| 11:39 pm on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
VPS rocks! & you are correct about the pricing. With extra upgrades such as more dedicated IPs and emergency support, the price can get a bit more but it sure can't be compared to shared hosting.
In my opinion, todays servers are powerful enough with dual xeons of about 3Ghz each, 10000rpm raid disks, etc. to host several VPS accounts on a single machine... with no handicaps for hosted accounts. So there's really no need for a dedicated server if you don't plan developing a very resource hungry application. (ie. Gaming server, search engine bot, etc.)
Go for VPS. :)
(PM me for the one I use)
| 11:53 pm on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Personally I have 15 sites, average 7k visitors a day, and earn average 3.5 to 3.9k Dollars per month for years.
I use free hosting. Totally free shared (very) webspace.
What counts is your content not your server.
It is nice to have your own domain name, server etc, and IF i sarted again I would use shared webspace.
Search engines and visitors do not care/know what kind of server you use. All that matters is that they WANT what you offer.
[edited by: Nitrous at 11:56 pm (utc) on Mar. 19, 2006]
| 11:55 pm on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm thinking of getting one myself. Key reasons for me is:
Better pageload times
I doub't if a dedicated server can give you a faster pageload. If you know how to optimize your pages you can get a blazinly fast pageload on a virtual platform.
| 11:58 pm on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Or a free one! With no bandwidth problems! Some of my sites (small photos, big on info / text) do way more than 20gb a month on FREE virtual hosting.
| 11:59 pm on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
better pageload times was compared to a shared host - my own tests indicate this would most likely be the case.
[edited by: dyvel at 12:02 am (utc) on Mar. 20, 2006]
| 12:00 am on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
just found the edit button :)
Previous post is now correct
Using a shared host with shared IP and a heavy serverload compared to a dedicated server for 50$ a month + trafic - well - I know what I'm going for.
But VPS might just do the trick also...
| 12:12 am on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
But do you need faster times? Static pages on a shared server can load very, very quickly. If your pages aren't loading quickly enough, it could be for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with whether you're using a shared or dedicated server.
| 12:18 am on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
as I said faster load times could results in better placement i SERPS and a better experience for the user.
I'm using a CMS (php/mysql) called Joomla!
And I don't want to be on a shared IP. I also need to install some modules in PHP that a shared host will not allow.
| 12:50 am on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I've read that faster pageload is rewarded by better placement in SERPS which would mean more trafic and higher income |
Interesting theory. Seems quite unlikely; unless Googlebot recently started opening dual connections and fetching all referenced entities (.css, .js, .jpg, ActiveX, etc.) when I wasn't looking, then Google is not showing much interest in how fast pages actually load to date. Heck, Googlebot doesn't even do the DNS fetch at the same time as the scan of your site, so they would therefore have a pretty infrequent sample of how much that extra TCP roundtrip is slowing things down for an actual user page fetch.
According to this theory, we should see sites like cnn.com take a hit in the SERPs whenever Googlebot happens to visit them when they're overloaded (e.g., shuttle disaster type episodes).
Got any supporting data, or is that just something you read on a website somewhere?
| 1:41 am on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|And I don't want to be on a shared IP. I also need to install some modules in PHP that a shared host will not allow. |
In that case, a dedicated server may be a good idea for you, but it certainly isn't "essential for AdSense success."
| 3:35 am on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I've been with a shared host for 3 years and have never had any problems - until this week. I noticed my site was either loading extremely slowly or not at all. I contacted tech support to see what was going on and they replied another site on the same server was getting slammed. The tech reassured me the servers should be able to handle it and mentioned they would be trying something. By the end of the day the site was responding normally but it makes you wonder if I hadn't noticed, how much money could the slow response times cost me? I'm also thinking of upgrading if only for the comfort that another site's mega traffic surge won't cost me money. Speed wise I've got a 4K static page site that ranks extemely well in SERPs with a fast response time (except this week).
| 5:24 am on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
A dedicated server definitely isn't essential for success.
That said, it's a huge benefit for some types of sites. But many types of sites can succeed without it. I've been on a low-cost shared server for the past year and I'm finishing up a fancy custom CMS which will be pretty resource-intensive. So I'm going to switch to a VPS.
| 5:33 am on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
For me, the advantages of a VPS was the freedom. Add virtually unlimited number of websites. Be in control and use your account's limits as you wish. I was running some heavy cron jobs and that wasn't suitable for a shared environment. They kicked me out while I was planning to move on. lol
Anyway, if you plan to grow your web business, go private.
Nitrous, 7k visitors a day or 20Gb transfer.. These are very(very) low numbers and that's why you can still play safe and happily on your free hosting account. So, I'd agree with you that you don't need an urgent upgrade but that doesn't apply to everyone and every type of website so suggesting people to go with a free or shared hosting provider doesn't make sense.
The final answer to the main question is: A dedicated server environment is not necessary for AdSense success - directly. Indirectly, it will help you with the comfort it provides.
Fast pageload times effect SE ranking?
- No & never will.
The rest of the story about dedicated IPs and SE ranking relationship can be reached at SE forum.
| 7:51 am on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
We upgraded from shared to virtual dedicated last year and we saw significant improvement on loading times, and users in countries such as China saw even a more dramatic improvement.
We never tried a fully dedicated server yet, but virtual seems to do the trick for now.
| 7:53 am on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have a dedicated server. It's the last step in the hosting process.
First you start with crappy, free hosting service like Geocities or Freewebs. You realize how limited you are, so you...
