New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Shared Hosting or Cheap VPS?
Chammond96
Member
Anyone got a preference to this? Do you like using shared hosting for the sake of ease? Or would you go cheap VPS and host it yourself?
On another note, does billing period matter?
Preferred Hosting
- Your choice71 votes
- Shared Hosting22.54%
- Un Managed VPS70.42%
- Managed Cpanel VPS7.04%
Comments
If you know what you're doing go with VPS. Avoid Lifetime anything.
Depends.
Think about the project and the requirements: Security, Access, Backups, Reputation. For a basic landing page many people would rather pay a buck for shared than dozens per year to get the same result. For something that has a database that requires optimum security, you'd likely want to host it yourself - being the only one with root.
Billing period is usually great if you have trust and experience with a provider and just want a cleaner invoicing structure or want to save a few bucks. Most providers will offer a free month (or more) when you pay annually.
Sounds like "marketing research" to me.
P.S. Poll not found.
I think there is a trend to move away from shared hosting.
Shared hosting is actually more work than VPS these days. And hardware is becoming cheaper and cheaper, while demands of websites (particularly simple ones) are not really increasing that much. I suspect one of the biggest hurdles is IP availability. When/if IPv6 becomes standard, it will be very cheap to offer full on VPS.
I believe shared hosting is a dieing service. And I think dedicated servers will eventually only be used by those who really need the full CPU. With VPS being able to be 'clustered' and configured with high availability, there will be plenty of benefits that make it a much more attractive alternative to dedicated server. It also has the potential to reduce work load as you can build in the redundancy.
Pretty soon for the same amount of usable resources, VPS will be cheaper than dedicated servers, even though there will be a lot more overhead.
I could be wrong though...
Dedicated server(s) for me.
Not for the user it isn't (especially if you need to move a website).
And if you are going to speculate as to the future you probably need to mention containers.
shared hosting is a dieing service because of wordpress, wix, weebly, squarespace.
You can't really compare shared hosting with VPS. You can do much more with VPS.
I wouldn’t say it’s dying, per se, I think more an evolving industry. If you are capable of managing a server then yes, a VPS. However, there are lots of people out there that aren’t capable or don’t want to learn, these will need some form of shared hosting whatever that environment looks like.
Shared Hosting is not dying, completely the opposite comparing it to VPS. Most of the users in here have knowledge in managing one and you avoid shared hosting, and there’s barely any good interest here for shared. That’s why you think it’s dying.
Internet is full of newbies, what do you think they will purchase between those two.
+1 for shared hosting. if you don't know can manage server then you will be facing problem in hosting your website properly
I vote for Cheap VPS
If you ask, it might be because you do not have the knowledge to manage yourself a VPS (or dedicated server). So the question is more about what "you" can handle. In the middle there is a managed VPS, but I think the price is not the same at all.
Otherwise, the best choice is definitively a VPS (or dedicated server).
Yes, of-course. I don't even understand why you are asking
Monthly payment is more flexible, you can stop the service, if it's not matching your needs, if the provider is not good, etc... or if you need to migrate to have higher specs.
(I am saying it, but myself, I usually get a 13 months leasing on my servers, to profit from discounts)
I think it'sdepend of service. If you running small site. Then shared hosting. If you have special soft then VPS.
Very true. But do you want to?
For just hosting websites shared is totally OK. VPS makes sense if you have special needs, host VPN or whatever.
For the same price, Prefer using shared hosting from established provider than vps from lowendbox or some let provider,
VPS. If you know how to manage - unmanaged, if no - managed or hire someone to manage it.
VPS is definitely a better choice compared to a shared hosting service.
It is very hard to get what you actually opt for under shared hosting. Whereas, a VPS will give you close results of what you choose. A few basic lessons of how the manage VPS can save you additional bucks. But it totally depends on the stuff you want to host on your server. Can look for freelance professional sysadmins to look after your VPS when needed.
ok. are you by any chance a freelance professional sysadmin?
All depends purposes.
I see a lot of people saying it all depends, and honestly yeah it really does depend but I would personally go for a VPS. It is more scalable
More scalable and more work involved.
I was advised to move up to VPS from my reseller account.
Not a prospect I am looking forward to.
vps, as it is more controllable and customizable, but if cost is your priority and your web application is not that complex, shared hosting can be preferable.
shared hosting for simple landing page / homepage etc
it might seem hectic and not all too worth it, but it is! there might be more work involved and not so automated but hey its never bad to learn new skills and these skills can open a world of possibilities for you! I say go for it, there is a learning curve but its worth the time.
I gather it is, since I was advised to move up from my only reseller hosting account, I now have 3 reseller accounts and a shared one to spread things out a bit (I don't resell). Now I have not been bugged by anyone. I sacked the company that advised me to move up but I might go back with them within the next few hours as they have an offer on right now. Over a 3 year period it would save me about $300 over my original account with them. Obviously I would have 5 accounts then, so one might have to go on account of cost.
My 20 or so sites are not even busy as I don't promote them, although one gives me enough to break even on my 'hobby'. However, some might have too many plugins (if that makes a difference). My current situation means I will be OK for a while to come.
I got as far as the checkout with some cheap VPS on more than one occasion over this hectic weekend here, but backed out each time I had to choose the operating system. Honestly, I would love to move up, but you know, I bet there's a load more like me who are reluctant to make that move. In fact, I'd put money on it.
For those who know the ropes, it will be easy and they talk in a language that is not understood by us novices. For the majority of us given the advice to move up, there's too much to take in. Even after reading many "this is the easy way you do it" sites.
VPS ofc. Even if you are new and have no idea where to start, there are a lot of providers that offers one click install apps to your vps without touching terminal. However, managing VPS means doing more than just installing an app, but you know google is your friend, it's never too late to learn.
Why dont you buy an cheap VPS before anything and play with it for a month or so with non production data and a free domain.
Try and have a better understanding by actually utilising the VPS in a capacity that is not daunting and holds non of your critical data.
That's one for the future, just mess around with things until I get it right, I have spare domains. For the time being though I am taking a break after moving sites all over the place
Weird question, like "what car would you buy, small smart for 2 persons, or big truck". One will take small, because he is just driving around the city, another will take truck to transport 2 tons of sand.