Register free!
Search
 
     

The Green Industry's Resource Center


Click for Weather
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 08-13-2009, 10:05 AM
mikey.hill's Avatar
mikey.hill mikey.hill is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Vail, Colorado
Posts: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiril View Post
Same hardware = same resources. It not only is similar, with respect to a given server, it is almost exactly the same. Only so much CPU and memory to go around now isn't there. All the accounts must share a given servers hardware resources, be they virtual or not. This is what kills shared servers, lack of resources .... and as an administrator you damn well know this.

Also, regardless of what you want people to think here, running virtual hosts consumes more resources than not running them. Yes, there are ways to make it faster, and it is most certainly more secure, however it does require more server hardware resources, and in many cases is considerably slower than running without virtualization.
I really think you need to read up on virtualization, you've mis-interpreted what i've been saying and your either mis-informed or just stubborn for trying to compare shared/virtual hosting. It's totally different, and shared has nothing on VPS. You got a shared host or does anyone here have one that I can mirror? We can put this to the hard knocks test.
__________________
You have 2 ears and 1 mouth. Use them in that ratio.

Last edited by mikey.hill; 08-13-2009 at 10:09 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-13-2009, 10:41 AM
Kiril Kiril is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: District 9 CA
Posts: 18,325
Dude, I run a virtual windows guest on a linux host on nearly a daily basis ... I don't think I need to read up on it, but thanks for your concern.

So let me get this straight ... are you saying that if I install 10 virtual guests on a host system they do not share the same hardware resources (i.e. I have a fully dedicated CPU and memory for each guest).

Last edited by Kiril; 08-13-2009 at 10:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-13-2009, 10:50 AM
Inspira Inspira is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Wayne, NJ
Posts: 39
I've been running on shared hosting for over ten years now. Probably twenty or so websites. NEVER had an issue. One account was hacked into, but the guy's password was abelincoln (it happened on President's day, lol).

I'll say it again. Stick to a reputable host and you'll be fine. A lot of guys look to here for advice on this stuff, and I think it's important to note that the comment on shared hosting being "the bottom of the barrel" is just your opinion, one that I, among others, disagree with.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-13-2009, 11:49 AM
Kiril Kiril is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: District 9 CA
Posts: 18,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inspira View Post
I've been running on shared hosting for over ten years now. Probably twenty or so websites. NEVER had an issue. One account was hacked into, but the guy's password was abelincoln (it happened on President's day, lol).

I'll say it again. Stick to a reputable host and you'll be fine. A lot of guys look to here for advice on this stuff, and I think it's important to note that the comment on shared hosting being "the bottom of the barrel" is just your opinion, one that I, among others, disagree with.
The issues mickey has raised are valid ones for dynamic sites, but if you properly set the server up (both server admin and users), they become a relative non-issue the majority of the time. The point I am making here is VPS or "shared", they are both being hosted on the same box, and therefore use the same hardware resources. Yes, you may get better server hardware utilization with VPS, but like it or not, that hardware is still being shared.

The other point, and the more important one, is that for most people here that have websites, they are nothing more than 5-10 static HTML pages which rarely, if ever, change after the initial design. There is absolutely no need for these people to fork out the money for a VPS. CHMOD your files to 0444 and be done with it!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-14-2009, 08:15 AM
mikey.hill's Avatar
mikey.hill mikey.hill is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Vail, Colorado
Posts: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiril View Post
The issues mickey has raised are valid ones for dynamic sites, but if you properly set the server up (both server admin and users), they become a relative non-issue the majority of the time. The point I am making here is VPS or "shared", they are both being hosted on the same box, and therefore use the same hardware resources. Yes, you may get better server hardware utilization with VPS, but like it or not, that hardware is still being shared.

The other point, and the more important one, is that for most people here that have websites, they are nothing more than 5-10 static HTML pages which rarely, if ever, change after the initial design. There is absolutely no need for these people to fork out the money for a VPS. CHMOD your files to 0444 and be done with it!
Kiril, I never implied that VPS servers don't have shared aspects ... but it's at a hardware level, not OS level. That has nothing in common because Xen/Uml are capable of partitioning off CPU/Mem usage so that each instance receives exactly what's being payed for unlike shared hosting which shares on both the hardware and software layers. 2nd - If your telling me that an $8/month VPS(or 20 if you need a pretty control panel) isn't worth the added value of site responsiveness then you should try telling that to your next client who's trying to pull up your page on a mobile device or an inferior connection. It's a common UI mistake that we assume that people that are visiting our sites have 10M connections(and I'm not saying you don't know this, but I don't think you've taken that into account here) when actually a majority of people who visit our sites, even small ones have vastly inferior capabilities. That makes it our responsiblity as providers to not be the bottleneck. As important as websites are to advertising and business it's also equally important to take the initiative to provide the highest quality available even if it costs a few bucks more per month. Shared hosting has had it's hayday, but the availability and dramatic cost decreases of virtual hosting combined with the performance increases make high quality hosting possible for business' on a budget.

