I've noticed several companies who are putting that they offer Managed Servers or Managed Services.

I guess this is a new marketing trick?

But when you look at their managed server/services definition.


It usually only includes/covers:

Initial OS installation

Hardware Replacement

Data Recovery/Backup (Only if a TBU is installed, as an optional add-on)

Network Monitoring


What is NOT covered usually:

Non-supported operating system installation/configuration/troubleshooting

Operating system reinstallation, for reasons other than failed hardware or hacked/compromised software

Custom software installation: ******** may, at their discretion, assist with custom 3rd party software installation; however, the software will not be supported past installation

Upgrading hard drives to a different size or type of drive, requiring the transfer of data and/or operating system and software re-installation



Now to me, all dedicated server companies offer the above with Un/Self Managed servers.
Which means all dedicated server companies do offer managed services, correct?


Managed Servers use to mean that the companies took care of all day-to-day operations, configuration of the server, etc.
And the client only had to send in requests, and never had to touch the server.


Opions on this new marketing?

Being in the Managed Server arena, I hear exactly what you are saying. It used to be, customers would send an email asking for something to be done, and it would just be done. To a great extent, this still happens today. However, I'm going to stick my neck out and explain some things that have changed over the years.

First of all, there used to be a barrier to entry in the market. That meant that not just everyone who had an extra $100 could start a server company. When I started ServInt, it cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars in the first year alone to get things off the ground. Of course, that was 1995, and times have changed, but it was no small thing. Today, there are many many more competitors diluting the market.

Next, third-party software. Again, then versus now. Years ago, people didn't want 48 different pieces of software installed. Today, everyone wants dozens of things, and its never the same twice. One problem is due to dilution, it has become harder for customers to trust their hosts. We might say "That software won't help, you need more RAM, we'll even give it to you free to try to prove it" but since someone's friend's mother's cat's trainer said that software is what they need, by golly they can't live without it now.

Finally, expectations have changed. It used to be easy to say what a company does and doesn't do. Now, everyone wants to bend the rules. Our customers know what we provide, and the breadth of services. However, pre-sales folks always say "Well, Ed's Bait, Tackle, and Managed Servers can give me this, if you can't, you must be a scam." Meanwhile, we've been doing this for almost 9 years...

Next, alot of customers don't appreciate the concept that the more the server is altered by the customer, the less the managed services company can take responsibility for the server's uptime, performance, and stability. Typically the server configuration as delivered by the provider has been tested over and over and over and over... once a customer puts two dozen 3rd party applications, including some that may have been written as a high school project by someone just trying to fulfill a computer course requirement, the server may become unstable. What happens next is the customer screams at their host, claiming the host is clueless, and gets upset when the host's engineers are forced to familiarize themselves with applications they've never seen before. Customers tend to do alot of damage to their own systems and hold their hosts accountable when they go down because of it. The result of this is the indemnification you mentioned, where a host says they're not responsible for 3rd party software.

Customer expectations, an evolving size, scale, and breadth of 3rd party applications, market dilution, reduced barriers to entry, and many other factors have contributed to the ambiguity of what "Managed Services" really mean. If I were to give my full $0.02, it would fill a book. I do agree with you however. It has become more difficult to differentiate pre-sales lately because everyone promises the same thing, just not everyone delivers. Because of this, people tend to land at the wrong companies, get burned once or twice, and believe that managed services either don't exist, or that they aren't all they're supposed to be.

HOWEVER. There are MANY good companies out there, and many who are honestly concerned about your needs, taking care of your requirements, and meeting your expectations. Not every company is the best fit for every customer. A good back-and-forth with pre-sales plus a rigid search into their background, longevity, and case studies are always helpful.

I apologize if this is a bit winded, but I've noticed some of the same things you have, and thought I'd ring in from the perspective of a long-standing Managed hosting company and show my perspective.

Very good post.

You are correct, there are quite a few GOOD companies out there, who will manage your server as it should be managed. However there are other hosts out there who consider "managed servers" to be good marketing lingo, and a way to charge extra money.

As was said, I think reputation, and also research is very important when choosing managed services, mostly due to the fact that you are not only trusting the hardware and network connection in your host's hands, you are now trusting all the info on this server in their hands.

