Why a VPS is better than a Shared hosting?

[josh61]

Which reasons make a VPS always better than a shared hosting? A budget $30 you can go with a VPS with decent features but with this budget, do we have any alternatives to VPS?

 

[Alex - A2Hosting]

It really depends on the user case, a VPS isn't always better than shared hosting.

A VPS will generally give you better reliability and stability and will give you more flexibility in terms of what software can be installed on the server, easier upgrade paths (for more resources) though I've always said: A user should stick to shared hosting for any new site and once they outgrow the shared environment, then upgrade to a VPS.

Of course, the exception to this is if they need a specific module of some sort which a shared provider doesn't and won't offer then a VPS would be needed in this case.

 

[Purres]

Purres

I don't agree on this, if a vps is not better than a shared then why it always has higher price over a shared hosting?

Also, ther features from a vps are very more, you can use RAM, separated CPU, more disk usage, bandwidth..etc..while a shared didn't have like a vps.

 

[Developer]

Developer

For the same reason that a car isn't ALWAYS better than a bicycle, a plane ride isn't ALWAYS better than a train ride or a full page ad isn't ALWAYS better than a 468x60 banner...

What's not to agree with? Alex simply pointed out, VPS' are in fact not ALWAYS better... What works well for one doesn't necessarily work great for another. It all depends on the individual persons needs and wants.

And as for the difference in pricing, well, obviously there are many more factors involved with setting up and maintaining a VPS, hence the higher cost. That's just basic business...

 

[ElixantTechnology]

ElixantTechnology

In essence a VPS both can and cannot provide better reliability and stability. I both agree and disagree with this statement. Keep in mind that a properly configured VPS with a host that cares for their nodes and ensures that capacities are below average will provide you with a more stable solution, if you know how to maintain the VPS container itself...

However, keep in mind that most Shared Hosting packages are housed on hardware of equivalent power without the overhead of a virtualization technology and possibly far less accounts. A VPS node may have 50 VPS on it, each hosting 1,000+ websites while a shared hosting system may have 5,000 customers on it (or far less even, in most cases).

VPS are great if you are seeking the capability of deploying custom software or (with the right provider, you can forget about this with any EIG brand our BUDGET VPS provider) dedicated resources allowing for better performance. There is a rule of thumb if you are looking for stability, cheaper is not better.

 

[brainsdigital]

because VPS have better performance than shared hosting such as CPU , hard disk , ram and you will have the full options to manage your host but it's, of course, expinsive than shared hosting

 

[laceibanet]

what the person is going to use it for is the main issue. If all you're going to do is host a regular website with nothing out of the ordinary in terms of requirements, then a shared hosting is the way to go. But if you're looking to run some background software or stream video and other heavier processes then you should start thinking about a vps.
The vps gives you higher resources and the ability to control most of your hosting environment, so if you need custom plugins, or software installed on the serer you will be pointed to a vps so you don't affect other users on a shared server.

 

[SenseiSteve]

The primary reason most clients migrate from shared to a VPS is because they frequently exceed their shared hosting providers resource restrictions. The move is more often than not to preserve uptime and control resources and apps.

 

[WebmasterPhil]

Most people don't really need VPS. Shared hosting these days offers almost unlimited bandwidth and drive space.

The people that do need VPS are the ones who have 100s of domain addresses (websites), want complete configuration control, and are looking to scale their business beyond shared hosting capabilities. Other people who uses VPS or dedicated servers are people who need intensive computation power and want to load software on it - like running backlinking schemes from software such as GSA SER, etc.

