Not all shared hosting is good, not all shared hosting is bad. Not all VPS hosting is good, not all VPS hosting is bad, etc…
You can, for example, go with a bottom-of-the-barrel provider and have a terrible experience. There are a couple of negative threads about shared hosts in this very section of this very forum at this very moment. One a big well-known shared hosting provider and another a tiny no-name provider that’s apparently been around for a while but I’ve never heard of.
There are definitely shared hosting providers that are well optimized that can and often do out-perform even a high-end VPS for a significantly cheaper price.
You’re painting with too broad a brush.
You should keep in mind that LVE is based off of cgroups / VPS technology. LVE originated as basically a shared version of VPS isolation and has matured.
Having 1 CPU core on a CloudLinux powered shared account is similar to having a 1 CPU VPS. The big difference is that that 1 CPU Core on a shared provider isn’t being used up to run the web server software, nameservers, other server-wide overhead, etc.
Also – VPS can be oversold just as bad if not worse than shared hosting. Being on a VPS is no guarantee that you’ll get what you’re paying for [but then again, neither is shared].
If you really want dedicated resources – go with a dedicated server and then you can be sure.
You can benchmark shared services as well and measure performance.
Nothing you’re saying is convincing and I am also speaking from my expertise on the field over nearly 2 decades of doing this day in and day out.
It’s not a certainty – but it is possible for sure.
Too many around here paint with too broad a brush – everything XYZ is bad, everything ABC is good, etc. There are good and bad shared providers, there are good and bad VPS providers, there are good and bad dedicated server providers, there are good and bad colo providers, etc.
I had a spirited discussion with another member on these forums over “cloud/vps” vs “dedicated” where I was trying to keep things to the technical details but that seems difficult for some to do.
My experience is that a VPS is more about being able to do things you can’t do in a shared environment – like installing server-wide daemons. It can lead to additional stability but there are plenty of non-$hitty shared hosting providers that are reliable and stable.
Generally my experience is that you will spend a lot more to do the same thing on a VPS as you would a shared service. Licensing overhead, management, etc all factors in.
There are a lot of terrible shared providers. One of the most frustrating things is the whole ‘VPS is better’ mindset because someone signed up for [insert-terrible-shared-hosting-company-name-here], they had a bad experience, then they moved to [another-terrible-shared-hsoting-company] and then assumed that all shared hosting providers are bad. For example those that sign up for BlueHost and then move to HostGator – both being EIG/NewFold Digital companies.
You can certainly do that – but you are doing the same thing as what happened in that other thread. You’re painting with too broad a brush.
The rules here on WHT make it hard to provide evidence without breaking the rules. For example I can’t post the performance statistics of our shared hosting for you to compare against your VPS hosting for the sake of this argument. Doing so would be seen as self-promotion and would very quickly result in infraction.
Sometimes the rules here stifle discussion but I do understand why they exist.
This applies to shared and VPS hosting.
You could be on a VPS node with 5 VMs and have amazing performance or you could be on one with 500 and have mild [at best] performance.
Indeed – it goes both ways so to use this as an argument against shared hosting or for VPS is a bit silly, imho.
I have access to non-bare-metal hardware that will outperform an individual server of the same hardware/specifications in many parameters. Storage throughput for example and uptime/reliability to name a couple.
At the end of the day it’s about getting the service that will fit your needs within your budget. If your budget is a few thousand per month and you don’t mind burning money – by all means – colo your own bare metal and do what you want . Most don’t want to burn money and would prefer to get the job done as cheaply as possible without compromising performance and quality.
This is where choosing a quality provider is important and not so much whether the service is shared, VPS, dedicated, etc.
It’s absolutely not.
This can be done with shared hosting as well and some providers do. Many don’t just because of … well … the very perception that you have. We did it for a while – offered various levels of shared hosting from 1 CPU core up to 18 cores, 1 GB of ram up to 18 GB of ram – and almost nobody went for anything over 1 core because people just don’t understand shared hosting as having that capability.
There are providers that still do this and I am sure their marketing around it is probably better than ours was – we have always lacked in the marketing department.
Just because people don’t take advantage of it – doesn’t that it’s not possible.
Or you could pay $1k/month and end up with a POS server that barely performs. There are plenty of expensive platforms that aren’t great and there are plenty of cheap ones that perform better than one would expect. Again – you’re painting with too broad a brush.
That or their marketing takes advantage of those that are ill-informed and sign up for things based upon the ‘experience’ of ‘experts’ on forums such as WHT.
There are more than just budget providers in the shared market.
Or ::drum roll: aimed at people that want their sites online and don’t need to do anything custom that requires server-wide changes. A shared plan with 10 CPU cores and 10 GB of ram access will out-perform a VPS of the same specifications on the same hardware unless the provider has no clue what they’re doing – but that goes both ways.
Again – the fallacy that a VPS is inherently more powerful. One of the huge benefits of a high end shared account is that the resources required to operate the server itself aren’t taken out of your bubble of resources and aren’t duplicated from VM to VM wasting resources on the node as a whole.
There are certainly good use-cases for VPS, dedicated, colo, etc. The use case “at least it’s not shared hosting,” is absurd.