Also you asked for a raise of hands for who has a dynamic site ... I was just digging through the archives looking for a static site to pull down onto my server to compare the two. Amazing how there wasn't a single one in 3 pages worth of posts that wasn't reliant on either asp or php... One was running joomla and 2 others had exposed php scripts that I actually downloaded on to my desktop(I'll be p.m.'ing them before they have some serious issues). I would have looked further but I have to work so maybe later tonight I'll find a static site on here to grab. I'll tell you this much tho, I ran speed tests(with yslow) and 2/3 sites had load times in excess of 15 seconds on my 10M↑ 5↓ connection. I'm going to test the mobile speed on my way to work.

One other thing, I don't see you running much w/ 0444 unless you intended result is a 403 error.
__________________
You have 2 ears and 1 mouth. Use them in that ratio.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-14-2009, 08:37 AM
mikey.hill's Avatar
mikey.hill mikey.hill is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Vail, Colorado
Posts: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiril View Post
Dude, I run a virtual windows guest on a linux host on nearly a daily basis ... I don't think I need to read up on it, but thanks for your concern.

So let me get this straight ... are you saying that if I install 10 virtual guests on a host system they do not share the same hardware resources (i.e. I have a fully dedicated CPU and memory for each guest).
Haha, I just read this comment...I'm going to be late for work but this is worth it as I'll get to show my co-workers what now 'qualifies' as virtualization.

You run a windows host on linux so Like you know how to run virtualbox. Sorry man but your way out of your league here if you honestly believe that running vmware qualifies you as an expert on virtualization. Vmware/virtualbox is a very watered down method of virtualizing that is really a meld of two different OS's running inside an OS. True virtualization occurs thru a hypervisor which is basically runs at the hardware level. The OS's run on top of that next to each other not inside an OS like rhel, debian(ubuntu to the new converts) and arch.

And yes you are fully wrong because you don't know the first thing about virtualization most likely due to the fact you probably typed apt-get install virtualbox-ose in your command line. The hypervisor that powers Xen PARTITIONS OFF HARDWARE RESOURCES. if you have 4 cores and 16G of memory and the server is equally allocated each instance is guaranteed their 1 core of CPU and 4G of memory. Since this is done at the hardware level those restrictions are easily enforced as opposed to doing this with something like virtualbox who's software management allocated memory based on available memory that it doesn't think will effect the host and the rest it pulls from swap. As far as cpu cycles it's not even close to guaranteed - in fact it's more of a crap shoot in this regard. This is a fundamental problem w/ OS based virtualization and the exact reason why your claiming that virtualization is often times slower that shared hosting - your not running a virtual enviroment. Your doing software emulation of virtualization. IF you want to learn more about REAL virtualization i'll be happy to point you in the right direction.
__________________
You have 2 ears and 1 mouth. Use them in that ratio.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-14-2009, 10:33 AM
Kiril Kiril is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: District 9 CA
Posts: 18,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey.hill View Post
Kiril, I never implied that VPS servers don't have shared aspects
Really now ... that is exactly what you implied.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey.hill View Post
I agree that shared hosting is a great deal, but when you look at things from a security perspective as well as site responsiveness and the 'promises' that shared hosts make you it's really the bottom of the barrel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey.hill View Post
Shared Hosting = having a cubicle in a building
VPS Hosting = having your own floor in a building
In fact, the second statement more accurately shows the difference between a shared (native or VPS) and a truly dedicated server (i.e. single account per box).

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey.hill View Post
.. but it's at a hardware level, not OS level. That has nothing in common because Xen/Uml are capable of partitioning off CPU/Mem usage so that each instance receives exactly what's being payed for unlike shared hosting which shares on both the hardware and software layers.
Still sharing resources, hence a SHARED SERVER! You can play all the semantic games you want, but if you have more than one account per box, it is a shared server.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey.hill View Post
2nd - If your telling me that an $8/month VPS(or 20 if you need a pretty control panel) isn't worth the added value of site responsiveness then you should try telling that to your next client who's trying to pull up your page on a mobile device or an inferior connection. It's a common UI mistake that we assume that people that are visiting our sites have 10M connections(and I'm not saying you don't know this, but I don't think you've taken that into account here) when actually a majority of people who visit our sites, even small ones have vastly inferior capabilities. That makes it our responsiblity as providers to not be the bottleneck. As important as websites are to advertising and business it's also equally important to take the initiative to provide the highest quality available even if it costs a few bucks more per month. Shared hosting has had it's hayday, but the availability and dramatic cost decreases of virtual hosting combined with the performance increases make high quality hosting possible for business' on a budget.
So you are saying that people who have a handful of static pages, which may get 100 unique visits per month by actual potential customers need to fork out $20/month for VPS? The sites most people have here are a FAR cry from mission critical ... you need to get a grip on what is going on here with respect to the typical website. BTW, I am curious why you are even posting here? If you do not work in the green industry, and you are not trying to sell something without becoming a sponsor, what are you doing here other than trying to sell people on a service that most of them have no need for?

I'm not disagreeing with you that VPS is a far better solution to your typical "shared" solution, but the vast majority of the time the additional cost is simply NOT justified! Just because you have hopped onto this relatively new way of running shared web servers doesn't mean everyone else has too. Get over yourself already!

