Dedicated Server VS. Cluster Based hosting

[hp_solomon]

Some say cluster hosting is better than dedicated hosting. Its cheaper, balanced, no limit on CPU usage, etc. So what do you think of it?

Currenty, I have VPS hosting, my site having downtimes lately and looking for a new host to have a dedicated server but its too expensive. I'm thinking clusted hosting as an option, what are the advantages and disadvantages of having a clustered based hosting/dedicated server?

I discovered clusted hosting at www.netfirms.com, please check it out. I'm thinking to move my site there.

Please advise. Thanks

[John Scott]

I prefer dedicated myself.

[hp_solomon]

Originally Posted by John Scott

I prefer dedicated myself.

why? Dedicated server would cause us too much money. If clustered hosting acts like a dedicated itself + cheaper, then why choose dedicated? pros? cons?

[John Scott]

Cost really doesn't factor in the decision. And "cheaper" makes me suspicious.

[CJ Jefferson]

I've never used cluster hosting, so I had a quick look at the wikipedia article linked to by hp_solomon. I've seen a few dozens of wikipedia pages, but this is the first I've seen which states in the title "The neutrality of this article is disputed".

Added
I see that reteep talked about it here http://www.v7n.com/forums/dedicated-...s-cluster.html

[hp_solomon]

Originally Posted by CJ Jefferson

I've never used cluster hosting, so I had a quick look at the wikipedia article linked to by hp_solomon. I've seen a few dozens of wikipedia pages, but this is the first I've seen which states in the title "The neutrality of this article is disputed".

Added
I see that reteep talked about it here http://www.v7n.com/forums/dedicated-...s-cluster.html

I think Reteep's is different from the netfirms'... netfirm's clustered hosting runs on all servers as needed.. Please check netfirms.com to understand how they implement clustered hosting. Please let me know your thoughts on this. Thanks.

[littleFella]

Netfirms may be using clusters but that doesn't mean that within their $150 (CDN)/year hosting plans you actually get a cluster. You only get an account on a clustered server that you share with many others. Going through the first sentences of the original post I was thinking "how is it possible for a cluster to be less expensive", but then saw "... than dedicated hosting".

Well, if I wanted/needed a cluster then I would certainly think that it would be dedicated. Cluster is a technology that is well explained inside the link in wikipedia, but it doesn't seem to be an actual plan offered by Netfirms.

Now, if I had a choice between a dedicated single server and a dedicated cluster then the latter wins hands down. The price of the cluster would be certainly higher, as you need at least 2 machines to set it up. Also, various types of clusters will dictate the cluster's attractiveness for a given scenario.

I have a couple accounts with Netfirms, and overall I am happy. Certainly lots of storage space and bandwidth. They have much improved over the last couple years, but cluster or not, their email servers get some minor hickups from time to time.

[SA007]

I would definately go with dedicated server.If your site has traffic then definately your site has revnue so you can purchase a dedicated server
btw you can purchase for cheap prices here servstra.com(I am not affiliated with them in any way)
Thanks,
Saad

[CartikaHosting]

We have been offering clustered hosting solutions for years (in fact, we were one of the first to do so in the shared hosting space).

Clustered Hosting is not and cannot, on its own, be a replacement for a dedicated server. In some situations, it can offer benefits over a dedicated server - however, the logic used here is still incorrect. You cannot expect to pay $10-$100 for a clustered hosting package offering 100 GB of disk space and 1TB of transfer and expect to receive the same or more raw resources as you would receive from a dedicated server.

Clustering offers unique advantages in that services are spread across multiple, specialized servers - making them easier to protect, optimize, manage and restore. You can then load balance various servers to receive further hardware redundancy and resiliency (ie what many are calling - and incorrectly may I add - "grid" hosting). Having said this, "grid" hosting has not yet been able to deliver on its promise of 100% uptime - and the reason is simple really - the #1 cause of downtime in a shared hosting environment is not hardware failure - the #1 cause is actually the websites hosted in that environment - as such, increasing hardware redundancy while also drastically increasing the number of sites sharing that environment will not and cannot increase uptime, rather, it will demonstrate a decrease in uptime - as has been witnessed by the various systems that have gone into production.

To the original poster here - you simply cannot expect to get a dedicated server worth of resources for less then the cost of a dedicated server - try not to be confused by the various marketing gimmicks out there - take a minute to actually read the fine print - a providers terms of service will show you alot of holes in their marketing promises.

A shared services cluster will dramatically increase the reliability of shared hosting if done correctly - but, this will almost always increase the price of hosting, not decrease. If you truely need a dedicated server worth of resources, then get a dedicated server or get a specialized shared clustered plan (if you need other benefits of clustering) - but, the price tag will be approximately the same if you are looking for the same or better reliability and performance...

[mswright]

I prefer dedicated myself.