Portal Home > Knowledgebase > Articles Database > Reseller or VPS?
Reseller or VPS?
| Posted by rezilah, 01-29-2004, 01:01 AM |
| if u had to choose b/w reseller account or VPS which would
you prefer and why? right now im leaning toward VPS but i
read somewhere that an VPS is slower than a regular reseller account is this true?
|
| Posted by eddy2099, 01-29-2004, 01:19 AM |
| VPS gives you Shell Access and with a control panel, you can application level administration level, it allows you to set up reseller's account if you want. It is harder to manage a VPS but you can leverage the skills learnt when you move to your own server. The transition is really painless.
With a reseller's account, there is only one OS, one Control Panel, one Mail server, one Web server and you get the picture running. There is nothing to spilt resources when it comes to CPU and RAM allocation goes. So you can actually have a few site taking the bulk of the CPU and RAM resources so this way, it can be faster or slower.. depending on the load.
With a VPS, the physical server is spilt up into server virtual servers which comes with its own private space which can have its own OS, Control Panel, mail server and blah blah blah. So if you have 6 VPS on the one machine, you have 6 OS, 6 Control Panel and 6 everything running on that machine. That probably would eat into the server resources so as long as your web host do not oversell, you will do fine. In the VPS, each account gets a minimum slice of everything.
I'll go with a reseller account if you do not want to manage the account and want to get started from the get-go and depend on someone else to manage the machine. A VPS is marketed as a transition to a dedicated machine so if you believe you will grow and willing to learn server management, the VPS is a great option. Not exactly cheap but worth the option.
|
| Posted by rokamortis, 01-29-2004, 02:41 AM |
| I have a reseller account and have been unhappy recently as some of the other people on the server have caused a good bit of downtime recently.
I was thinking of going with VPSColo.com - anyone have experience with this company? For system specs, resources, and services, and price this definitely seems like a good deal.
I will be paying a bit more and have to deal with more server management but at least I'll have the peace of mind of knowing what is on the box.
|
| Posted by gate2vn, 01-29-2004, 04:50 AM |
| even VPS is managed, but you still have basic server management skill. You dont need to worry about OS update and something like that, but you still have to know your system, how it works.
VPSColo is a new company of JVDS, runned by Rus. I havent used their services, just contacted sometimes, but Rus is a nice man. You can go with him
|
| Posted by rezilah, 01-29-2004, 09:13 AM |
| how about servint VPS are they any good?
|
| Posted by gate2vn, 01-29-2004, 09:22 AM |
| heard many good comments about ServInt. they are also offering free setup now
|
| Posted by snickn, 01-29-2004, 10:00 AM |
| ServInt's network leaves some to be desired, at least as of lately, but their staff, and management options, are some of the best in the business.
|
| Posted by webmultitude, 01-29-2004, 11:35 AM |
| Servint is awesome.
|
| Posted by retep, 01-29-2004, 11:35 PM |
| Virtuozzo claim their technology introduces no overhead (and even makes your system run faster - I don't know if I'd believe that or not).
I use UML, this will put a slight performance overhead on your server. So all other things being equal a process running on the VPS would be slower than one running on the host server directly.
All other things, however, are not equal. With a UML VPS you will get more performance isolation from other users on the host server. For example, if there just you and one other user on the host server, both running in VPSs, and the other user has launched thousands of apache processes then your account is going to get only a fraction of the server resources. With a UML VPS though, you'll pretty much get half the resources on the server. Even when the other host is flat out.
And, if it means anything, all the feedback I get is that performance is more than adequate.
|
| Posted by reviewum.com, 03-27-2004, 07:47 PM |
| Okay, digging up an old thread here, but this is the subject I'm really struggling with.
I'm currently on a reseller account with a really loaded server and I may outgrow it in a few months, especially if a few of my sites really take off. I'll probably keep the reseller account I'm on now, but move my popular sites to another host (since the current host suspends accounts that have popular forums / sites).
My main question is this:
Are there reseller accounts that put fewer users / accounts per server thus making them like a VPS (ie: more resources available).
Other than root access, what is the bennefit of using a VPS over a server with just fewer reseller accounts on it? I keep seeing VPS companies saying, "Only xx VPS accounts per server"... what about a reseller account that says the same? The only difference I see is if the VPS has guaranteed resources that are burstable, but from what I read not all VPS have allocated / guaranteed resources.
Does that all make sense?
Last edited by reviewum.com; 03-27-2004 at 07:51 PM.
|
| Posted by dsotmoon, 03-27-2004, 09:59 PM |
| there are alot of resellers who only put a particular amout of reseller accounts on a server but dont actually limit the amount of accounts the reseller may add, so in the end, this may not matter, if you have a popular forum or site using alot of resources you may need to consider a VPS or dedicated to make sure you receive the amount of resources you need, I have a busy forum running at vpscolo.com without any major problems at all
|
| Posted by dsotmoon, 03-27-2004, 10:01 PM |
| guaranteed resources, upgradeable resources (ie, bandwidth, space) , more control
|
Add to Favourites 
Print this Article
Also Read
Shared Hosting
Shared Hosting
