KnownHost Server Configuration?
- Thread starter DRE
- Start date
MattW
Well-known member
They are a managed hosting provider, and you HAVE to use a control panel with them. They also limit you to a 32bit OS regardless of how much RAM you purchase.
Tracy Perry
Well-known member
OK.. didn't see that in the thread but those are valid reasons.
DRE
Well-known member
I never needed a 32bit OS and I like Control Panels. KnownHost is still a great host if you have a site my size and below. I just want to try something new. Plus I felt like I was paying too much ($60) due to activity being slow. If my site activity was higher I wouldn't mention it.
Tracy Perry
Well-known member
DRE
Well-known member
I only know the difference between 32 bit and 64 bit OS from a user standpoint playing around with computers and running multiple programs, needing more than 4gb of RAM. As far as server-related stuff, no. I just know your limited to how much RAM the cpu can use. What's the difference other than that?
Tracy Perry
Well-known member
Pretty much it (and some lower processing overhead sometimes). If you aren't going to be over 4GB there is no REAL need for a 64 bit. It's nice if you end up doing like I do in a VPS and start it off as 2GB and decide you want to bump it up to 6GB you are ready to go - but I do run my own VPS server.
Tracy Perry
Well-known member
No, what he's saying is that
- Their VPS appliance(s) are 32bit versions of the OS - no matter what amount of memory your VPS has
- He wanted the ability to have shell access and not be dependent upon a panel for control
DRE
Well-known member
I'm not switching because of that. Check this out: http://xenforo.com/community/threads/facebook-makes-php-9x-faster-via-virtual-machine-hhvm.55754/
Mike54
Active member
Actually, they are a managed hosting provider and you HAVE to use a control panel, ONLY if you intend to use their managed services. What is almost always missed by the majority of people are the unmanaged VPS plans offered by RocketVPS, which is a subsidiary of KnownHost.
Now, now, Tracy, don't go confusing people with facts.
DRE
Well-known member
*looks at RocketVPS prices, compares it to Linode*Actually, they are a managed hosting provider and you HAVE to use a control panel, ONLY if you intend to use their managed services. What is almost always missed by the majority of people are the unmanaged VPS plans offered by RocketVPS, which is a subsidiary of KnownHost.
Now, now, Tracy, don't go confusing people with facts.
Linode wins.
jauburn
Well-known member
I'm going to jump in here because I've used both, as well as liquidweb, hostgator, and future hosting--all pretty recently, too. I don't like this hosting review stuff in general because everyone's experiences can differ. Off the cuff, though, since you lauded Servint, I will say that I quickly noticed that Servint will balk at assisting with things like mysql optimization or troubleshooting when knownhost, futurehosting, and liquidweb will be fine with it. Basically I noticed pretty quickly that servint was quick with the "out of our realm of service" replies. I also noticed slower response times to tickets there. Hostgator I would write off immediately--their response times are beyond horrible. Liquidweb was overall the best, but they're pricey. I rank them thus: liquidweb, knownhost, futurehosting (although their brazen and trigger-happy "abuse" department will keep me from ever going back there), servint, and way, way, way, way behind...hostgator. Knownhost, obviously, has the worst company name.
But oh, well. You can get over that.
craigiri
Well-known member
So, if one wants both fully managed and supported (sometimes, when needed) but wants shell access and maybe a CP also.....and intends to run WP and XF with about 2GB Ram......the shell access rules out knownhost?
Also, what exactly is meant by terms like knownhost "CPU priority 2X"?
I don't like the sound of that term.......
Also, what exactly is meant by terms like knownhost "CPU priority 2X"?
I don't like the sound of that term.......
Kevin
Well-known member
I may have missed it but why do you think shell access rules out KH? With my VPS SSD package I have full access to both cPanel and SSH.
Not at all. They only require that if you do choose a fully-managed VPS that it have a CP installed. But that doesn't mean it can only be accessed using the CP.
Like Kevin, I use KH with cPanel and shell access just fine.
