Are there any technical disadvantages to so-called virtual private servers, compared to 'standard' shared hosts? By 'virtual private servers', I mean non-Verio hosts where you have root privileges and can install and configure your own apps.

I'm going to be setting up a very very small (i.e. low traffic) web site and need to choose a host. For cost reasons, I do not want a dedicated server. I prefer to be able to control my own copies of Apache, Tomcat and MySQL, so the vps approach sounds good. Other than having to perform your own system management, are there any downsides to these setups?

I've seen ads for vps hosts using Sun, Linux and FreeBSD. Any preferences or comments on vps under these different OS's? I'm (obviously) new to this stuff and would appreciated any recommendations.

Thanks.

Depending on how the provider implements the VPS, depends on how capable it is.

Ensim ServerXChange and Virtuozzo are the most common VPS platforms today. Ensim I believe is limited to RedHat Linux, whereas Virtuozzo supports RedHat and FreeBSD.

The biggest difference you're going to find in capability is host dependent. E.g. what they allow you do, and what additional services they offer.

I know with Virtuozzo, you can disable automatic software upgrades and such, thereby allowing the user to maintain their own software. I'm not entirely sure if Ensim allows for this.

In short, I don't really see any downsides to using a VPS, other than mis-management of the physical server by the host.