I've never christianed a WHT forum so I'm stoked. 
Basically, I think Managed Hosting is a vague term that certain providers use to get sales. People all to often leave server admin up to the provider and then their security sucks.
Done it with Rackspace and it was bad.I won't get to far in this subject, but I can tell you 'fully managed' is never the same in 2 places.
I been with a few 'managed' providers...
All the ones I've been with have required me to run out and spend extra on a 3rd party contractor as they either wouldn't cover it, decided to take 6+ hrs to respond to a ticket (can't have that) or didn't have support staff on over weekends.
I'm still am at the 1 that comes closest to being 'fully managed', but even they leave things to be desired at times.I'll go out on a limb and sway, I agree...Most (many) providers offer a form of management, however, I think the term "Fully Managed" should reserved for providers who truly manage the server 100% or at least, 90%.
ServInt is a provider that comes to mind. Now, not to hijack this thread, but to go in a bit of a different direction..is there a market for more ServInt type providers? Who truly offer managed services, though, definitely have their weaknesses (cough network cough) or should this be reserved for 3rd Party Server Management companies?
What about companies wishing to offer management services to arrange discounts with reputable server management companies? Which if done right, could establish true management at affordable prices still.I think rackspace may be the only company that provides true managed hosting. (On a quality network that is..)Sorry, but you're wrong. When we were at Rackspace, they answered our tickets very well but they weren't proactive in any service upgrades. Kernels weren't updated, php wasn't upgraded once in a year. When we left there and I hired some in-house admins, it took them days to clean out those servers and upgrade everything. Because of all the continuous remote php exploits, our uptime sucked beyond belief. I cring at the memory of my phone going off all the time saying that apache had crashed somewhere and we didn't know enough to solve things then.
So they suck at management - big time.Agreed. Rackspace isn't even Quality Managed Services really. In my eyes, a managed provider would be:
1) Proactive about all security upgrades.
2) Reactive to all customer requests.
3) 24/7 Monitoring of critical services.
4) Available to consult customer regarding anything technical as needed.
5) Not too low priced.
#5 being critical, it should cost at least $100 a month for a true management package on top of the actual server. That's at minimum.Originally posted by nickn
In my eyes, a managed provider would be:
1) Proactive about all security upgrades.
2) Reactive to all customer requests.
3) 24/7 Monitoring of critical services.
4) Available to consult customer regarding anything technical as needed.
5) Not too low priced.
If this were the 'standard' (if there is one) for 'managed', then it be a much happier worldNick, totally correct. We charge $120 for that service and we treat client's servers just like our own. All are configured the same (firewalls, grsec etc) and all get upgraded at the same time...Hrm.. I have been wrong before and will be again. Guess I was.
Just from their pricing and the reviews of their service I assumed they were Fanatical about their support.The support is good, the management is sh1te. Well then any true managed hosting out there? ServINT?Originally posted by UltraUnixNET
Well then any true managed hosting out there? ServINT?
HostingMatters provides exactly what Nick listed..Originally posted by UltraUnixNET
Well then any true managed hosting out there? ServINT?
Speaking from REAL experience, ServINT provides as much management as SM and that's about it.At the end of the day, no management is as good as getting your own admins. We fully manage about 15 servers and we are really hands on in there. But we are in and out of our own servers every minute of the day so we spot the issues quickly."fully managed servers" is just something that the datacenter uses to hook you into buying their services and servers.
When it comes down to it, the datacenter can't provide "fully managed" servers, only a server administrator can, as has been said before.
Pro-active upgrades are certainly not good, for a number of reasons. The first would be dependencies and reliability. For example, MYsql recently released 4. Well, that's all well and good, but I've got C programs that have been encoded to use the 3.xxx api and won't work under 4 for some damn reason. I'm sure I could get it working, but it'd mean a lot of work, and, right now the project is a volunteer project, so it's not worth it.
That may have been a single example, but there are countless others that have been seen by myself in the past few months, hence I've adopted an update-on-request policy. The only thing I exempt from that is kernels, which are generally updated only when new vulns are found.
Customers of WHT traditionally won't pay for true "fully managed" services, because they want everything for themselves profit wise. TRUE fully managed services should start at $250, and involve log checking, firewall administration, server administration, software updates, and the like. The $250 is something that most won't cover, simply because of datacenters trying to snow clients into believing their services are "fully managed" at less than half that cost.Originally posted by wolfstream
"fully managed servers" is just something that the datacenter uses to hook you into buying their services and servers.
