A virtual private server is a server. You all just need to get laid.
For reselling, I think a dedicated is the only way to go. With cP/WHM being such resource hogs, you haven't got much RAM left with only 786mb or whatever it was.
786MB is more than enough RAM. I was able to fit over 1000 active cPanel accounts on a server with only 1GB of RAM and it only touched the swap when it ran the nightly backups.
(2010-03-18, 05:42 AM)NetSage Wrote: [ -> ]It's a lot different than a shared host though 
. You have dedicated resources.
Not necessarily - you can easily oversell on a VPS platform, meaning that resources may not be dedicated.
(2010-03-18, 05:00 AM)KuJoe Wrote: [ -> ]A VPS is a Virtual Private Server. Never used ServInt personally but if I ever went back to VPSs I would only use LiquidWeb... their $49 VPS ROCKS! 
I'm not a big LiquidWeb fan - I honestly don't that their offering is competitive, and given the price I could easily get a Xen or KVM VPS in a half decent data centre for that amount.
(2010-03-18, 07:46 AM)KuJoe Wrote: [ -> ]786MB is more than enough RAM. I was able to fit over 1000 active cPanel accounts on a server with only 1GB of RAM and it only touched the swap when it ran the nightly backups.
That's a very sweeping statement. What software was that server running (Apache, Nginx, LiteSpeed etc)? Were all the sites static? How big was the largest site and what was the average bandwidth consumption of each account? Even thougah that situation worked out well for you, it may not for others.
I must also say that 1k active cPanel accounts fitted on a single server is quite daring - I'm presuming you put an emphasis on low prices as opposed to performance in the case of that box.
(2010-03-18, 06:36 AM)CAwesome Wrote: [ -> ]A virtual private server is a server. You all just need to get laid.
For reselling, I think a dedicated is the only way to go. With cP/WHM being such resource hogs, you haven't got much RAM left with only 786mb or whatever it was.
I entirely agree with your second point - yes, it may suffice for quite a few cPanel accounts, but if you're going commercial, then dedicated is (as per your words) 'the only way to go'.
I wouldn't go as far as stating that a VPS is a server - sure, it acts like one, but it has various restrictions. When you buy a VPS, you don't have much flexibility with regards to the hardware on the host node, and on some virtualisation platforms (but not all!) you can't modify key system features such as the kernel. As I said previously, VPSes can also be oversold - you can't do that with a real server.
(2010-03-18, 05:52 PM)vividWire Wrote: [ -> ] (2010-03-18, 05:00 AM)KuJoe Wrote: [ -> ]A VPS is a Virtual Private Server. Never used ServInt personally but if I ever went back to VPSs I would only use LiquidWeb... their $49 VPS ROCKS!
I'm not a big LiquidWeb fan - I honestly don't that their offering is competitive, and given the price I could easily get a Xen or KVM VPS in a half decent data centre for that amount.
The price isn't the reason I like them. Their data centers are top notch (uptime and performance were awesome) but the main reason I prefer them is their support staff is great. Their proactive monitoring was awesome and on numerous occasions they would find a problem and have it fixed before my own monitoring would even send me an e-mail.
(2010-03-18, 05:52 PM)vividWire Wrote: [ -> ] (2010-03-18, 07:46 AM)KuJoe Wrote: [ -> ]786MB is more than enough RAM. I was able to fit over 1000 active cPanel accounts on a server with only 1GB of RAM and it only touched the swap when it ran the nightly backups.
That's a very sweeping statement. What software was that server running (Apache, Nginx, LiteSpeed etc)? Were all the sites static? How big was the largest site and what was the average bandwidth consumption of each account? Even thougah that situation worked out well for you, it may not for others.
I must also say that 1k active cPanel accounts fitted on a single server is quite daring - I'm presuming you put an emphasis on low prices as opposed to performance in the case of that box.
I was running Apache and yes, not all of them were extremely active but 75% of the accounts used between 10MB-1GB of bandwidth, 20% of the accounts used 1GB-10GB of bandwidth, and 5% used up their bandwidth each month.
I fit all 1,000 accounts on a Intel Atom 330 server with only 1GB of RAM and 2 250GB hard drives in RAID1. They were all free accounts so price wasn't a factor and the only performance issues were at night when my nightly maintenance jobs ran (automated backups, updates, file scans, activity scans, virus scans, etc...).
(2010-03-18, 05:52 PM)vividWire Wrote: [ -> ] (2010-03-18, 05:42 AM)NetSage Wrote: [ -> ]It's a lot different than a shared host though . You have dedicated resources.
Not necessarily - you can easily oversell on a VPS platform, meaning that resources may not be dedicated.
I'm not going to argue this because you are right. But, it happens a lot less often with the VPS market than it does the shared market.
For me a VPS will be fine as I just got it and I am clueless
It will be a good learning curve and Yes maybe when I start to get a good flow of income I can afford Dedicated.
With a VPS's you actually do get a 'dedicated' amount of memory, but CPU "abuse" can be a real problem.
(2010-03-19, 05:55 AM)seeker Wrote: [ -> ]With a VPS's you actually do get a 'dedicated' amount of memory, but CPU "abuse" can be a real problem.
Both depend on the platform. Some platforms allow you to set dedicated memory and CPU, others share both.
Oops...
I didn't know the memory could also be shared on some VPS's.
Do you know if vePortal is supposed to have actual dedicated CPU (i.e xxxx cpu units), and memory?
It depends on what platform they use. vePortal is just a GUI, the actual platform will be either OpenVZ or Xen I believe (I don't think they have KVM support just yet).