That is not what I am saying. I am saying that the Budget servers have many many more users on them and carry a different guarantee than the other shared server types and that is what we have always said on our site. Because of this, there are more people all trying to use the server resources in comparison to the other types of shared hosting, VPS or Dedicated servers. That leads to more frequency of load spikes, services being unavailable more often, and many other reliability issues.
They are more error prone because many people prefer more disk space and transfer, than stability of their site. The see more disk and transfer and think it equates to a better deal. For some people, it does. For those of us making money on our sites, it usually does not. That is certainly a judgement call of the site owner.
The other problem with a Budget server is that you have to wait longer in the event of a server meltdown to get your sites back online. This is because there are many more, MUCH larger sites on the server and the unpackaging scripts can only work so fast.
The bottom line is every other package type have smaller sites, and less of them. This improves performance because there are less people competing, playing (AKA "testing")with scripts that can potentially crash the entire server, and speeds the recovery process since there are less sites to restore.
If Budget is what you need, there is nothing wrong with it, it is simply a different service level. Most of the higher end packages have well established sites and the budget packages do tend to weed out the more unstable sites from the sites that are less likely to affect an entire server.
Sorry, I can not pretty it up for you any more than that, but that is the best way to describe the primary difference in that product line.
Do you have tickets where you have reported any problems in the past? Please provide the ticket numbers so that I can have a look into the problem. You can post them here.


LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks



Reply With Quote