When it comes down to it, the datacenter can't provide "fully managed" servers, only a server administrator can, as has been said before.
When it comes down to it, you are still a server management company (aka: competetor) correct?
Guess what. A datacenter can hire the same people who run server management companies. Saying tha datacenters can't provide "fully managed" servers is a pretty ignorant idea.
They can't provide fully managed servers at $119, that's a given. But nothing stops a provider from hiring the same team of system admins that you use, or anyone else uses, and providing the same (better) management.
(Disclaimer: I as well work for a server management company)You misinterpreted what I said (or meant anyways). The job of the datacenter is to function as a datacenter, not a management company. Correct, they can't provide management at $120 per server, even much under $250 isn't going to cover "fully managed". Even most (rackspace for example) that advertise "fully managed" servers don't actually interact with the user's server. They don't check the logs like a true admin should, they don't do a lot of things that SHOULD be done.
Am I a "competitor"? To one degree. To another, I'm a victim just as the rest of the server management companies are. These datacenters are giving management, managed servers and the like a bad name by refusing to do what they advertise to do. Of course, that's a double edged sword, because eventually then the clients come back to us, but only as very unhappy clients.I think it'd be safe to say most datacenters can't. However, think of it this way, tommorow $datacenter purchases $successful-management-company to bring clients in, and manage their server management. I have no doubt that would work.
It is possible, it's not happening very well right now (server management by datacenters) because in all honesty, Server Management by datacenters is a marketing tactic and not an actual service.There are many companies that provide "fully managed" services. You won't find them hanging around WHT and won't be able to afford them.
Prices for a single managed server can start at $5,000/month and they have a lot of clients paying them for it and quite happy.
Of course, even in that market segment some companies overcharged and could not survive (Loudcloud, is one example, they were rumoured to charge a minimum of $20,000/month- they now develp software for server/data center management but don't manage servers for clients anymore under their new name, OpsWare.very true spivNot to hijack the thread, but you're not referring to managed hosting. There seems to be a differences to wealthy company about what manage hosting is and what a Managed Dedicated Server is. Manage Hosting is complex hosting products, usually clusters/full fail redundant, often on Sun gear and they cost alot. I'm guessing a Fully Managed Dedicated Server is a dedicated server with active management of the server aspect.
USI comes to mind to manage hosting. Rackspace on Managed Dedicated Servers.I think you'll find that everyone's definition is different. As in much of our industry, there is no common agreement on managed hosting, managed servers, dedicated hosting, etc.
I have seen managed hosting used to refer to everything from simply shared hosting to high-end multi-server clusters for dedicated applications.
My point was simply that much like shared hosting, there is a wide range of price and services that all fall under the same umbrella terms.
My personal pet peeve is the misuse of the term "virtual servers" - I've seem some hosting companies use this term to refer to regular shared hosting with a control panel but no special virtualization hardware or software.
Originally posted by Mfjp
Not to hijack the thread, but you're not referring to managed hosting. There seems to be a differences to wealthy company about what manage hosting is and what a Managed Dedicated Server is.One company i found out which truly does managed services is Prohosters. They are not cheap there basic plan starts from $399 with only 100GB transfer. However they will do a single thing for you. They will even install 3rd party software for your for free of cost. They will even MOVE the websites for you changes any script path and whatever need to make the thing work after the move its there headache...
The thing i like about them is that they wont give you root. Whatever u need just ask them and it will done right away. By giving root they simply say we wont manage it then. On top of that they have DDOS protection as well with there managed services. How i know cause i m there customer as well ... and if u guys need secure hosting they will do it for you.
I have tried rackspace , Servint , and many other companies who claim to be manage but no one beats them
Just my 2 centsThanks for your review server4sale, gives me a new option for when a client requires such a service.It's probably just a matter of $$$.HostingMatters provides exactly what Nick listed.. One of our larger clients did business with HM before us, and said they ran into many issues with downtime and network reliability. Im not trying to bash them, but this is what they said about this provider. It seems there is really no host out there that is perfect... Greetings:
From our experience, data centers that try to provide complete managed services have a hard time doing so.
Rackspace.com tries, and comes close... but is still way off.
