Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Do you think my site would be better off on VPS?
- Thread starter waloshin
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Consultant
macrumors G5
Website speed depends on many factors
Page views
Efficiency
Viewer location
But if you want people to visit an Android blog, you are at the wrong place
Page views
Efficiency
Viewer location
But if you want people to visit an Android blog, you are at the wrong place
maflynn
macrumors Broadwell
For a simple blog type site, I'd say it would be a waste of money.
You can find a web host that is local to you (decreases latency) that has relatively faster servers and decent bandwidth.
I've used a number of different web hosts and was surprised at how the performance differed significantly between hosts.
One thing to keep in mind when choosing one, if you opt for of those unlimited type hosts, they typically over sell, meaning too many customers for their hardware to handle efficiently. Choosing a web host wisely will provide you with some great customer service and good performance.
You can find a web host that is local to you (decreases latency) that has relatively faster servers and decent bandwidth.
I've used a number of different web hosts and was surprised at how the performance differed significantly between hosts.
One thing to keep in mind when choosing one, if you opt for of those unlimited type hosts, they typically over sell, meaning too many customers for their hardware to handle efficiently. Choosing a web host wisely will provide you with some great customer service and good performance.
just because you're getting a VPS does not guarantee better performance.
If you're looking for basic webhosting, just get a web hosting package.
If you need to control your server or need software that you can't get as part of a web hosting package, get a VPS.
If you need/want control and high performance, get a dedicated server.
I think you're looking into a VPS for the wrong reasons, so I doubt you'll be satisfied with the results.
If there are definitely issues with performance, find another host. Don't get an unlimited package, get what you need from someone reliable.
If you're looking for basic webhosting, just get a web hosting package.
If you need to control your server or need software that you can't get as part of a web hosting package, get a VPS.
If you need/want control and high performance, get a dedicated server.
I think you're looking into a VPS for the wrong reasons, so I doubt you'll be satisfied with the results.
If there are definitely issues with performance, find another host. Don't get an unlimited package, get what you need from someone reliable.
I would high recommend not going with a VPS. I made the same mistake, and long story short... if your not a web server admin... you won't see a huge speed boost.
I would look into something like PHP Fog, you get load balancing, APC caching.... starting out free. You can always migrate, and if the speed is better and all is well then switch the DNS to the new server.
Also their are several Wordpress plugins that can increase speed further, such as WP Super Cache
https://phpfog.com/platform
how to migrate:
http://docs.phpfog.com/index.php/features/article/migrate_your_wordpress_blog_to_php_fog
I would look into something like PHP Fog, you get load balancing, APC caching.... starting out free. You can always migrate, and if the speed is better and all is well then switch the DNS to the new server.
Also their are several Wordpress plugins that can increase speed further, such as WP Super Cache
https://phpfog.com/platform
how to migrate:
http://docs.phpfog.com/index.php/features/article/migrate_your_wordpress_blog_to_php_fog
Well, do you think your current host is using a server that is the equivalent of 1000 * 1gHz? Probably not. So, it is likely to be faster.
I didn't make any measurements, but, yes, loading your site is sluggish.
However, I note that it spends most of it's time loading stuff from plusone.google.com.
Seriously, I have no idea. You have to determine just where the bottlenecks are. In your case, I think it's all the social networking gizmos you are loading from off-site.
Other than that, getting your static images cached by some cache service (as others have suggested) would probably help a lot.
I didn't make any measurements, but, yes, loading your site is sluggish.
However, I note that it spends most of it's time loading stuff from plusone.google.com.
Seriously, I have no idea. You have to determine just where the bottlenecks are. In your case, I think it's all the social networking gizmos you are loading from off-site.
Other than that, getting your static images cached by some cache service (as others have suggested) would probably help a lot.