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.

[fcolor]

This is an old topic, but I would like to revive it because another term "cloud hosting" is very trendy now. At the same time Clouds a based on load-balanced clusters... Clusters of course are very different form dedicated hosting. The term refers more to infrastructure solution, than to a service model.

[webstartup]

I don't think you can assume everyone is making enough money to afford a dedicated server. I went with clustered hosting, because I'm trying to develop a web startup and want to be able to concentrate on managing my business, not scrambling to figure out my website architecture (or worse yet having my site go down) if my idea really takes off. One benefit of clustered hosting is you get a reliability that is uncommon with single server shared hosting, yet you have access to instant available resources through the cluster if they are needed (aka your site traffic really takes off).

As with any hosting your experience may vary between hosting companies (I've been very impressed with webRudder.com for my clustered ASP.NET Windows hosting if anyone cares), but the cluster concept I really think is the wave of the future.

Someone mentioned having a dedicated cluster. That sounds REAL expensive ! Out of curiosity does anyone even offer a dedicated cluster?

[HQHost.net]

Originally Posted by webstartup

Someone mentioned having a dedicated cluster. That sounds REAL expensive ! Out of curiosity does anyone even offer a dedicated cluster?

You can check Fastservers.net and Natcoweb.com for dedicated cluster solutions. For European location it might be Ukfast.co.uk.

[AbbieClayton]

I would suggest you to go for a dedicated hosting if your website can be managed from one server instead of clustered solution. Clustered solution is a good concept but is good for fairly large traffic and resource using websites.

[FortressDewey]

There are some real good Dedi's you can get, for pretty cheap price. Keep looking around.

[~ServerPoint~]

Originally Posted by FortressDewey

There are some real good Dedi's you can get, for pretty cheap price. Keep looking around.

I would say you get what you pay for and cheap price can make meters worse
The price and the service quality are not the same

[HQHost.net]

It has been pointed out already that cluster solutions solve tasks dedicated servers can't cope with, like computational intensive tasks or heavy database-driven needs. The idea behind a cluster solution is power and cost-effectiveness.

[blazintech]

I prefer dedicated hosting but like you said it's too much expensive. I think you should weigh your options first and think if you really need a dedicated server for your business.

[HQHost.net]

Originally Posted by blazintech

I prefer dedicated hosting but like you said it's too much expensive.

By saying that clusters are cost-effective I only mean it may be cheaper that a few dedicated servers employed to perform the same function.

[Hahh]

Dedicated server is the stage before cluster, and it would be more preferred by the single clients, while cluster is needed for heavier projects which need higher specs...

Both cluster and single dedicated servers of quality are offereв by gazzin.com, FYI.