Switch from dedi to VPS?

Portal Home > Knowledgebase > Articles Database > Switch from dedi to VPS?

Posted by Heyes, 02-15-2017, 05:30 AM
I'm currently using an ageing dedi-server (Athlon 64 x2-core/2300 Mhz, 2gb ram, 500gb hd, 100 Mbps port, unlimited traffic) @$45/mo. With similar-spec VPS (Xeon 2-vcore, 2gb ram, 80gb ssd, 100 Mbps port, unlimited traffic,) available from the same provider @ approx half that cost, with what I've learned from this forum it seems sensible to switch. The smaller hd size is enough, and surely the performance is much better than the old Athlon? Is there any reason to not switch?
Posted by Will-fo-sho, 02-15-2017, 07:23 AM
Hi Heyes, It's probably a good idea to get off the old ded, typically I would recommend another ded though. You have to remember that on a VPS, while it should be relatively contained, you're sharing resources again. If your provider doesn't stay on top of things, the possibility of problems that come from other users will increase. You've probably already thought about that, and the price savings may be worth the sacrifice. One of the things I would check though, is which virtualisation platform they use. I work for a company that has two brands. One brand has very affordable VPS, the other one is double the price. This is because on one brand we're using Virtuozzo, which gives us the ability to oversell resources. The other one uses Zen which has dedicated resources. Both are good products, but it requires your provider to really be on the ball if they're using a virtualisation platform that allows overselling. If they're using full blown cloud, like OpenStack, go nuts. It's probably an upgrade from the dedi. Hope this helps!
Posted by Heyes, 02-15-2017, 09:50 AM
Thanks. I still have doubts about VPS, but the 'guaranteed resources' bit seemed to reduce them... although I'm beginning to think that 'guaranteed resources' is in some cases similar to the 'unlimited bandwidth' nonsense of budget shared.
Posted by PrimeCrown, 02-15-2017, 08:53 PM
You can always consider a KVM / Xen based VPS with guaranteed RAM and CPU resource. VPS cost varies depends on location and other factors. With normal workload on a 2 core, 2GB RAM, SSD VPS you are expected to get similar or better performance compared to your old dedicated.
Posted by net, 02-15-2017, 09:51 PM
VPS is shared while dedicated is not. Something for you to ponder.
Posted by madRoosterTony, 02-15-2017, 11:30 PM
There is also Semi-Dedicated which is a VPS with 100% dedicated resources. Where a VPS is often shared CPU cores and sometimes memory. Semi-Dedicated gives you dedicated access to CPU Cores, RAM, Hard Drives, etc. This gives you better performance then a VPS, but not quite as good as dedicated server.
Posted by BlazinServers, 02-16-2017, 12:30 AM
Depends on your needs. The VPS specs should be better than what you currently have (considering SSD is way faster than HDD, but the loss of disk space). But like others have said, depending on the virtualization it could be oversold too much. In my opinion i'd try the vps, then if it's horrible get a newer dedi for roughly the same price as the old one.
Posted by Heyes, 02-20-2017, 03:08 AM
Thanks to all for your help here. With it, I now understand more about what's available and am thus better placed to make a choice.
Posted by AcheronMedia-VK, 02-20-2017, 05:12 AM
I'd also recommend you switch to a newer dedicated. I've found virtuals to be not quite as advertised. Their primary strength is supposed to be (live) host migration in cases of hardware failure, and for that most of providers separate storage from compute nodes, but on more than one occasion I've seen that promise broken with several providers. But even more importantly, virtual servers are much less secure than dedicated. I'd recommend this interesting and chilling presentation from 33C3: https://media.ccc.de/v/33c3-8022-mem...eeps_on_giving Sure not all providers do memory dedup, but that's just one class of issues. Virtuals are just glorified shared hosting. You're moved one or two levels up the isolation ladder (fs namespacing on "classic" shared (and only with things like "CloudLinux"), pid+uid+fs namespacing on container-based hosting, to CPU assisted execution+memory isolation on kvm/xen/vmware), but at the end of the day it's all just software based and "tricks", you're all executing code on the same cpu, same memory chips.
Posted by AcheronMedia-VK, 02-20-2017, 05:18 AM
That's just a marketing trick. Dedicated hardware resources are basically a dedicated server. Sure you can run a single virtual instance on that, but at the end of the day it's a whole dedicated server, and then those are called Private Clouds and cost way more than just the dedi itself. Because you cannot designate individual memory chips to a VM, and you either have a whole HDD/SSD or you're sharing it. The CPU is the only hardware resource where you can pin cores to a particular VM but... it's still not 100% isolation because of CPU caches.
Posted by KoNorbi, 02-20-2017, 05:33 AM
I would recommend switching, but before you switch, I would ask the provider if they do overselling, and how much load is on their dedicated servers (which you get the VPS from). And also, when I had a VPS, there was a problem at one provider, because my VPS used too much IO disk read/write, and it impacted other's VPS' too, so they asked me to stop using such high load. But it should not be a problem if your resources are dedicated.
Posted by PrimeCrown, 02-20-2017, 06:06 AM
Most of the providers limit disk IO, if you consider a KVM or XEN based VM you can avoid noisy neighbors to an extend.
Posted by KoNorbi, 02-20-2017, 06:11 AM
But it was KVM server, unfortunately with HDD disk. So the problem was that I was running too much gaming servers and causing lag spikes.
Posted by Kost, 02-20-2017, 07:00 AM
Instead of the VPS I think that is better to move to smaller so called low end, but dedicated server. That is better. VPS is just big shared hosting account when you share with other VPS owners 1 dedicated server.
Posted by Heyes, 02-20-2017, 12:15 PM
Thanks again to all... it's appreciated, and keeps adding to my knowledge. It's likely that I'll avoid VPS and stick with dedi - yes the cost is greater (though I've seen VPS at higher than dedi), but so are the advantages, and it removes confusion and potential doubt (which I'm not smart enough to accurately assess). Overall, although the potential cost savings of VPS are attractive, the additional cost of dedi is, to me, a price worth paying. There'll still be 'have I done the right thing?' doubt, but I'd rather it be 'am I spending too much?' rather than 'am I being cheap?'.
Posted by AcheronMedia-VK, 02-20-2017, 12:29 PM
You could also consider something like this: https://www.online.net/en/dedicated-server/dedibox-sc https://www.online.net/en/dedicated-server/dedibox-xc I think those are blade servers. In the cost and performance range of a VPS but vastly more HDD and it's all yours. (fineprint: I linked Online.net because I know they host something like it, I otherwise have no hosting experience with them and cannot vouch for any quality)
Posted by SenseiSteve, 02-20-2017, 03:32 PM
Other than that the VPS is a shared technology, if that doesn't bother you, then there really is no reason not to switch for half off.
Posted by osdomains, 02-21-2017, 08:00 PM
Depends on your needs. The VPS specs should be better than what you currently have but remember you will lose disk space. And always a dedicated instance like "dedicated server" is better that VPS. Obviously, compare the number of cores and ram to verify you choose the right one.
Posted by deviant101, 02-23-2017, 02:15 PM
Dedicated is better, and at this point almost anything is better than an athlon X-2. Even old xeon L5520's and such. I've seen dedicated's with those for $60 a month or so.