reason).

Shared hosting means that you are sharing the server with other accounts (at least dozens, usually hundreds, and with some shared hosting that overload their servers - thousands). You are also limited to the exact system configuration that the hosting provider set up that all the accounts get and if what you want to run can't run on that configuration you can't change the configuration in order to run it.

[COOLORANGEFREEZE]

Thanks for that. I think eventually a dedicated server is in the cards... sooner than later if I can manage the monthly fee. I want the least amount of headaches as possible with this immense project:cool:

It would be nice if BH decided to offer dedicated as well.

[hostmakers]

its basically a question of if you need the resources
http://www.snagpic.com/users/img/3750/n09x0302vnsn/clear.gif

[felgall]

its basically a question of if you need the resources


The changes BlueHost are in the process of making to their shared hosting should resolve a lot of the resource issues associated with shared hosting and raise the amount of resources that you would have to need before needing to move for that reason. I would think that more sites use dedicated hosting because they need the level of control rather than necessarily needing the extra resources.

[COOLORANGEFREEZE]

The changes BlueHost are in the process of making to their shared hosting should resolve a lot of the resource issues associated with shared hosting and raise the amount of resources that you would have to need before needing to move for that reason. I would think that more sites use dedicated hosting because they need the level of control rather than necessarily needing the extra resources.

Interesting... although another reason I may want a dedicated server is that I heard that when you do get big and you utilize too much of the resources and then it's time to move that moving from one server company to another can be painful. Doing this now may alleviate such pain.

I am also actively seeking two for my team. A server admin. and a php, xhtml, css,... troubleshooter for stakes as partners. I want a smooth as possible reputation/site. The site is being built now... but the work for every other aspect goes on 24/7. More brains are better than one in my case.

[felgall]

With more than one person involved dedicated hosting will allow you to set up limited access for those who you don't want to have access to everything.

With shared hosting while you can limit someone's FTP access to a given folder there is nothing to stop them uploading and running a script to access somethiong outside that folder. Not that someone you are working with should want to do something like that but if they don't have the access to do that then they are protected from being incorrectly blamed for problems.

[COOLORANGEFREEZE]

With more than one person involved dedicated hosting will allow you to set up limited access for those who you don't want to have access to everything.

With shared hosting while you can limit someone's FTP access to a given folder there is nothing to stop them uploading and running a script to access somethiong outside that folder. Not that someone you are working with should want to do something like that but if they don't have the access to do that then they are protected from being incorrectly blamed for problems.

Good points. I'm speaking with a host in India that is offering a free VPS and 100% managed all the time. I don't know about having my site on a server all the way over there. What assurances can there be of my site not being available? So I am asking questions for now.

[rishk789]

The changes BlueHost are in the process of making to their shared hosting should resolve a lot of the resource issues associated with shared hosting and raise the amount of resources that you would have to need before needing to move for that reason.

Can you elaborate more on the details regarding what BlueHost is "in the process of making" for us shared host users? :)

[felgall]

Can you elaborate more on the details regarding what BlueHost is "in the process of making" for us shared host users? :)

All I know is what Matt said in his latest blog post.

[Kimbulo]

Just why is dedicated hosting better than shared?

Is a managed dedicated server a blessing?

I'm asking these questions due to expense and possibly the "better" flow of a website on a dedicated host. I am a bit spooked by having my site run poorly due to shared server issues, lots of traffic on my site, and my lack of real-world knowledge in dealing with these issues. So is a managed, dedicated server a good idea?

And what is a good resource for info on say purchasing a server for my place and running from there?

Opinions? Pros and cons?

Dedicated is simply better because it's more so like you OWN it. If you have a dedicated server, you have full priority and control over ALL the boxes resources, such as if you were running an app that needs 70% of the boxes power... You don't want someone else to be sharing that power allowing you only 17% power, etc.

On top of this, a dedicated server never has the issue of IP changing, so you can set DNS to it without having to constantly reconfigure or setup round robins to try and reallocate databases, etc.

It gets much more in depth, but dedicated is just 100% better option, unless you are doing something minor and not resource intensive, then sharing is cool... It's all in what your site is for basically.

[ack]

A dedicated server pretty cool to know that only your sites are on that server. But would you risk putting all your sites on that server still? Maybe too many eggs in 1 basket...

[felgall]

Dedicated is simply better because it's more so like you OWN it.

No you don't - with dedicated you are just renting the whole server instead of only part of it. If you want hosting when you own the server then you need co-location rather than dedicated as with co-location you actually do own the server and are just paying for the connection and support.

[arieshos]

No you don't - with dedicated you are just renting the whole server instead of only part of it. If you want hosting when you own the server then you need co-location rather than dedicated as with co-location you actually do own the server and are just paying for the connection and support.

He wasn't saying you OWN the server, just that it was more LIKE you own it -- because you're not competing with other users for resources on the server. You're less likely to have your websites not responding because the server had a load factor of 500, like happened yesterday with all my bluehost-hosted domains.

