LiquidWeb vs. Knownhost for VPS hosting?
 

Thanks for helping me on picking the perfect vps options.

I wanted first to go with liquidweb and you recommended that too... But for the same budget $100, i have a 2gb ram 1 cpu 100 gb ssd, i could get at knownhost a 4.5 gb ram , 8cpu.. 120 ssd?

I have to admit i am starting to doubt if i should go with knownhost....

I want ro have the best for my $100....

What do you think?

-tarballqc

This question was asked in a private message. Rather than hide our tech advice in private conversations, Site Staff will often answer PMs (from any site) here in the digitalFAQ.com forum, so that others may read and benefit from our expertise. Please continue the conversation here. Either login or join as a Free Member, and we can continue troubleshooting your video, photo or web related issue. Thanks for understanding our tech Q&A policies.

Knownhost is cheaper because they use Virtuozzo. You can overcommit resources on the VZ platforms (commercial Virtuozzo, open-source OpenVZ), and they share CPU (ie, like shared hosting). Notice the "fair share" CPU text at all VZ hosts.

LiquidWeb is Xen. It's much harder to overcommit resources on Xen, and nearly impossible on KVM or VMware. And CPU is specified on the non-VZ methods, not shared. The overall hardware setup used by LiquidWeb is also superior, as is the network. In fact, the hardware required by VMware/KVM/Xen itself is often superior.

Knownhost is cheaper, but so is the setup. It's a good host, but there's really no comparison.

SSD makes little difference to most hosting users, and SSD by itself doesn't mean much unless the setup is equally solid in all aspects (which it often is not). There's always a bottleneck somewhere, and I/O tends to be the least of your worries. CPU and RAM is. "Use SSAD!" has become a silly buzzword (buzzphrase) in the past year, and people often seek it out without even knowing why. (Or worse, thinking "it's faster", which is often not the case.)

VZ also handles RAM quite poorly compared to modern 2010s KVM, VMware, or Xen setups. VZ was the virtualization method of the 2000s, not the 2010s. VZ has made some decent strides in containing the RAM/CPU leaks in the past year or so, but it's still too little too late. It's just an obsolete method. "More RAM" on VZ is par with less RAM on Xen/KVM/VMware, due to the way it uses and calculates RAM usage. And again, how the node allows overcommit.

I really wish Knownhost, Futurehosting, and WiredTree would upgrade to modern methods. It's a shame, because they are good hosts. These 3 are pretty much identical, and you won't go wrong with any of them. Just realize that they're NOT any comparison to higher-end setups that exist.

I'd note that the idea of "8 equal share CPUs" is really quite laughable. No. Just no. That's no better than shared hosting, which you've probably outgrown if we're having a conversation about upgrading to VPS! Virtuozzo is like a step between shared, and a real VPS. Not a VPS itself.

Does that help clear things up for you? :)

I'm not anti-Knownhost at all, and again, they're an excellent choice. But there are drawbacks to their setup, and it's cheaper for a reason. It's good, but it's still inferior.