VPS or Shared Hosting

It all depends on your needs. If you have a large website with a lot of traffic then a VPS is the way to go. But if it is a small site with limited traffic then shared would more than likely be ok.
As a general rule of thumb, get the best you can afford. For my main business I run it on a VPS, for many of my affiliate sites which are generally wordpress I run on either WPengine or Siteground. Siteground offers great value for money and the bigger packages are lightning fast.

Its all about usability of your site. When I first started I had shared hosting on 123reg which is without a doubt one of the worst hosts I have ever encountered if you have a large site. If people have to wait 3+ seconds for a page to load then then will move on.

Rudi

Hi.

Can you estimate your disk quota and traffic requirements?

What we use, we make static pages, and put them on AWS | Amazon Simple Storage Service (S3) - Online Cloud Storage for Data & Files which is delivered by AWS | Amazon CloudFront CDN - Content Delivery Network & Streaming.

One page lander with no "crazy traffic" shouldn't require much resources so VPS looks like an overkill in this case.
You can start with shared hosting (it should be faster, easier and more affordable to start) and switch to VPS later if needed.

I used to use shared hosting for years but now I keep only to vps as I found over the years that it is easy to find your site hacked on shared hosting. For 3 years, I used 4 vps (at one time) and I never once had one single site hacked.

Good decision, shared hosting would definitely suit your requirements!

Sorry, but I cannot see how "shared hosting" is generally more secure than a VPS or a dedicated server. In fact, with shared hosting, there are many situations how another user may inflict upon the accounts of other users. One security hole in shared hosting impacts all the users. While in the VPS it impacts only the user who has it.

Cheap VPS for US $3.60 offered by Atlantic.Net with 10 GB traffic, offers quite a good solution for simple websites. It also offers 450 emails per hour, making it up to 324,000 emails per month. I don't even know how many thousands of emails we have sent already over Atlantc.Net without problems.

Some other providers in Europe such as ServeTheWorld.Net offer VPS for some 10-15 dollars, which are 2 GB memory and without any limitations in emails.

VPS security is very simple, and if you ask me, by far better:

- you can use VNC or remote viewer to setup firewall, so that just NOBODY can access any ports except HTTP or website and you can setup your own IP or block of IPs so that only you as owner have access to your server.

- if you have PHP or other website security hole, I don't see how keeping it on shared hosting makes it generally better. It rather can give easier access to files and folders to other clients. I mean you can read memory by PHP and you can find out what other users are running, and if you find a security hole, you can run against such a website exploits and make damages.

- VPS or dedicated server, are isolated instances, they are not shared with user users.

For static websites, most secure is keeping it on Content Delivery Networks such as Cloudflare or Amazon Cloudfront or keeping it on Amazon S3, which is "shared" but much secure hosting and extremely cheap.

A good pro share hosting might be good for you instead of a low end vps...

Ean

The reason to go to a VPS (or cloud VPS) wouldn't be to improve your conversion rate, it would be because your site can't handle the traffic it is getting on a shared hosting plan or if you have too many products for a standard plan. When looking for good shared hosting, there are a number of factors to consider such as disc space and support. Atlantic.net who was mentioned above wrote this post at what to look for in a shared hosting package. https://www.atlantic.net/blog/2012/0...sting-package/ Hope this helps.

I use and Recommend the Bluehost is the best for a small website

Why not you go for a cloud hosting platform. It is very affordable and you can pay as you go.

VPS is better in many ways and you should start from the low cost and reliable like 4goodhosting.com.
They are able to satisfy the needs of many webmasters all over the It world.

All depends on the volume of traffic, if you are just hosting a few niche sites that rely on SEO, then you should be fine.

However if you are blasting landing pages with high volumes of paid traffic its false economy running it on shared hosting because you will be lose customers. So, in that case a VPS or dedicated is a much better option.

All the best

It goes without saying that a VPS is better in many aspects and you may have one from hostsailor.com, their servers work with no glitches and they provide high uptime and active support and live chat.

If you are just starting out then I would suggest that you go with a shared plan it will be fine for you . But make sure that you can host multiple domains on it otherwise you do not want it ..

You should be looking at $5 to $11 a month if you pay monthly ..

Now if you have money to spend and are running some serious amounts of traffic each day then go with the VPS which is around $70 a month give or take a few dollars ...

