Quote:
This site is actually not run from a VPS, but a managed dedicated server.
HOWEVER...
It's an older dedicated system that would be comparable to their current enterprise-grade cloud infrastructure VPS offerings. It would be closest to VS2-SSD, the 4gb VPS for €80. The dedicated server still has more I/O and HDD space, and the CPU has more cores. RAM never really hits above 3gb, so more RAM is really not needed.
This site is heavily cached, using multiple cache methods at both the server level (webserver AND scripting languages) and app level. We've also heavily modified the code of the server and apps. Nothing is stock, nothing is default. To get it to perform this well took lots of effort. I like the current hardware it's on, so don't have any desired to change -- even if a better upgrade existed for the same amount. It "ain't broke", and we don't have time to needless "fix" it.
AND...
We also have a 2gb VPS with
EuroVPS used for our satellite projects. I have zero complaints about that one.
Yet another is for backup of all servers.
And then one more for dev testing panels and code.
We wouldn't have multiple servers if that host wasn't one of the best around.
Quote:
Knownhost uses Virtuozzo. It's container based virtualization, and CPU is "fair share". It's not yours. VZ has a chronic issue with CPU abuse, as that's how 2000s VPS were. But now, better tech exists -- Xen, VMware, Hyper-V, KVM. Not containers, but true virtualization. These allows dedicated CPU specs, not "fair share" (shared!) processor. It's yours, the end.
Now, Knownhost is one of the few excellent Virtuozzo hosts that closely monitor their CPU for abuse. However, in my opinion, it's wasted effort -- they should have to. CPU sharing is so last decade.
Neither host is a bad choice. I just think EuroVPS is better if you're concerned about hardware specs.
Quote:
|
would you recommend Litespeed?
|
No -- not unless you're a host. Apache 2.4 reverse proxied to nginx with Varnish cache can be much faster. LiteSpeed is better than stock Apache, but it's had a hard time keeping up with nginx request benchmarks. The caching abilities of Varnish can also be better, depending on setup.
The biggest issue is cost vs. work.
- nginx, Varnish = no cost*, but more work
- LiteSpeed = no work, but monthly license cost
** If using the Unixy cPanel Varnish plugin, it has a one-time or leased cost. And I suggest this.
Another option is forget Linux altogether -- use Windows IIS 7 or IIS 8 with wincache.
Most nginx issues are really just user issues -- something was not set up correctly, or the configuration were left as defaults (and it really need to be changed based on the server and app code).
Quote:
|
Pure SSD and SSD cache and should i just go Cache/accelerated or stick with what i have now which is Pure SSD
|
You won't really notice a difference. To me, SSD is like putting a spoiler/fin on the back of your car. It will help, but only in the right circumstance. Simply having is there doesn't make is automatically go faster.
Quote:
|
I am not sure how active your site is
|
It gets a lot of daily traffic, and can spike hard when featured on news sites, law enforcement seminars, or even plain ol' Digg or Slashdot, etc. The small spikes are why we upgrade from shared many years ago, and the large spikes caused us to jump from VPS to dedicated.
I think you'd be perfectly fine with the 2gb EuroVPS plan.