Dedicated server might actually be better than owning, from the point of view that you'd have the hosting vendor on the hook for day to day maintenance.

[felgall]

Dedicated server might actually be better than owning, from the point of view that you'd have the hosting vendor on the hook for day to day maintenance.

You do with co-location too. The only difference between dedicated and co-location is that with co-location you own the server and can upgrade its content whenever you need to and the payments to the data center are cheaper because you are only paying for support and not for the server rental.

[charlesp]

Good points. I'm speaking with a host in India that is offering a free VPS and 100% managed all the time. I don't know about having my site on a server all the way over there. What assurances can there be of my site not being available? So I am asking questions for now.

That's what we need. More business going to other countries. :eek:

[ack]

Do you recommend putting all your sites on the same dedicated hosting plan. I worry that putting all my sites on the same server is a bad thing.

Also, Do you recommend getting separate ip addresses for each site if they are all on the same dedicated server?

[seo-optimization]

If your website gets around 10,000-20,000 visitors per month then any normal hosting will do. However, if you get visitors in tune of million visitors then you must purchase a dedicated hosting to ensure that your users will access your website seamlessly

[Hawaii50]

I looked around a bit for an answer to up time expectation with dedicated hosting...I have a couple different accounts with Bluehost (1 personal and one business). My business account for material handling occasionally goes down...always seems to be when the owner happens to be looking as luck would have it. I asked support about this to see if dedicated would be better. They didn't seem to think it was a difference in expectation.

Overall, we were down a lot 2-3 years ago and over last year has been much better. Is there really any improvement to up time with dedicated hosting?

Same question for my offshore wager stuff customer, who is currently a GoDaddy customer...trying to convert him over to Bluehost. Would like to know.

Thanks
Sean

[Justin]

I've come to the point where I'm looking for a reliable dedicated host for one of my sites that is getting a lot of traffic. A lot of time my sites load too slowly, which I've come to attribute to the so-called CPU throttling, though not too sure.

[WebshoppeSolutions]

Good points. I'm speaking with a host in India that is offering a free VPS and 100% managed all the time. I don't know about having my site on a server all the way over there. What assurances can there be of my site not being available? So I am asking questions for now.

Yikes ....

I got to this post and had to say something ...

If you want control, maxiumum resources, and some form of independence, then why start out with two strikes against you?

VPS ... uhggg ... glorified shared hosting is all that is. You share the actual machine with god only knows who else. Partioned drives are absolutely not the way to go ... and that's all VPS is ... the drive is partioned, and each parition has it's own server software installed into it.

And, adding insult to injury ... VPS offshore .... and for free of all things.
There's are reasons why it's free, and I've already just mentioned two of them.

If you want to go Dedicated ... go Managed. Leave the machine in the Data Center, and let the pro's handle all of the things that could possibly go wrong.

The difference between VPS and leasing an entire machine for yourself, is like the difference between renting an apartment and owning a house.

Find yourself a Data Center here in the US, and rent/lease a machine. (try to avoid RAID setups if you can too)
Go Linux if you can ... pretty stout stuff ... that Linux ...

As far as VPS? I wouldn't go with it if it were right next door, much less across the country.

[WebshoppeSolutions]

Do you recommend putting all your sites on the same dedicated hosting plan. I worry that putting all my sites on the same server is a bad thing.

Also, Do you recommend getting separate ip addresses for each site if they are all on the same dedicated server?

You can assign either shared or dedicated with each domain, if you would be willing to pay extra for the ip's.

More often than not, a dedicated solution is assigned two (dedicated/static) ip's with domains being hosted under them in a shared ip environment.

And having all of ones domains hosted on the same machine is not a problem.

[biker]

Well, I've had offshore VPS, and it was pretty good for what it was. It fairly cheap and reliable, but I did not use it for anything that required a lot of attention. Just because its offshore does not necessarily mean that it will suck, and in most cases you get some added anonymity.

[wenlinton]

Netfirms may be using clusters but that doesn't mean that within their $150 (CDN)/year hosting plans you actually get a cluster. You only get an account on a clustered server that you share with many others. Going through the first sentences of the original post I was thinking "how is it possible for a cluster to be less expensive", but then saw "... than dedicated hosting".

Well, if I wanted/needed a cluster then I would certainly think that it would be dedicated. Cluster is a technology that is well explained inside the link in wikipedia, but it doesn't seem to be an actual plan offered by Netfirms.

Now, if I had a choice between a dedicated single server and a dedicated cluster then the latter wins hands down. The price of the cluster would be certainly higher, as you need at least 2 machines to set it up. Also, various types of clusters will dictate the cluster's attractiveness for a given scenario.

I have a couple accounts with Netfirms, and overall I am happy. Certainly lots of storage space and bandwidth. They have much improved over the last couple years, but cluster or not, their email servers get some minor hickups from time to time.

[ack]

Most people use shared web hosting because it is cheaper and fine for most websites. It is only for high traffic sites that require additional resources and other softwares running where dedicated makes more sense...