November 22nd, 2013, 03:45 AM
I'd say there are two things to consider:
1) If you feel need for speed with a low traffic, then probably your web-site is either really specific or very poorly designed. If there are great delays in loading pages etc (with no obvious reason) - perhaps you'd better work on the site itself.
Using VPS in such cases is like turbo-boosting your car when it lacks a pair of wheels and drags its body over the surface.
2) There are many different VPS providers. I've seen a pair which were slower than payed hostings. Moreover, it is a question whether you want VPS with technology providing constant performance, or with shared resources (which would be cheaper, and may be sometimes faster and sometimes slower).
However, since you did not give info on specific details, page-load times, description of your web-site etc. - it is hard to tell anything definite.
June 24th, 2014, 10:56 AM
That was the thing I thought, you do not need vps if it is working fine in shared hosting, vps needs extra management, and believe me you will not notice any change in speed.
Originally Posted by Dominic-PVM
November 27th, 2014, 04:18 AM
The virtual private server is the happy medium between the two alternatives. The server is partitioned and your company is afforded an entire one of the partitions. However, since the server is partitioned, other users on the server do not affect you in the same way as they might on a shared server.
December 2nd, 2014, 02:44 AM
VPS hosting speed depends on server specifications CPU, RAM, Bandwidth, .... etc and how much resources reserved for you. For Shared Hosting speed depends on server specifications and number of sites on the same server and how much traffic they get.