Shell out a few bucks a month (or once a year) for a shared account from some provider. All is fine and dandy until your website actually starts getting some traffic, and your host tells you they're shutting your site down if you don't upgrade to a different package. So you...
Look into managed servers and virtual private servers, thinking they're some sort of "user-friendly" approach to having a server of your own. But then you find out how limited your capabilities are, and that you're powerless to do anything on your own if something goes wrong. So, you have to deal with your host's customer service department to get your site running again. Throwing your hands up in the air, you say "hell with that, I want to be in full control," and...
Get yourself a dedicated server. If you're lucky, your host is willing to provide some managed-type services for free and will respond to hard reboot requests quickly. Otherwise, you're on your own.
A dedicated server is not essential for AdSense success. But if you measure your AdSense success as a dollar amount (like most of us do), the easiest way to raise this dollar amount is to get more traffic. And more traffic means you need more resources to serve your site to a greater number of users.
Don't worry about getting a dedicated server until you're sure you need one. If you don't know how to handle it, you could end up with load times worse than those with a shared package. There are usually like 50 shared hosting accounts on a single server, so obviously it's a pretty powerful machine -- when your site starts to monopolize the resources of the machine, your host will get ticked off at you.
| 8:47 am on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If you're already making $3K, why not just get one? A dedicated server is only like $200 a month.
| 10:54 am on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Dedicated effort( not server) is essential for adsense success
| 3:10 pm on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think we are up to about 3 dedicated servers now spread out at 3 different datacenters. I would never look back at shared hosting, you can get a decent box for like 100 bucks a month and a good security company to keep her locked down for about 100 more.
| 3:28 pm on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I pay $99 a month for a dedicated server and can tell you it is so nice not to be at the mercy of hosting companies that overload their servers with websites or add junk to their servers that just slow things down. I manage over fifty websites including my PPC sites and they all run very fast and are never down.
| 3:34 pm on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I manage over fifty websites including my PPC sites and they all run very fast and are never down. |
In other words, you've got 50 Web sites that are using shared hosting. :-)
| 3:52 pm on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Not true for ALL the websites are mine. I do not know of anyone that just puts one website on a server unless it is a large corporate site. Dedicated means that I control the site and I do not have to share with anyone.
| 3:58 pm on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
You miss my point: Each of those sites is sharing the server with 49 other sites.
As for your earlier comment about not being at the mercy of hosting services that overload their servers, there's a simple solution: Hire a better class of hosting service. My site has been hosted by an industrial-strength service for the last 4-1/2 years, and I've never had reason to be unhappy with response times or reliability.
Sharing doesn't have to be a bad thing. Ask my kids, who learned how to share at a Montessori school. :-)
| 4:06 pm on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I do not know of anyone that just puts one website on a server unless it is a large corporate site. |
You do now ;-)
It boils down to load. If you have database/software application intensive tasks as part of your website, dedicated becomes an attractive option.
Incidentally, you can get a non-shared dedicated IP address on a VPS. Many many hosts offer that. I have another server running 7 sites and still have a dedicated IP address for each one as well as a dedicated IP for the SSH server.
| 4:09 pm on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have two dedicated servers, one is for light duty work and is only $50 a month, the other is $99.
There really isn't anything better in my opinion than a dedicated. Sure, you have to take on a lot of the administrative duties, but you can do what you want, when you want.
There was nothing worse then the days I used shared servers and needed a Perl or PHP module installed. If the module required compilation, you were basically SOL.
Let's not even mention when the hosting company one day just moves your entire site to a new server without telling you and IP's and paths change.
My dedicated provider responds withing 15 minutes to reboot requests which I only need about once every two months and even offers a monitoring service that will reboot servers when they stop responding.
If you can make 3+k a month on a free server, god bless you, but think about how much you could make with your own dedicated server with unlimited domains, control of DNS, and the ability to add any application you wish?
Ideally, for myself, I would prefer a big enough pipe into my home where I could run my own servers, but that gets a bit pricey.
| 4:43 pm on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|If you can make 3+k a month on a free server, god bless you, but think about how much you could make with your own dedicated server with unlimited domains, control of DNS, and the ability to add any application you wish? |
I don't think many (any?) of us have been advocating the use of free servers. The discussion is about shared servers vs. dedicated servers--or, more precisely, whether a dedicated server is "essential for AdSense success" (which it clearly isn't, unless I've been misreading my Google payment reports).
As I suggested earlier, there may be good reasons why some Webmasters should use dedicated servers, but avoiding failure with AdSense isn't one of them.
| 4:53 pm on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
You do not need a dedicated server to be successful with any PPC program. You need a good website with good content and a way to get traffic to it. A dedicated server, to me, is the best way to manage my website business but is not the on;y way to do it.
| 5:38 pm on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I dont have a dedicated server. I pay $20 a month for 1500GB of bandwidth and 30GB of space. I have 4 hosting plans like that and couple diff sites on each host. For my main site i have the domain randomly redirect to either host A or host B. This way i have 3000 GB of bandwith shared and not everyone is on the same server so it's faster.
| 6:06 pm on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
dyvel, if you are making 3k+ a month you can certainly afford a dedicated server.
In germany they cost about 40€ a month (for 1/2 Terabyte transfer, 1 gig ram, 160 gig, 64 bit cpu) and they have avery good support.
But if the virtual server works for you, I would still stay.
And to nitro, I find it mean to use a free hosting service and make 3k+ a month. It' certainly not what the free host intented.
| 6:17 pm on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Bluepixel> Can you please send me a PM to who offer this service - sounds interesting as I'm from denmark and want a server near my visitors
| This 53 message thread spans 2 pages: 53 (  2 ) > > |