Live data from Hacker News

Shared Virtual vs Dedicated vs Colocated server hosting - which do you use for your startup?

news.ycombinator.com

11–17 of 17 posts

Re: Shared Virtual vs Dedicated vs Colocated server hosting - which do you use for your startup?

#11
The problem with VPSes at least is if anyone on the physical box manages to crash the machine, it goes out for everyone. Xen has historically been buggy -- just starting SBCL would crash it(!). Count on Murphy's law -- I had just finished some work and was waiting for a client to take a look at it, and of course my webhost decided to reboot the VPS right before the client checked. Since I hadn't put a restart in rc.local yet, it was just down.

Even with all your other ducks in a row, you don't want a third party rebooting your machine while someone is in the middle of using your site, especially if there's anything important going on, like customers purchasing with a CC or investors taking a look.

Jey's suggestion of cheap dedicated servers for $50 sounds better than EC2 if you're CPU-bound (2.5 GHz vs. 1.7) and is cheaper ($72 per node for 24-7 EC2 usage) and won't wipe everything on restart like EC2 does.

Note that mileage varies widely with webhosts. The majority of them do not understand even the basics of computer security, e.g. the importance of publishing their SSH key fingerprints (via https).

Re: Shared Virtual vs Dedicated vs Colocated server hosting - which do you use for your startup?

#12
At my company, we decided to get a few dedicated servers from LT. Prices are great and so far -- knocking on wood -- it's been a great ride.

VPS are not the best for mission critical services, because you never now what you neighbours are doing. Colo is just to expensive and not practical.

Re: Shared Virtual vs Dedicated vs Colocated server hosting - which do you use for your startup?

#13
post #8
post #7

I am going with Media Temple (GS) I can't give you feedback about them yet, but they cost $20 a month and their grid server can grow with your needs...

I recommend doing a Technorati search on that. Lots of people have received less than reliable service on the Grid. They do great marketing, but their tech is overrated from I've been reading.

I agree, my friends actually just switched off MT because of their difficulty hosting RoR apps.

Re: Shared Virtual vs Dedicated vs Colocated server hosting - which do you use for your startup?

#14
I started out with shared virtual hosting, but after getting a couple of paying customers I moved to dedicated hosting with LayeredTech.

If you try out the demo you'll see it's really responsive:

http://ourdoings.com/

As compared to shared virtual hosting, where even a trivial sample app is sometimes sluggish:

http://brlewis.com/map.brl

Re: Shared Virtual vs Dedicated vs Colocated server hosting - which do you use for your startup?

#16
post #7

I am going with Media Temple (GS) I can't give you feedback about them yet, but they cost $20 a month and their grid server can grow with your needs...

I've launched two Rails apps on MT(GS) and my experience has been very good. I believe they did have some issues initially, but I can say that I have not experienced any of the problems others have had.

Re: Shared Virtual vs Dedicated vs Colocated server hosting - which do you use for your startup?

#17
I'm running at home off a DSL circuit. I host using a mixture of virtual FreeBSD servers under Parallels on an Intel Mac Mini and two real servers. It works pretty well for low traffic web sites, but the VM's need to have a real hardware NTP server to keep their clocks syncronized. I also run NFS on real hardware. It works surprisingly well. Watch how you allocate VM disk I/O across your physical disk spindles. I have three physical drives plugged into the mini.
Post reply on HN