VPS vs Dedicated Server

I’m considering moving from a VPS to a Dedicated Server. A 4 Gig VPS is $200/month. A 4 Gig Dedicated Server is $139/month. This has me wondering about the advantages of the VPS. The only thing I can come up with is the limit on drive space. Any thoughts on this?

If you plan to just host websites, the VPS in most cases, is plenty of power. People can use dedicated servers for other kinds of server environments, like streaming/game servers, etc., but it usually takes a lot more manual work to set up. The VPS can be fully managed by us, and we can help support it a little easier if things with the overall setup get messed up for any reason. And yes, you don’t have any disk space limits on the VPS, only the physical RAM usage and CPU limits you set with the slider in your panel for it.

Hope that helps. :slight_smile: If you have any any further questions or concerns, please feel free to let us know!

As far as advantages of the VPS go: You can change the memory allocated to a VPS on a minute-to-minute basis, if you need. You can’t do that with a dedicated server.

The processors in VPS host servers are more powerful than the ones on our lower-end dedicated servers, as well. You have to share them with other customers, though, so it can be kind of a wash depending on what your expectations / needs are.

Thanks! That helps a lot.


If a site needs ~ 2G on VPS then it’s time go dedicated. That 4G VPS price could nearly buy a Half Moon 8 : 4 core, 8G RAM

The only benefit I can see with VPS is if the user is trying to run everything on as minimal resources as possible - which is just a really bad idea.

The DreamHost site indicates that CPU resources on VPS are “allocated” based on the current RAM settings. Is it perhaps possible to use all available CPU resources if no one else is utilising them, even if RAM is set on the low side - ie. CPU resources are “reserved/guaranteed” based on RAM settings, but free lunch if available?

Correct. We try to allocate CPU resources fairly based on memory allocation, but we don’t let it go to waste either — if there are processes running which could use all the available CPU, they will get it. All that gets played with is the way it gets split up if there’s not enough to go around.

Very cool. More could probably be made about this in marketing. DH VPS just looks like a waste of cash to me, but tips like this sweeten the perceived deal tremendously.

I am in the research stage of starting a stock photography website. In the beginning I’m sure a shared server (I’m on eagles now) will be fine but once I have amassed enough photos (100,000 maybe?) and higher traffic (over 70k unique visitors/day?) I’m sure I’ll need to switch to a dedicated or VPS server. Can someone please share thoughts on which would work better? Ideally I would prefer if the server can be managed by DH until I am able to hire an employee to manage it.

For that employee - what title is that called if they are managing the website/servers? Web admin? I’d like to get an idea of the salary I would need to pay them.


It really depends on the application that’s serving your website. If it’s written correctly, your prime concern would be uptime, bandwidth and storage fees - which aren’t a worry on DH shared servers thanks to that very cool “Unlimited” bit in the contract. A shared account will handle 70k hits a day easily with a slick application using an appropriate caching mechanism.

I’ll be using Photostore by Ktools. Any chance you’re familiar with it? Can you recommend an appropriate caching mechanism? I’m pretty much starting from scratch and am learning everything as I go. Thanks for your help. :slight_smile:

I’ve never heard of it, sorry. Your best bet would be to ask their Support guys what they use. They might have a forum or something, too.

PageSpeed is built in to our apache servers, and actually does a bit of caching and minifying for you.

I use APC most of the time, but xcache is also nice :slight_smile: