#11
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Hosting vs \'Virtual Server\'
Some virtual server providers are inexpensive if you're willing to sacrifice some monthly bandwidth in exchange for dedicated cpu cycles and ram. The can also allow more flexibility in terms of software provided and upgrades and scheduled restarts etc.
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Hosting vs \'Virtual Server\'
is he just talking about cronjobs and stuff? any good shared host will have the same control for a domain as a VPS
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Hosting vs \'Virtual Server\'
won't you run into performance issues if you're running your website off one of these hosting companies that just packs a ton of clients onto one server where you're all fighting for cpu cycles and memory.
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Hosting vs \'Virtual Server\'
I've had sites getting 10,000 - 30,000 page views a day where each page view required 3-5 SQL calls and it ran just fine on $10/month hosting. They used numbering for directories and we were like client 132 on that computer.
Years ago your concern would be valid but not anymore with 3+ GhZ machines with 1-2GB of RAM in them. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Hosting vs \'Virtual Server\'
Fedora core
drupal = sucess |
|
|