Verio.com tries, but only succeeds with their enterprise division (typical customer spends $50,000 per month or more -- yes, the comma is in the right place).
Personally, I'm not sure of why data centers have a hard time providing the complete package; but in a way, it is a double edged sword from several venues.
1. We do have data centers that partner with us, as a managed service and security provider. However, we generally do fight an up hill battle to get in because the data center will either claim they already provide the service (even though they don抰), or that it will be implemented shortly.
Case and point for the latter part, one data center provider stated in April 2002 they were coming out with a security patch program. Every month, then later every other month we would check back in, and they were still coming out with the program. Now, May 2004 they still don抰 have it in place.
2. The data centers may not include management in order to have the lowest monthly possible.
Then you have a customer who is paying $50 to $150 per month for an unmanaged server; and, then often gets into the perspective of quantifying server and security management as a percentage of their monthly hosting fee.
For example, let抯 say they are paying $100 per month for hosting, and you charge $100 per hour for server administration. The most often come back from a prospect (suspect?) is that, gee, that抯 what I am paying for a server, can you go lower?
In the end, ending up equating a piece of machinery and software to a human being; thereby (in my opinion) devaluing humanity.
To be fair (on #2), there are a number of business customers who equate server and security management fees with revenue generated by their business unit; and therefore look at business ROI instead of server cost vs server & security management fees.
Those clients are the best.
Thank you.This is an ongoing challenge for all of us. Many clients want service but don't value it. I've had a client call up and ask to cancel the server-based virus scanning service we offer because they bought their own copy of AV s/w for their pc. Trying to explain server-based scanning, reduced download time, 4x/day signature updates, and other "Value" fell on deaf ears.
Security and mgmt, as you mention is even harder to sell.
Funny thing, many of these same techies won't think twice about hiring a house painter, paying them $5000 to slap $500 worth of paint on their walls. Somehow, in the services biz as an industry we have not done a good job of getting paid based on the value of labor and service provided rather than only the perceived much lower cost of the "raw materials".
Originally posted by dynamicnet
...
For example, let抯 say they are paying $100 per month for hosting, and you charge $100 per hour for server administration. The most often come back from a prospect (suspect?) is that, gee, that抯 what I am paying for a server, can you go lower?
Basically, I think Managed Hosting is a vague term that certain providers use to get sales. People all to often leave server admin up to the provider and then their security sucks.
Done it with Rackspace and it was bad.I won't get to far in this subject, but I can tell you 'fully managed' is never the same in 2 places.
I been with a few 'managed' providers...
All the ones I've been with have required me to run out and spend extra on a 3rd party contractor as they either wouldn't cover it, decided to take 6+ hrs to respond to a ticket (can't have that) or didn't have support staff on over weekends.
I'm still am at the 1 that comes closest to being 'fully managed', but even they leave things to be desired at times.I'll go out on a limb and sway, I agree...Most (many) providers offer a form of management, however, I think the term "Fully Managed" should reserved for providers who truly manage the server 100% or at least, 90%.
ServInt is a provider that comes to mind. Now, not to hijack this thread, but to go in a bit of a different direction..is there a market for more ServInt type providers? Who truly offer managed services, though, definitely have their weaknesses (cough network cough) or should this be reserved for 3rd Party Server Management companies?
What about companies wishing to offer management services to arrange discounts with reputable server management companies? Which if done right, could establish true management at affordable prices still.I think rackspace may be the only company that provides true managed hosting. (On a quality network that is..)
Sorry, but you're wrong. When we were at Rackspace, they answered our tickets very well but they weren't proactive in any service upgrades. Kernels weren't updated, php wasn't upgraded once in a year. When we left there and I hired some in-house admins, it took them days to clean out those servers and upgrade everything. Because of all the continuous remote php exploits, our uptime sucked beyond belief. I cring at the memory of my phone going off all the time saying that apache had crashed somewhere and we didn't know enough to solve things then.So they suck at management - big time.Agreed. Rackspace isn't even Quality Managed Services really. In my eyes, a managed provider would be:
1) Proactive about all security upgrades.
2) Reactive to all customer requests.
3) 24/7 Monitoring of critical services.
4) Available to consult customer regarding anything technical as needed.
5) Not too low priced.
#5 being critical, it should cost at least $100 a month for a true management package on top of the actual server. That's at minimum.Originally posted by nickn
In my eyes, a managed provider would be:
1) Proactive about all security upgrades.
