Shared Hosting on VPS?

lele0108

I currently have a 4Gb VPS, and a 1.5Gb VPS, and I would like to run a shared hosting business on them. Do you think this is a good idea?

The servers are stable, and I think I can run a hundred or so clients on the 4Gb. Am I just dreaming, or do you think this setup will work?

Thanks.

Server Information:
4Gb (VolumeDrive)
4Ghz Dedicated, 1000 CPU Units, Xeon(R) CPU E5620
100mb/s Uplink

1.5Gb (Virpus)
Xeon(R) CPU X3440

Thanks!

lele0108

I am using a dual set-up of DirectAdmin and Kluxo, but I am considering cPanel. The licensing fees are a lot though!

subigo

A lot of hosts will break one big server up into 3-4 large containers for shared hosting. It makes things like backups/restores easy and allows for better resource management. With that said, I would be careful hosting shared clients on a vps if you don't have root access to the node. There are just too many things out of your control if you don't.

lele0108

Yea, its around $15 a month for cPanel. The problem is, its probably going to take around a week-two weeks for them to delieve that to me.

upfreak

@DotVPS said: Volumedrive offer cheaper licensing don't they?

$14/m Cpanel and $12/m Directadmin.. what ya think?

AsuraHosting

@lele0108 said: its probably going to take around a week-two weeks for them to delieve that to me.

You can buy the VPS Cpanel License yourself for $15/month.

http://www.buycpanel.com/

BassHost

Everyone wants cPanel. However, I would not put my clients sites on volumedrive services.

upfreak

selling shared hosting and the kind of abuse it brings in and most importantly your capacity and availability to provide support.
These days just cPanel doesn't suffice. I would expect Cloudlinux, Litespeed server, Cloudflare CDN, dedicated IP address and SSL for start. Except Cloudflare everything has a price tag. Apache and centos are generally ok, but as a shared host these stuff gives me a feeling they wont fold up very soon. It atleast shows they have a business plan.

lele0108

Everyone wants cPanel. However, I would not put my clients sites on volumedrive services.

Why not? Set up time isn't great (Was fine for me), but the services and connection are stellar.

lele0108

These days just cPanel doesn't suffice. I would expect Cloudlinux, Litespeed server, Cloudflare CDN, dedicated IP address and SSL for start. Except Cloudflare everything has a price tag. Apache and centos are generally ok, but as a shared host these stuff gives me a feeling they wont fold up very soon. It atleast shows they have a business plan.

I have dedicated IPs and SSL. Cloudfare I can set up very easily, but truthfully, I feel it does nothing.

AsuraHosting

@lele0108: About VolumeDrive, they provide good service when everything is running good. But when you're in trouble and need assistance, that is where it'll hurt you... as they take their sweet time.

lele0108

It depends what type of sites you are going to host. Apache is okay for the first 50 accounts but i noticed when we switched to litespeed ,memory usage dropped by about 50%.

I talked to a SysAdmin co-worker (MineCraft GSP who also runs a small shared hosting part). He told me litespeed was overpriced and not that useful.

subigo

@lele0108 said: I talked to a SysAdmin co-worker (MineCraft GSP who also runs a small shared hosting part). He told me litespeed was overpriced and not that useful.

There's nothing wrong with Apache. If you optimize it correctly you won't have any issues. I have DirectAdmin servers with 300 clients and no issues at all with Apache.

upfreak

@lele0108 said: litespeed was overpriced and not that useful.

When you compare apache and litespeed, litespeed really wins hands down
Nginx is almost there in performance, but still litespeed wins ( esp in a shared hosting environment) since it is a drop-in replacement for apache. Apache dependent scripts work without any modification with litespeed.
However i wish it was free

lele0108

When you compare apache and litespeed, litespeed really wins hands down

Nginx is almost there in performance, but still litespeed wins ( esp in a shared hosting environment) since it is a drop-in replacement for apache. Apache dependent scripts work without any modification with litespeed.
However i wish it was free

How about Lighttpd?

prometeus

We run shared hosting with virtual machines since years. Having a shared san and a virtualized cluster give us a more reliable environment than a dedicated server :-)

upfreak

@lele0108 said: How about Lighttpd?

If this report is true, litespeed enterprise edn wins.
In general lighty is more suitable for static sites or sites with cache servers such as varnish. and litespeed standard version is only as good as nginx/lighty.

Edit: as you see only for high traffic websites litespeed is worth. For medium or low traffic websites deserve to support apache

miTgiB

@peppr said: If this report is true

That report is self promotion and fails to put litespeed against Apache 2.2.x where it does not out-preform, only give or take equal performance, so why spend money when something that is better supported, i.e. Apache, is free.

lele0108

@WhiteLabelHosting

Thanks for your input. VolumeDrive servers are SO cheap, that if I can even fit 30 clients (@$1) on one server, I'm making profit. That doesn't seem to be pushing the V-Node.

kalam

Apache with an nginx reverse proxy works just fine for my needs. Can litespeed really outperform that combination?

Francisco

@kalam said: Apache with an nginx reverse proxy works just fine for my needs. Can litespeed really outperform that combination?

What's nice about litespeed is it handles htaccess nicely, which nginx can't.

Francisco

miTgiB

@kalam said: Can litespeed really outperform that combination?

Litespeed cannot outperform Apache 2.2.x, it is only slightly better or slightly worse depending on the test being run, but I have heard great things about Apache 2.2.x with Nginx as a reverse proxy, although I've never seen any test reports on the combo.