It's based on a ratio system. As an example - If you have a total of 10x priority, one container with 5x, 2 with 2x, and 1 with 1x - they'll each get their share based on the ratio of the priorities. The 5x will get 5/10 or 1/2, the 2x will get 2/10 or 1/5, and the 1x will get 1/10 of the total CPU power.
The priority system will give you lots of flexibility to handle spikes over a core-based allocation assuming the node is managed properly and has available CPU - as in theory on a properly managed node that's not ever at max the CPU priority will have no effect and you could theoretically use all of the available CPU on the node - at which point it would hit 100% and priorities would knock you back down - but assuming you didn't make the node hit 100% you'd simply have more CPU available, your requests would process faster, thus the load wouldn't hit 100% as things wouldn't be queued up because since you had access to the extra CPU your spike was no big deal.
It's not always that cut and dried, because all the containers on the node don't always add up to a neat 10/10, per the example above. But, as long as the node isn't CPU bound, it's not an issue. KH is good about managing their nodes well, IME, so I haven't run into problems from it.
Like Kevin, I use KH with cPanel and shell access just fine.
CPU Priority only matters IF the node's CPU is 100% utilized. At that point, the containers with a higher priority do get more CPU time.
It's based on a ratio system. As an example - If you have a total of 10x priority, one container with 5x, 2 with 2x, and 1 with 1x - they'll each get their share based on the ratio of the priorities. The 5x will get 5/10 or 1/2, the 2x will get 2/10 or 1/5, and the 1x will get 1/10 of the total CPU power.
The priority system will give you lots of flexibility to handle spikes over a core-based allocation assuming the node is managed properly and has available CPU - as in theory on a properly managed node that's not ever at max the CPU priority will have no effect and you could theoretically use all of the available CPU on the node - at which point it would hit 100% and priorities would knock you back down - but assuming you didn't make the node hit 100% you'd simply have more CPU available, your requests would process faster, thus the load wouldn't hit 100% as things wouldn't be queued up because since you had access to the extra CPU your spike was no big deal.
It's not always that cut and dried, because all the containers on the node don't always add up to a neat 10/10, per the example above. But, as long as the node isn't CPU bound, it's not an issue. KH is good about managing their nodes well, IME, so I haven't run into problems from it.
craigiri
Well-known member
Thanks for that explanation - as I feared, it's not as simple as knowing exactly what you may have in terms of CPU power....
Taking it down to a more functional level, might a "2x priority mode" on CPU (assuming enough RAM, etc.) run a rather small (db size, etc.) Xenforo installation with up to 10,000 or so normal page views per day? This means maybe a peak of 600-800 page views in an hour but more average of 200 page views per hour when it's loafing along.
Taking it down to a more functional level, might a "2x priority mode" on CPU (assuming enough RAM, etc.) run a rather small (db size, etc.) Xenforo installation with up to 10,000 or so normal page views per day? This means maybe a peak of 600-800 page views in an hour but more average of 200 page views per hour when it's loafing along.
I'd consult with KH for their recommendations, but I think it would be a good fit. I have a small private XF site that's slightly smaller than what you're listing on a 2X, and the server load is always quite low. I'm not running anything intensive on it though, just the forum.
YMMV
YMMV
craigiri
Well-known member
They answered with the same somewhat confusing explanation of that "CPU priority". As far as I am concerned, that whole idea is somewhat ridiculous.....
What would appeal to me would be something like this. A host has a box with 16 cores and 32G of Ram and then sells you the equiv. of one core or two cores, meaning a total of 8-16 VPS's on the box.....not sure if the virtualization software can wall off each core in that way, but it would be nice. As an example using the above, a price of $80 or so would be good for 2 cores and 4G RAM and would allow the host to make $600+ per month on the total server.
As it stands, when it comes to "load", it's hard to know what you are loading against...since you have no actual fixed slice, but just a "priority" when things get tight. I guess if I make the move I'll just have to go by their reputation.
