On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 18:21 +0100, Mark Rogers wrote: > To continue a conversation I started with Jake on Tuesday night.... > > Some reasons why I like virtual private servers compared with the two > alternative options - "shared" hosting and dedicated servers: > > * Unlike shared hosting I have full SSH access to the server, and can run > my own choice of O/S, and can install non-standard services if I wish > (eg I tend to use xinetd or variations on it to provide specific > handling of incoming connection, which I couldn't do on shared hosting).
Positive's shared hosting says "Some webspace providers don't even mention in the small-print how limited their maintenance facilities are. Well, with us you not only get full, live FTP access, but you also get a full Unix shell account with all the programs and facilities you'd expect with it accessible via SSH." so perhaps that is a sort of half way house ? > However, I'm interested to hear the counter arguments. I currently use > virtual > servers starting at around £10/mo for 512MB RAM and 20GB disk space. Assuming > a 30:1 virtual to host server ratio (I have no idea what the real figure > would > be, I just took 16GB / 512MB RAM = 32 machines) that's an income of around > £300/mo for that server. Is that sufficient to provide a decent service at a > decent margin? I have no idea! should fly, as you can rent a dedicated server for well below £300/mo. Phil _______________________________________________ Peterboro mailing list Peterboro@mailman.lug.org.uk https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/peterboro