I do not believe that you need a VPS right now if you are asking this question and should be fine with the shared hosting plan...

I hope this helps ..

Some great posts in this thread, Back in the day, (many moons ago) a shared hosting account was not really that bad, back in 1999 I had a web server that was decent and you literally could not tell the performance difference in an average website statistically.

But that has changed, we have tons of hosts that are just over selling, period.

That is all they do is to over sell...

Its how they make money.

------------------
VPS offers a lot better performance, (but there is a hidden barb)

You could end up paying a higher price for a service that is not as good as you may hope.

(memory, for one thing, you need 1024 or better for most serious applications.)

Also CPU time, is not the same thing as the number of cores on the box.

This is a very deceptive thing, you may see a great offer, 8 cores, lots of memory, but in the fine print is a devil.

They only allow you to share CPU time, which basically means that you could end up on a box where someone is running a white list sending out 10000,s of email every hour.

So your website would get dinged by poor performance.

(so even though Your paying for a VPS your actually on a shared VPS)

its a big problem...

check out Web Hosting Talk - The largest, most influential web hosting community on the Internet

i need couple of more information.

Are you hosting tracker like prosper202 or cpvlab.
How much visitor do you send.

If you are hosting tracker, vps is recommended.

VPS is generally better but if you have NO experience of configuring VPS and whm / cpanel / paralles or what ever package is on offer it could be daunting but then wasn't cpanel the first time you used it?

If you go for a fully managed VPS you will usually find that the provider will assist you with security concerns.

PS - I went to buy a VPS from Hostgator and the official response was that the VPS hardware was not very powerful and the shared hosting hardware platform was much more up to date.

I would suggest checking that the company you are looking at have the VPS on a decent server, also remember that there will be more than one VPS per server so if it is on old crappy hardware you could be in a similar position as shared hosting performance wise.

Things to check.
1. Fully Managed ( good if you not know what you are doing)
2. Good Hardware.
3. Good contention / loading.
4. Decent chat support.
5 and 1 Price.
6 Good options eg , CentOS / windows / whm / cpanel etc...

Shared Hosting is more than enough to start with. Even if you are expecting a lot of traffic, you could use Amazon Cloudfront as your CDN (and optionally S3 for hosting files). That combination works even better than VPS and is extremely cheap.

A private server might not be necessary unless you are expecting a boatload of traffic. If you are starting out, get a shared hosting from a reputable provider and spend the rest of the money on traffic and tools.

Also, CTR has nothing to do with hosting. You just have to make sure your site is available on call at all times and offers great user experience.

I use Known Host and there is something to the idea of having to pay for additional cores, as another poster here mentioned, (understanding how this works is key to understanding how expensive it actually is) here is an example of how this might effect your account.

Lets say for example that your VPS has two cores, (with a lower priority factor) since you cannot really have one core assigned to any one account anyway, you would actually have to purchase four cores to get the additional performance that they (say) that you would see if you (upgrade)

I said that to say this, when you have this hypothetical example running on a VPS box and there are say 10 to 12 other VPS instances also running on the same (larger) server.

Then when there is a spike in traffic or CPU usage your website will suffer slower page loads.

So your website could take a hit on some of the larger search engines for SEO and page load.

Traffic is Traffic if your on a shared host your looking at slower page loads and perhaps even getting suspended if your traffic load gets too high.

If you look at it that way, then the idea of (renting) additional cores is really ridiculous.

The reason it is silly is because you cannot take a 64 bit core split it up into smaller subdivisions and then assign that higher CPU cycles to any one VPS account, (it would require 128 bit software engineering with threads capability and that does not yet exist in the civilian world)

So in some ways, having a VPS server on some hosting provider boxes can be a little like shared hosting which is sort of dishonest in a few different ways.

some good information in some of the posts in this thread, good read...

Depending on the traffic and what apps you need to install in it but shared hosting can be a good solution I think for you.

I have done some case study on a couple of known shared hosting and to be honest I think they can handle the kind of traffic you will generate.

You have other options than those two as many have mentioned. But I would be very careful with shared hosting. Many providers oversell or have very low bandwidth limits. I ran into that problem before with a campaign and basically lost money like crazy.

A properly configured VPS will always be better than Shared Hosting. But on most cases, shared hosting is the smarter choice considering costs.

Not to mention that your Shared Hosting account also will be on a VPS, which you don't have much control over and you share with hundreds of other people.

