Managed or unmanaged VPS?

[Purres]

In your personal opinion then what is the difference between managed and unmanaged VPS for hosting? And which is recommended? Any comments?

 

[Localnode]

The main differences are as follows:
Unmanaged:
- You do everything yourself.
- System updates, security patches.
- Software installation, and updates.
- Kernel upgrades.
The host manages the hardware, and you handle the rest. If a drive fails - you may have to contact the host for them to replace it.
They probably don't monitor your system, either.
The host will replace failed components, reboot servers (client panel usually has it, as would IPMI, or VPS control panel), maintain the network and keep the lights on, but it wont support any software or install anything for you.

Managed:
There're two types of management. Proactive, and reactive.
There's no real textbook definition of these types. But the general gist is:

Reactive:
Reactive should only mean that changes are not made without your permissions. It doesn't necessarily mean that your server is not monitored, nor does it mean you need the technical know-how, and it also doesn't mean your server is insecure.
A lot of the time with monitoring, if something is down an automated call is made to restart that service. They won't investigate why it went down unless you ask.
You have to ask for anything to be done. Security patches, software installation, kernel updates, etc. - ask for it.

Proactive:
OS, Kernel and services upgrade automatically whenever a new update is available and is fully tested.
Proactive and usually continuous monitoring. They get notified if something isn't working, and then fix it.
They may even look in the logs for irregularities.
They manage the core software and keep things updated. Your website is not their scope of work, so if you have Wordpress - it's your duty to update it.



There're price differences between the two. Reactive starts at around $29 a month. Proactive can be anywhere from $50 to $200, and can be as high as $1,000 monthly and includes different scopes of work.

 

[Alex - A2Hosting]

You have a nice list of the differences between them above so I won't go into that. I'll reply to the 'is it recommended' part.

Different people, different skills will lead to different requirements. A server needs to be maintained constantly, kept up to date and locked down to ensure it is secure. A person who has been in the industry for many years might be able to do all of this themselves so they could potentially an unmanaged server.

Now if you don't have so much knowledge in server management then the wise thing to do would be to opt for a fully managed server. This will give you the knowledge for a very reasonable price to ensure your server runs as it should do.

Of course, a person with knowledge might also opt for a fully managed server just to have that resassurance behind them, that extra support.

 

[Purres]

The main differences are as follows:
Unmanaged:
- You do everything yourself.
- System updates, security patches.
- Software installation, and updates.
- Kernel upgrades.
The host manages the hardware, and you handle the rest. If a drive fails - you may have to contact the host for them to replace it.
They probably don't monitor your system, either.
The host will replace failed components, reboot servers (client panel usually has it, as would IPMI, or VPS control panel), maintain the network and keep the lights on, but it wont support any software or install anything for you.

Exactly but I want to ask about system updates, security patches. What sources we should follow or read for keep everything updated? go to where software created? what about server security?

Now if you don't have so much knowledge in server management then the wise thing to do would be to opt for a fully managed server. This will give you the knowledge for a very reasonable price to ensure your server runs as it should do.

I have to agree with this opinion but if you have basic knowledge in server management, you should have a try with unmanaged VPS and it will help you improve your knowledge by doing which you yourself want to control?

 

[Developer]

Developer

Even if you have basic knowledge, I would still recommend going with managed.

Most people with a "basic knowledge" of something usually tend to THINK they know more than they actually do. In a server environment, this can be very dangerous (especially if your sites are your livelyhood). Most providers will NOT fix something AFTER you broke it if you did not have "insurance" (such as a "managed" account).

 

[Alex - A2Hosting]

Alex - A2Hosting

I wouldn't recommend this. Someone with basic knowledge in reality is still learning the do's and don't.

Note a fully managed server doesn't stop one from learning. Actually, it probably becomes easier. One with basic knowledge can ask their provider to do something and then ask how they did it, what commands was ran and so on, what this command did and what that one did, why was this ran etc

Alternativly, someone with basic knowledge can look how to do something online (or already have an 'idea' of how to do it), they can simply run everything with their provider for their opinion. This would enable you to learn and ensure your server is safe.

 

[laceibanet]

really dependa on your knowledge of how to manage a machine by yourself. You get it cheaper but you're solely responsible for it outside of reinstalls or elements closed off to you by the provider. So if you know what you're doing in a vps then you could opt for the unmanaged option. Now if you are looking to get support from the provider with things you don't really nderstand then definitely go with a managed server. Really a managed server isn't all that more expensive so you might just be good going with managed for the less upkeep on your end

 

[Localnode]

Exactly but I want to ask about system updates, security patches. What sources we should follow or read for keep everything updated? go to where software created? what about server security?

There are various sources. Start with following whatever OS you use on your VPS. Usually, they have mailing lists.
[URLnofo]http://www.hostingseclist.com/[/URLnofo] an excellent website that a lot of people follow.
Honestly, though, any decent reactive managed provider will allow you to signup for some list that they have to notify you of security holes.

Server security - again, reactive providers will have to be told to do something. Proactive providers will usually patch these things A.S.A.P (same day, usually).

I have to agree with this opinion but if you have basic knowledge in server management, you should have a try with unmanaged VPS and it will help you improve your knowledge by doing which you yourself want to control?

Make sure it's not mission critical.

 

[hynds]

It's depend on your need, but in my opinion, I would suggest you choose unmanaged vps because you can do many thing on it if you have a knowledge, even do don't know, you can search on GG and almost things you can do by your self and by manual

 

[Mike_Brown]

If you are capable of managing the server yourself, do it. Firstly, it's cheaper. Obvious bonus. Secondly, nobody knows your server like you know your server. Every company is prone to mistakes, especially when they are messing around with somebody elses unique setup. Stick to unmanaged VPS if you can.