For almost all people hosting websites, a Shared solution is ideal. In most cases, Shared hosting providers fully manage all aspects of the server hardware. They perform data backups and use redundant disks so that users are relatively protected from hardware crashes. This means a customer does not have to worry about restoring his data in the event of a failure. Remember that, even if someone has backups, restoration is not always straightforward. Non-technical people really want a system where, if a disk crashes, their website is restored, possibly without them ever even knowing. The last thing they need be worried with is restoring MySQL databases and PEAR components, all while their website is down.

Even users who need specialized hosting environments—custom, non-apache applications, etc.—that will not be able to use normal Shared hosting most likely do not need a Dedicated server. Virtual and Cloud Servers are pretty much completely segregated. A person often has full root access to the server and can install anything he wants on it. All applications (aside from some very specialized ones) from the operating system down will act as though they are running on a Dedicated server. They will be non-the-wiser. Furthermore, with the rapid advancements in computer technology, these types of Shared solutions are often fast enough to run fairly large and complex websites without much latency. They also have strict segregation rules and components so that one very heavy user on the same box as another cannot drastically affect that other user's performance. In other words, if my Virtual Server is overloaded, yours shouldn't be, even if it’s on the same computer.

Even cooler, most Virtual and Cloud Servers easily allow you to upgrade capacities with little to no downtime. The amount of RAM and CPU power available on a person's server can be adjusted upwards as a website grows. This allows a person to not be placed in the uncomfortable position of doing a cost-benefit analysis of a new site that may or may not become insanely popular in the future. With a Dedicated Server, changing the system specifications is very complex so, no doubt, lots of people with these types of servers have great deals of spare computing power... Just in case.

Now, there are a few cases where a person would require a Dedicated Server. First, if the website requires massive amounts of disk space, Dedicated Servers are usually the most cost effective ways to obtain this. I have never seen Virtual Servers offering one-terabyte disks. I have seen quite a few Dedicated Servers offering this much space, and much more. Second, if the website receives massive amounts of traffic, Dedicated Servers are best suited to handle this. Cloud Servers, in theory, may be able to scale to massive proportions, but, in my experience, the technology is not anywhere near as reliable as Dedicated Servers. Of course, if one has massive traffic, he would want the most reliable solution, as downtime becomes more expensive. Finally, if the website has extraordinarily complicated back-end systems, a Dedicated Server might be required to power it. By “extraordinarily complicated,” I basically mean something that, if one needs it, one knows it. Here again, Cloud Servers should be able to handle this. However, I wouldn't trust the technology just yet.

I hope this article answered many of the questions a person might have about Dedicated vs. Shared hosting. I think the main take-away is that, if a person can possibly get his requirements to fit on some sort of Shared Server, he will be saving himself lots of time and headaches if he can do this. Dedicated Servers are a necessary evil for certain applications, but they are certainly not for the faint of heart.