Following article has more info about this,
Virtual Private Server Hosting vs Shared Hosting | Technology and IM Blog

go for blue host

Hi, since it is a single page, shared hosting would be the appropriate solution unless your PPC campaign becomes so successful that significant bandwidth is consumed. If that is happening then you would need to go to a more dedicated environment.

I would suggest that you take out a shared plan for a few months (take it on a monthly payment scheme) and monitor the activity. If things 'are getting out of hand', then it is easy to move to a VPS environment. Just ask your host to switch the plan. More than likely you yourself would not have to do any work other than fork out the additional few dollars monthly. That's it.

I use to have 2 dedicated servers on Softlayer now I have one VPS on host monster it does everything I need it, can track all my landing pages via CPVLab it rotates fast for PPV no problem. However I dont' have huge traffic I imagine at some point it will lag and not show the offers but I don't have that kind of traffic, if you did then you need like a dedicated server. Most marketers don't need that.

Shared hosting is mostly with unlimited traffic but with a max CPU usage of 5% and if your sites load size is heavy then it will not be able to handel lots of traffic something in the range of 500 views a day will be to much (depending on the load size)
VPS can handel lots of traffic, so if i where you i would stick with shared hosting and if needed upgrade to VPS.

The problem is when your site is croweded with traffic it wont be able to show the content to all your visitores so keep an eye on the sites cpu usage.

Dude, so by your question, I take it that you are sending ppc (paid traffic) to your website?

If yes, then you don't need a vps. Get the basic baby package at hostgator and you will be fine.

A VPS is for those that are into SEO and want a more robust server for different features. If you're just sending some ppc traffic to your landing page, then a bare-bones hosting package is all you need.

yes it depend what you need if speed VPS better dedicated best and for ppc still shared hosting work and you have a budget to consider ....hope helped bit

Better to host different domains on separate ip. All this you can do on one vps.

Start out with Shared hosting.. check your traffic and monthly bandwidth. I was suggested by few small hosting owner to change to VPS if your current traffic will is expected reach 10-20x more than average. Personally, use share hosting.. then if got many domains, change to Reseller, VPS and Dedicated according to your budget/usage.

absolutely VPS.
I am using too as "Offshore SEO VPS" gives me bulletproof SEO VPS with dedicated server & so on.
You may take a try too. You can contact them anytime as they online 24/7

Problem with shared hosting is handling surges of traffic. You don't want to risk it.. I've never heard of shared hosting being a good idea from any reputable affiliate marketer.

I agree with Rudi! If you have plan to build a large website with a lot of traffic then go with VPS. Otherwise Shared hosting work well for small websites.

The VPS gives more power and there by speed up the site loading.You can even achieve it by good shared hosting plans

Remember that it is always good to go with shared hosting than going with low level VPS hosting

Shared or Dedicated depend on your website weight. Large website demands Dedicated BUT if you have a small one absolutely like to recommend shared. Thant won't be much problem. Several vps company provide cheap and reliable service but try to know them first. I'm a Offshore seo vps user and happy with their excellent service. So, I'll recommend their plans!

I would only recommend VPS if you have a large stream of traffic
that visits frequently. Start on shared for practicality then onto dedicated/VPS when you get bigger.

I do VPS with Hostgator and it's 50 bucks
Aren't you putting the Horse in front of the Trailer (however that dumb Analogy goes...)

I would start low and work my way up based on traffic. The good thing about HostGator and the reason I like them Is you can call them all the time...

This is how I learned about hosting was calling all day.

You can always bump your service up if your maxing out.

or if you don't mind spending 50 and may not use a fraction of bandwidth then go for it.

With shared hosting, you will be at risk of using too many cpu resources which will get your website suspended. You will get dedicated CPU resources with VPS which can allow your website to sustain good number of visitors, so a VPS would be ideal for your requirements.

I will suggest VPS hosting for professional websiters...But if you have small budget website then go for shared.

IF are just Starting and don't want to indulge with technicalities then go for shared hosting...Second depends upon your Traffic...IF have high influx of traffic then go for VPS....

I actually it depends on your requirements. If you are going for a one page lander then VPS would be the best choice for you. You may take a here to get clear idea which one would be the best choice for you.
Best VPS Hosting Reviews (2016 Edition)

how about self hosted autoresponder ...which one is better ?