2) Reactive to all customer requests.
3) 24/7 Monitoring of critical services.
4) Available to consult customer regarding anything technical as needed.
5) Not too low priced.
If this were the 'standard' (if there is one) for 'managed', then it be a much happier world
Nick, totally correct. We charge $120 for that service and we treat client's servers just like our own. All are configured the same (firewalls, grsec etc) and all get upgraded at the same time...Hrm.. I have been wrong before and will be again. Guess I was. Just from their pricing and the reviews of their service I assumed they were Fanatical about their support.
The support is good, the management is sh1te. Well then any true managed hosting out there? ServINT?Originally posted by UltraUnixNET Well then any true managed hosting out there? ServINT?
HostingMatters provides exactly what Nick listed..Originally posted by UltraUnixNET
Well then any true managed hosting out there? ServINT?
Speaking from REAL experience, ServINT provides as much management as SM and that's about it.At the end of the day, no management is as good as getting your own admins. We fully manage about 15 servers and we are really hands on in there. But we are in and out of our own servers every minute of the day so we spot the issues quickly."fully managed servers" is just something that the datacenter uses to hook you into buying their services and servers.
When it comes down to it, the datacenter can't provide "fully managed" servers, only a server administrator can, as has been said before.
Pro-active upgrades are certainly not good, for a number of reasons. The first would be dependencies and reliability. For example, MYsql recently released 4. Well, that's all well and good, but I've got C programs that have been encoded to use the 3.xxx api and won't work under 4 for some damn reason. I'm sure I could get it working, but it'd mean a lot of work, and, right now the project is a volunteer project, so it's not worth it.
That may have been a single example, but there are countless others that have been seen by myself in the past few months, hence I've adopted an update-on-request policy. The only thing I exempt from that is kernels, which are generally updated only when new vulns are found.
Customers of WHT traditionally won't pay for true "fully managed" services, because they want everything for themselves profit wise. TRUE fully managed services should start at $250, and involve log checking, firewall administration, server administration, software updates, and the like. The $250 is something that most won't cover, simply because of datacenters trying to snow clients into believing their services are "fully managed" at less than half that cost.Originally posted by wolfstream
"fully managed servers" is just something that the datacenter uses to hook you into buying their services and servers.
When it comes down to it, the datacenter can't provide "fully managed" servers, only a server administrator can, as has been said before.
When it comes down to it, you are still a server management company (aka: competetor) correct?
Guess what. A datacenter can hire the same people who run server management companies. Saying tha datacenters can't provide "fully managed" servers is a pretty ignorant idea.
They can't provide fully managed servers at $119, that's a given. But nothing stops a provider from hiring the same team of system admins that you use, or anyone else uses, and providing the same (better) management.
(Disclaimer: I as well work for a server management company)You misinterpreted what I said (or meant anyways). The job of the datacenter is to function as a datacenter, not a management company. Correct, they can't provide management at $120 per server, even much under $250 isn't going to cover "fully managed". Even most (rackspace for example) that advertise "fully managed" servers don't actually interact with the user's server. They don't check the logs like a true admin should, they don't do a lot of things that SHOULD be done.
Am I a "competitor"? To one degree. To another, I'm a victim just as the rest of the server management companies are. These datacenters are giving management, managed servers and the like a bad name by refusing to do what they advertise to do. Of course, that's a double edged sword, because eventually then the clients come back to us, but only as very unhappy clients.I think it'd be safe to say most datacenters can't. However, think of it this way, tommorow $datacenter purchases $successful-management-company to bring clients in, and manage their server management. I have no doubt that would work.
It is possible, it's not happening very well right now (server management by datacenters) because in all honesty, Server Management by datacenters is a marketing tactic and not an actual service.There are many companies that provide "fully managed" services. You won't find them hanging around WHT and won't be able to afford them.
Prices for a single managed server can start at $5,000/month and they have a lot of clients paying them for it and quite happy.
Of course, even in that market segment some companies overcharged and could not survive (Loudcloud, is one example, they were rumoured to charge a minimum of $20,000/month- they now develp software for server/data center management but don't manage servers for clients anymore under their new name, OpsWare.very true spivNot to hijack the thread, but you're not referring to managed hosting. There seems to be a differences to wealthy company about what manage hosting is and what a Managed Dedicated Server is. Manage Hosting is complex hosting products, usually clusters/full fail redundant, often on Sun gear and they cost alot. I'm guessing a Fully Managed Dedicated Server is a dedicated server with active management of the server aspect.