 

[tunescool]

ive had 3 shared plans on 3 different hosts, 2 out of the 3 were very bad experiences. 6 to 12 websites and theyre complaining about how i have too many files or sites, my accounts were deactivated several times. godaddy and bluehost, neither of them i would never recommend

i couldnt pay $40 a month for a VPS, i switched hosts last month to another shared plan, a very good plan, unlimited everything and a great deal for 3 years at the cost of 1 year at any major host on the internet. it could be better, but i now have over 50 blogs on this plan without flaw, i asked them and they said it wasnt a problem. the reason i have so many is that the only worthwhile affiliate for my niche has a wordpress plugin for a store but you can only put one category on it, so i started a blog for each category, diffferent sites

on bluehost it was almost necessary to have a VPS if you have alot of sites, godaddy i just hated everrything about them. i guess it varies from host to host. id like a VPS but cant complain with being able to host 60 sites on the shared plan i have

 

[tarunap]

VPS doesn't mean is faster/more powerful/better than shared hosting. It definitely gives you a lot more control!

The quality of shared hosting depends on the server specs, but also how high the load on the server is. Shared hosting can be great for normal business with moments of higher traffic. VPS is limited to a certain RAM and cores, which can be result in slower performance on peak times.

Although VPS gives you more control and, it also can give you more option to optimize your website (caching etc). Of course knowledge of server management will be required.

 

[Scopehosts]

VPS hosting is better than shared hosting because in VPS you get root access and dedicated resources with no sharing of resources with any other client as it is in shared hosting. VPS is better option to host sites with good traffic .

 

[HostLittle]

A VPS is better because you have root control over all software and configurations. Shared hosting is good because they take care of those things for you!

It just depends on what experience you have and what your website needs.

 

[adlersmith]

VPS have better performance than distributed web hosting such as CPU , hard disk , ram and you will have the full options to manage your host but it's, of course, expinsive than distributed web hosting.

 

[JoeMilford]

This forum was extremely informative. I have been grappling a bit with the decision between shared and VPS, for a variety of issues, myself. I do still think that this choice is based on what your longterm activity will be on your site or sites, so I am still trying to define my goals before choosing, but this discussion really helped. I must admit that having control over all of the software and applications with a VPS sounds very appealing to me.

 

[Soulwatcher]

A VPS gives you guaranteed resources where as a shared hosting gives you shared resources with super restrictions. Sure shared hosting providers say 1CPU 1GB of ram unlimited disk space. But what they are not telling you is that it is 1 Full CPU for a 60 second cycle and then they limit your account. Same with the ram its 1GB of ram for 60 seconds and then your limited again. And the unlimited disk space is unlimited until so many files are reached.

And with a VPS if they say 1 Full CPU, that's what you get get 1 Full CPU with no limits. And the same goes for the ram they say 2GB of ram you get a full 2GB of ram with no limits. ANd the same goes for the hard drive space, they say you have 30GB hard drive space, you can store a 20GB game on the hard drive and they wont say anything to you. Because its your space to do what you want with it.

 

[EzzyTech-Sakib]

Normally VPS can be a great alternative of shared. But not always. Sometimes shared may be better than a VPS. On an average, Shared servers are well configured than a VPS. But with a VPS, you can manage everything by yourself and you can use any type of module as your choice.

 

[Hostrigs]

I always suggest you VPS Hosting is always better than Shared Hosting. No doubt it sometime depend upon your requirement that what you want. A Virtual Private Server is a partition on a physical server. The physical server can be divided into numerous virtual partitions which, in turn, will distribute the cost and overhead between the virtual servers. Because the cost of the physical server is essentially shared between the VPS's, the servers that are typically used in a VPS environment have greater performance capabilities and greater capacity than other servers.

 

[Knightrider]

Sometime a 30$ VPS wont give you performance like a 29$/mo wpengine monthly wordpress hosting. Everything depends on your needs and your hosting platform. VPS gives you more control over your website, but it doesnt guarantee a better performance than some of the leading shared hosting plans.

Thank you.

 

[vishwa]

if your website is very new then using a shared hosting a good option to get started. VPS is for larger and established websites. So, when your site grows and need more space and resources than you should opt for VPS. Hosting Quality varies from host to host. Sometimes shared hosting can work great rather than a VPS.