Virtual Dedicated Servers

Solution to people's CPU hog problems?

[physics]

I've always pretty much been a dedicated server guy which means I can pin the CPU all I want, etc and not have to get yelled at by anyone but my users & clients ;)
But obviously most people use shared web hosting and there have been a lot of posts here lately about people getting charged extra (a lot extra) by their hosts for using too much CPU. Many can't afford the cost of a full dedicated box; virtual dedicated servers are another option that is much more affordable.
Looking around on the 'net I see prices that range from $27/month - $99/month for a VDS with anywhere from 50GB-2000GB of transfer, 5GB-60GB of disk space, memory 'burstable' to 2GB, etc.
There are downsides such as the fact that most of these options require you to self-administer the VPS, but with tools such as Web Host Manager that's not really that hard. And you might learn a thing or two by being a bit more involved with the administration of the server.
Also you should look into the specific contract with your host to make sure you are allowed to pin your share of the CPU all the time.
Anyway it seems to me anyone running dynamic sites should consider going virtual dedicated so you don't have to deal with getting in trouble for CPU hogging, plus you get root access so you (or your programmer) can install whatever programs you want.

[treeline]

I've been using this solution for a while and like it. Balances low cost with being able to do a lot, host a bunch of sites.

[kenearl]

For $8 a month, you can get your feet wet with a Xen powered plan--64mb RAM, 3 gb disk space, 64 gb transfer. Pretty good if you're only hosting static HTML, for testing or DNS backup.

[vincevincevince]

Virtual Dedicated Servers
Solution to people's CPU hog problems?

The problem with Virtual Dedicated Servers is that other users on the server can STILL hog the CPU. In fact, the people who use such services may well be more likely to be CPU users than static page servers...

[physics]

I thought that a certain percentage of the CPU was allocated to each user and they weren't able to use more than their share... but I haven't actually used a VDS and maybe this depends on the VDS software.

See also:

Since virtual hosting (in theory) should eliminate the worry of another on your machine of eating up all the cpu or ram then the only real concern about virtual hosting is making sure they deliver on the uptime.

[webmasterworld.com...]

[longen]

So what counts with a VDS is how many sites are hosted on the server - the greater the number of sites the smaller the CPU timeslice for each.

[sodani]

I use VDS with Plesk control panel and I like it so far. What's great is that you can host a lot of domains.

[edited by: jatar_k at 2:23 pm (utc) on Feb. 2, 2006]
[edit reason] no specific hosts thanks [/edit]