Virtual vs. Dedicated

[korkus2000]

Am I missing the boat? I here everyone talk about dedicated hosting. "Don't use virtual hosting!" I have not seen a dedicated host that cost less than 200 a month. Thats like my car payment. Is everyone here paying that. I can understand if you are part of a big company, but even small companies I have worked for don't shell out that kind of cash.

I have a lot of non-revenue sites that are on virtual. I can't afford dedicated servers. Is there something I am missing?

I can understand e-com sites that have good ROI, but what about us content oriented people? Are we just suppose to put up or shut up. What is the deal?

[txbakers]

I think you are right in assuming that once you can afford to do it, a dedicated server is the way to go - less security issues.

But consider this, on a virtual host, you are sharing server space and processing power with whoknowshowmany other sites. If someone should load a CGI or ASP script that starts to tie up the CPU, your site will suffer.

And, if a virus is introduced via one FTP site, it could spread across the server, shutting you down as well.

But it is expensive, and I'd wait until I could afford it.

It's like being in a flea market as opposed to a mall as opposed to a stand-alone building.

[john316]

Many hosting accounts come with a dedicated IP address as part of the package. Many others share the same IP across their virtual hosting packages.

It would be worth it to check with the hosting company about their policy.