I am currently on a shared reseller account and was wondering when (and why) I should start looking at a VPS or Dedicated option.
I have no server experience really and am very happy using my server support.
Printable View
I am currently on a shared reseller account and was wondering when (and why) I should start looking at a VPS or Dedicated option.
I have no server experience really and am very happy using my server support.
When your site(s) outgrow resellers. IE they start slowing down, using too much bandwidth.
Personally, I have 3 reseller accounts which is fine for my needs right now.
Yeah - I agree with that totally. What I'm worried about is other peoples accounts on a shared server slowing the server down, or getting listed in a spam database - which would effect my sites.
Normally it wouldn't worry me, but I have just landed quite a 'major' client $$$ - so I'm thinking I should maybe go for a managed VPS or dedicated just for his account - or is that overkill?
I wish I knew more about hosting/servers and so on :confused:
You could get a dedicated ip to avoid the spam issue
Also it would be cheaper to have 2 shared hosting accounts (different hosts) and maintain a copy n the second host. Then if you have any problems with host 1, change the DNS over to host 2, You may have some downtime whilst the DNS propogates but it would at least demonstrate you had a disaster recovery plan in place
I personally do not like using resellers. Even though I use shared hosting plans, I always buy those accounts directly from the web hosting provider that owns the NOC and servers. I just find this is more reliable and makes for better tech support.
Having a backup host is a waste of money and would create unnecessary down time. A better solution is to use a web host that has multiple layers of redundancy built into their NOC and servers. The redundant features they should have are:
- Multiple redundant ultra-wide "pipes" to the Internet via different telecommunications providers (including the final mile);
- Redundant backup generators;
- Battery backup and surge suppression that can support the entire NOC;
- Redundant and separate HVAC systems;
- Redundant internal routers and switches;
- Redundant NICs on servers connected to different switches;
- Redundant hot swappable power supplies;
- Multiple hot swappable hard drives in a shadow drive configuration
- Daily tape back up;
- Standby spare servers that can quickly replace failed machines.
It is also helpful if the web hosting provider is located in a geologically, meteorologically and politically stable/safe area and is not located in any flood plains or other disaster prone areas (e.g. Florida, California, New Orleans and Iraq are out of the question).
At worst, my websites would be down for maybe 15 - 30 minutes if their hard disk has to be swapped to a new server because of a critical hardware failure. Using the dual hosting suggestion, one's website could be down for 24-48 hours for some users while DNS updates work their way across the Internet.
While dedicated servers would eliminate the risk caused on shared hosting by someone else's site behaving badly, a good host will limit the number of accounts on one server based on the bandwidth allocation of the hosting plan. The higher the bandwidth allocation per account, the fewer accounts allowed on one server. This can greatly reduce the bad side affects of shared hosting.
Ken
I was offering an option, which I suspect is cost beneficial over your setup, but yes the DNS change would lead to 24 hours or so of downtime.
Can I ask what your hosting solution costs?
I use Pair Networks (http://pair.com). Their rate schedules are at:
http://pair.com/services/web_hosting/
http://pair.com/services/high_volume/
I personally have an HV1 account with them and share my server with four other accounts. I could probably back my account back down to a Developer or Webmaster account to save a little money, but as they say, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Thanks Ken.
Those prices are actually much cheaper than I would have thought.
They used to be more expensive. I'm on a HV1 account because accounts had MUCH lower bandwidth allowances and needed to be on an HV1 account based on my bandwidth needs. Now I'm swimming in excess bandwith, but I figure this just gives me excess capacity in case something crazy happens like I get Slashdotted or something.
Dedicated.
www.softlayer.com
An very good example supporting what I wrote about choosing a web host was MySpace being off line for much of this past weekend due to power outages (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5209496.stm, http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/153...headlines=true). Apparently their servers are located in Los Angles California, which fails my test as a hosting location for two reasons. First it is a geologically instable area which is prone to devastating earthquakes and two its political climate has created an antiquated and unreliable power grid that is very susceptible to power spikes caused by long hot spells. Apparently their data center's backup generators also failed to start, which violates another one of my rules about having adequate backup systems.
Dedicated. Nocster/BurstNET & ThePlanet.
Planning a colocation rollout.
Dedicated and VPS ..
Dedicated at www.liquidweb.com
Dedicated @ ThePlanet and Shared @ HostGator and Hostasaurs
Can you tell us a little about your site and what it utilizes. It is a not an easy answer because it depends what kind of host you are using.Quote:
Originally Posted by agua
IE, ie one host has 3 times as many users per server as another. So using that host you would slow down faster. It is really related to what you currently use in your shared account and how much power your host allocates.
Now if you trust your host, they are paying attention and they know what they are doing, they should be able to tell you at what you need to switch or look at other solutions. Because if a host isn't telling you this and you are slowing down then they are not paying attention to their servers. A slow site is NOT normal unless there is a reason.