is 256 mb ram good in VPS?


Very Active Members
I am getting a great deal here , the only thing is 256 mb ram burstable to 384 mb,
Is it good for VPS?

Its for 5.59...

VPS Hosting Features
  • Instant VPS Provisioning
  • OpenVZ Virtualization
  • White-label Network
  • SolusVM Control Panel
  • RAID10 Redundant Hard Drives
  • Full Root Access
  • No Setup/Hidden Fees
  • 100Mbps Premium Bandwidth
Base Plan
  • 1 Core, Equal Share CPU
  • 256MB Guaranteed, 384MB Burstable
  • 30GB RAID10 Disk Space
  • 500GB Premium Bandwidth
  • 1 IP Address
  • Upgrades, OS, and Control Panels are listed below
  • Starting at $5.56/month! Use coupon code BACKTOSCHOOL
Depends what you're going to be using it for. If you're going with a normal LAMP setup then that will be cutting it pretty close, where as if you're running ngnix then that should be fine (don't quote me on nginx though, as I don't use it).

Also if you want a control panel then that won't cut it. For Cpanel alone it's recommended for 512mb ram. I have webmin on one of my servers and it's running 220mb on low traffic...
i think it will not good for you if you have more than one mid traffic site BTW what is your budget and why do you need VPS??


Make Money Online
Very Active Members
With VPS'es you shouldn't be just comparing CPU, RAM, HDD size, etc. Because it's super easy to make corrections there if you're underpowered. Just request, and pay. And they even copy your VPS'es to another node/server when necessary. And without downtime.

The biggest bottle neck with VPS'es is the HDD subsystem. It should be able to handle a shed load of disk I/O requests easily. Just 1 or 2 busy sites can already hog the whole node/server with a budget RAID 0/1 controller installed, and spoil it for the others. But most of the time your disk I/O's are queued anyway with a budget controller because of the lack of a caching processor and caching memory on the controller. A more capable server grade caching controller (with processor and more intelligent caching and RAID levels) is never going to be added on your request. ;)

And like sf said with a control panel, 256MB RAM is not going to cut it. Check for instance what Direct Admin requires (considered to be "lighter" on the hardware than CPanel) :

We highly recommend a processor of at least 500mhz even though DirectAdmin will run on slower systems. A minimum 512 megabytes of memory is required (2+ Gig is preferred). A hard drive with at least 2 gigabytes of free space (after the Linux install) is also required. If you are expecting high traffic levels then you will need more memory, processor power, and hard drive space than we recommend here. Intel and AMD should work fine. Solaris/Sparc will not.
If you want to save money on the control panel and throw it out on a VPS with better specs or HDD controller instead, there are also 2 wicked, graphical, Open Source, and very good free alternatives for CPanel and DirectAdmin, etc :
OpenPanel, has a very OS X like interface. Runs on Linux servers only. Less active forum. Very slow to get responses here, might take a full day for the first response. Super easy to install.

ZPanel - An almost CPanel clone in looks and functionality. Runs on Windows and Linux servers. Very helpful and active forum. All developers are actively answering at their forum. Super easy to install.
When I used to build PC's, the rule of thumb was: The more memory the better, same for CPU, HDD access speeds and BUS speed of motherboard


Make Money Online
Very Active Members
Yeah, well get more of the fastest, and do nothing about the slowest component. That will help keep things as fast as the slowest component.
Ask any budget VPS hosting company questions about the controllers they use, and you'll get evasive answers, or reasoning that a more expensive controller would jack up the price too much. And they are a budget host after all.

Check this one out, from the time that I was still shopping for budget hosting. They are still on my "do not contact ever again" list.
He is talking down a 30-50% performance gain (which happens to be a gross underestimate of the gain anyway). And then the "would require at least 4 disks". Makes me giggle.