USI comes to mind to manage hosting. Rackspace on Managed Dedicated Servers.I think you'll find that everyone's definition is different. As in much of our industry, there is no common agreement on managed hosting, managed servers, dedicated hosting, etc.
I have seen managed hosting used to refer to everything from simply shared hosting to high-end multi-server clusters for dedicated applications.
My point was simply that much like shared hosting, there is a wide range of price and services that all fall under the same umbrella terms.
My personal pet peeve is the misuse of the term "virtual servers" - I've seem some hosting companies use this term to refer to regular shared hosting with a control panel but no special virtualization hardware or software.
Originally posted by Mfjp
Not to hijack the thread, but you're not referring to managed hosting. There seems to be a differences to wealthy company about what manage hosting is and what a Managed Dedicated Server is.One company i found out which truly does managed services is Prohosters. They are not cheap there basic plan starts from $399 with only 100GB transfer. However they will do a single thing for you. They will even install 3rd party software for your for free of cost. They will even MOVE the websites for you changes any script path and whatever need to make the thing work after the move its there headache...
The thing i like about them is that they wont give you root. Whatever u need just ask them and it will done right away. By giving root they simply say we wont manage it then. On top of that they have DDOS protection as well with there managed services. How i know cause i m there customer as well ... and if u guys need secure hosting they will do it for you.
I have tried rackspace , Servint , and many other companies who claim to be manage but no one beats them
Just my 2 centsThanks for your review server4sale, gives me a new option for when a client requires such a service.
It's probably just a matter of $$$.HostingMatters provides exactly what Nick listed.. One of our larger clients did business with HM before us, and said they ran into many issues with downtime and network reliability. Im not trying to bash them, but this is what they said about this provider. It seems there is really no host out there that is perfect... Greetings:From our experience, data centers that try to provide complete managed services have a hard time doing so.
Rackspace.com tries, and comes close... but is still way off.
Verio.com tries, but only succeeds with their enterprise division (typical customer spends $50,000 per month or more -- yes, the comma is in the right place).
Personally, I'm not sure of why data centers have a hard time providing the complete package; but in a way, it is a double edged sword from several venues.
1. We do have data centers that partner with us, as a managed service and security provider. However, we generally do fight an up hill battle to get in because the data center will either claim they already provide the service (even though they don抰), or that it will be implemented shortly.
Case and point for the latter part, one data center provider stated in April 2002 they were coming out with a security patch program. Every month, then later every other month we would check back in, and they were still coming out with the program. Now, May 2004 they still don抰 have it in place.
2. The data centers may not include management in order to have the lowest monthly possible.
Then you have a customer who is paying $50 to $150 per month for an unmanaged server; and, then often gets into the perspective of quantifying server and security management as a percentage of their monthly hosting fee.
For example, let抯 say they are paying $100 per month for hosting, and you charge $100 per hour for server administration. The most often come back from a prospect (suspect?) is that, gee, that抯 what I am paying for a server, can you go lower?
In the end, ending up equating a piece of machinery and software to a human being; thereby (in my opinion) devaluing humanity.
To be fair (on #2), there are a number of business customers who equate server and security management fees with revenue generated by their business unit; and therefore look at business ROI instead of server cost vs server & security management fees.
Those clients are the best.
Thank you.This is an ongoing challenge for all of us. Many clients want service but don't value it. I've had a client call up and ask to cancel the server-based virus scanning service we offer because they bought their own copy of AV s/w for their pc. Trying to explain server-based scanning, reduced download time, 4x/day signature updates, and other "Value" fell on deaf ears.
Security and mgmt, as you mention is even harder to sell.
Funny thing, many of these same techies won't think twice about hiring a house painter, paying them $5000 to slap $500 worth of paint on their walls. Somehow, in the services biz as an industry we have not done a good job of getting paid based on the value of labor and service provided rather than only the perceived much lower cost of the "raw materials".
Originally posted by dynamicnet
...
For example, let抯 say they are paying $100 per month for hosting, and you charge $100 per hour for server administration. The most often come back from a prospect (suspect?) is that, gee, that抯 what I am paying for a server, can you go lower?