Furthermore, if VPS is vastly superior to your typical shared host (in security and performance), then why charge more for the service? If anything it should come in at a lower price point because you are getting more for less with respect to the data center.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey.hill View Post
Also you asked for a raise of hands for who has a dynamic site ... I was just digging through the archives looking for a static site to pull down onto my server to compare the two. Amazing how there wasn't a single one in 3 pages worth of posts that wasn't reliant on either asp or php...
Funny, because just about every site I have reviewed, and almost every request for how to build a site has predominantly been for static pages. You reviewed 3 sites .... I have reviewed no less than 30-40 sites from people that use this site, the majority of which are static pages.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey.hill View Post
I'll tell you this much tho, I ran speed tests(with yslow) and 2/3 sites had load times in excess of 15 seconds on my 10M↑ 5↓ connection. I'm going to test the mobile speed on my way to work.
That could be due to a wide variety of reasons, none of which have anything to do with the host.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey.hill View Post
One other thing, I don't see you running much w/ 0444 unless you intended result is a 403 error.
Really now .... you can't read a static HTML file with those permissions, and you claim to be a administrator. You might want to try it sometime, you might learn something. If you need more information, I will be happy to point you in the right direction.

Oh and FYI, I never claimed to be an expert on virtualization, however I am also not an ignorant fool either. You have NO idea what I have run (now and in the past) for virtualization software, so I suggest you stop pretending like you do.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-14-2009, 11:06 AM
mikey.hill's Avatar
mikey.hill mikey.hill is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Vail, Colorado
Posts: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiril View Post
....randomness???...
I'm not going to give you a beginners course in CS here. You don't understand how it works and your clearly to hard headed to see that. All your doing now is pulling up random tidbits of info and stringing them together with fictional glue. Why, I have no idea - maybe you just have too much time on your hands or maybe your mom grounded you or something.

Regardless, I'm not going to feed your ego or explain to you the reason that I'm on this forum, but instead suggest you evaluate your acumen and think twice before you get into a debate of which you have limited knowledge of the topic.
__________________
You have 2 ears and 1 mouth. Use them in that ratio.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-14-2009, 12:25 PM
Kiril Kiril is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: District 9 CA
Posts: 18,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey.hill View Post
I'm not going to give you a beginners course in CS here. You don't understand how it works and your clearly to hard headed to see that. All your doing now is pulling up random tidbits of info and stringing them together with fictional glue. Why, I have no idea - maybe you just have too much time on your hands or maybe your mom grounded you or something.

Regardless, I'm not going to feed your ego or explain to you the reason that I'm on this forum, but instead suggest you evaluate your acumen and think twice before you get into a debate of which you have limited knowledge of the topic.
Good.

I suggest then you stop making ridiculous statements .... everyone needs to be buy the VPS hosting package .... you can't read a static HTML file with 0444 permissions without generating a 403 error ..... a server box with multiple accounts is not sharing resources ..... full virtualization is watered down ... VMware only offers a full virtualization solution .... full virtualization does not use a hypervisor (you obviously have forgotten about hosted hypervisors)

Do you even bother to read the stuff you are writing? Also, before you go make uninformed statements about a piece of software (VMware) you might want to check up on its capabilities. You do realize that VMI support has been available since kernel version 2.6.21

I think it is perhaps you who needs a refresher course in basic CS.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-14-2009, 01:30 PM
mikey.hill's Avatar
mikey.hill mikey.hill is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Vail, Colorado
Posts: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiril View Post
Good.

I suggest then you stop making ridiculous statements .... everyone needs to be buy the VPS hosting package .... you can't read a static HTML file with 0444 permissions without generating a 403 error ..... a server box with multiple accounts is not sharing resources ..... full virtualization is watered down ... VMware only offers a full virtualization solution .... full virtualization does not use a hypervisor (you obviously have forgotten about hosted hypervisors)

Do you even bother to read the stuff you are writing? Also, before you go make uninformed statements about a piece of software (VMware) you might want to check up on its capabilities. You do realize that VMI support has been available since kernel version 2.6.21

I think it is perhaps you who needs a refresher course in basic CS.
When did I ever say that everyone needed to buy a VPS server? If you look at one of my first posts in this topic I actually recommended a shared host that one of my clients used. I simply put out there that there are alternatives to shared hosting with VPS providers which have much better offers and products than what many people are lead to believe by people like you. I simply offered to help people set it up if they needed it(which if they have time and patience they don't) and didn't want to pay 50+/month to have one setup for them with a bunch of run of the mill crap preinstalled.

You are correct -your permissions of 0444 would work on an standard server but there is no point in doing that unless you want to waste yours and your clients time setting and unsetting permissions for each and every file for edits and you shouldn't be spewing that out there. S. 0640/0644 works just fine and has no security implications if you have proper system and group policies in place.

There is something clearly wrong with you and you need to find another channel to vent other than spreading your inferiority complex all across the internet, after all the internet's serious business you know.
__________________
You have 2 ears and 1 mouth. Use them in that ratio.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2012, LawnSite.comô - Moose River Media
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:48 PM.

Page generated in 0.14615 seconds with 7 queries