basically I am asking because I am wondering if dedicated servers are really more stable than VPS?

I read here:


A VPS Server is not a Dedicated Server, so you are still on a server with other users. As you're sharing a server, your actions can still affect other users. If you have a very busy website, dominating the server's CPU time and memory could cause performance issues with other users on the same server. If you are running an unoptimized script that runs out of control, it can disrupt not only your site, but could affect the whole server. This can and possibly cause downtime for others users on the same server.

is this actually a concern?

a good thing about VPS is that you can upgrade their hardware whenever you feel like. Furthermore, i somehow have the feeling that it is easier to backup/restore the server, as it is right, basically a VM running somewhere. So if say, the dedicated server goes up in flames, you'd need pretty much the exact same physical machine, whereas a VM just can run somewhere.

bottom line question:

Is vps less stable than a dedicated server?

the reason i am asking: a friend had a server downtime of 7 hours on his shared host (bluehosts). He lost a client because of that worth 3000 dollars. Now he is upset of course, and wants something more stable. AWS beanstalk for the php part and AWS RDS for the mysql DB came to my mind... but it feels like an overkill. I think a stable VPS host should do just fine. But the trick question still remains... if we choose something simpler, maybe a dedicated server is still more stable?

closed as primarily opinion-based by Sven Apr 7 '16 at 8:50

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.


The service provider will have more to do with uptime than the technology its running on. I'm gong to avoid recommending any one provider but generally speaking you get what you pay for. That $5 or $10/mo VPS is almost certainly running on oversold/allocated hardware. With a more expensive VPS the server will less likely be oversold and probably managed better. But even the most reliable service providers will have downtime from time to time.

The most resilient websites out there are mostly running in the cloud, many on Amazon AWS (although other solutions exist). This does not mean AWS is highly stable though. There have been numerous high profile AWS outages. It just means AWS offers the services and an APIs necessary to develop a highly available solution. It is up to you to design your application to be resilient against single node outages. There is no one answer here and highly dependent on the application your hosting. This might be a HA cluster using something like pacemaker, corosync, clvm, gfs2 ect.. or it might be a simpler solution such as a load balancer with two application nodes that have database replication setup between them.

If your worried about a few hours of downtime you really do need to consider this. If your going to host your application on a single server be it a dedicated server or a VPS your going to have to accept some level of downtime. Hardware fails, DDoS attacks happen, maintenance needs to be performed, ect... 7 hours at once is high but certainly not unheard of.

But putting all that aside here are a couple of my experiences with VPS providers vs Dedicated Servers.

With a VPS provider you will be told maintenance is going to be performed at a certain time and will have no ability reschedule it. With dedicated hardware you are more likely to work with the data center to schedule the maintenance windows to meet your needs.

It is true that in a multi tenant VPS infrastructure you do not have a full picture of what is going on the server. Your troubleshooting tools may lie to you. For example it will report low disk I/O despite high latency on disk operations. However in reality I never really had too much trouble in this. Again it will highly depend on the service provider you choose and to some extent just luck. However if you treat your servers like cattle and not like pets this is not a huge problem. You just destroy the server and bring it up on a new server. Of course that requires some forethought and proper automation in place using infrastructure as code principles and practices.

With a dedicated server the underlying hardware will never get upgraded until you specifically ask for it and pay for it. With a VPS provider the service provider will manage the hardware and retire servers and add new servers as needed and most likely transfer your servers without you ever noticing.

You are paying a premium for dedicated hardware so you are more likely to get higher quality of support from your data center. But again this is just based on anecdotal evidence and experience.

It is much easier to upgrade a VPS (RAM, disk space, cores, ect...) with minimal downtime. Often just a reboot. With a dedicated server at very least someone at the datacenter will have to power the machine down and open it up to perform the upgrade and your looking at 30min to a couple hours of downtime.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.