Bob, I couldn't agree with you more and SrvOutSource, I wouldn't consider Nocster a managed product. (As I notice the definition you offer closely fits there's.)


Aaron

If you put on a manager, you don't do the staff rosters yourself. If you buy a new car with an extended warranty, you don't service it yourself in the garage. LIkewise, if you buy a managed server you shouldn't be able to touch "under the hood" or you're on your own (to a degree).

I think the guys that are doing this right are the ones that offer support at different levels. "Basic Support" plan includes..."Advanced Support" plan includes...etc. Leaving the "Managed" server for those who get paid accordingly to be 100% responsible for what happens to that box.

Gary

I am not an expert in hosting related matters. But after reading the posts above, I must say this:

I agree with what BobFarmer has described, but I really disagree with Editor's note above.

I think there should be two kind of server plans only:

1. UnManaged (But security and OS patches should still be done automatically by the provider)

AND

2. Fully Managed (everything including the 3rd party software must be installed by the provider.....any issues re: 3rd party software should be resolved during pre-sale begotiations.)

NOW the companies that embark on their homepages that they are providing "fully managed" servers, but then have 5 different plans to confuse and rip off the customer after he/she buys are just pure fraud and misleading the customers. Once the customer signs up thinking he/she got a great fully managed server at a discount price, thats when the fun starts and the customer end up paying twice the price of a fully managed server from a good provider.

There are some very well know companies doing it. I won't name them here but increasingly more and more people are finding about them.

Thats my 2 cents.

Regards,

Kumar

Originally posted by rickkumar
I agree with what BobFarmer has described, but I really disagree with Editor's note above.

Essentially, they are the same notes. Some of the key points in Bob's post, that mine expanded on, were:

"It used to be, customers would send an email asking for something to be done, and it would just be done."

"the more the server is altered by the customer, the less the managed services company can take responsibility for the server's uptime, performance, and stability."

Those two go hand in hand together, and basically mean (to me, at least) "stay out the way and let us manage this thing for you". Any deviation from that straight and narrow concept, and then the problems will start. In other words, I never open our car bonnets anymore, other than to put water and oil in them. I've got no business tinkering in there if I want the shop down the road to guarantee their work. Likewise we've got some very talented people we pay to manage our servers.

They're not toys. You either want to play with them, or you want to use your servers to provide solid services to your clients. If you want them managed to achieve the latter, leave the managers to their job.

Gary

I see what you're saying now Gary and I agree with it, but I was seeing things like Rickkumar was at first. The companies that offer multi levels of management really confuse the issue IMO. Who can figure out all the tiers?

Fully Managed and don't touch anything but your Control Panel
Unmanaged do whatever you want at your own risk

These two options make sense to me, it's all that middle ground that confuses things...

Forgive me for blunting in... but exactly who offers "real" managed services? Can anyone name some? I use to think that Servint offers managed services, but lately I heard from others that it is semi-managed... kind of a thin line aint it?

Editor, I do see your views moreclearly now. I agree with your explanation and also agree with Watcher_TVI as well.

Exactly, it the middle level plans that are creating confusion and frankly (as I see it), those plans are just designed to confuse the consumer.

Regards,

Kumar

Scout,
RackSpace is one.

---

Its some of these new startups, and resellers claiming to offer "Managed Servers" in their advertising.

But when you read what they manage, it is the same that any UnManaged provider does.

Reboots, Network Monitoring, Initial OS Installation (That one really gets me, that they count that in the managed service).

If you want them to do a conifguration change, etc. they charge to do it, the same as with any UnManaged server company would.


I agree with the above.

Managed Server - Means the provider takes care of everything, and if there is a CP, that is all you have access to.

UnManaged - You can complete control over the server, and the provider takes care of reboots, the network, and sometimes OS patches (But then the client would have to keep you updated with the root PW, good time to do it, etc.)

There should be no middle ground like some of these that start blurring the lines on customers when are they are comparing pricing and services.
But then they see that key word "Managed" and it is for the same or almost the same price, and they think they are getting more, when in all actuallity they are not.

I've seen allot of marketing tricks in this industry, but never seen something reworded like this.

Heres how bad they are confusing clients:

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=199769

I was speaking with a tech from RackSpace who called me at work, and I was asking what exactly kind of support is provided by RackSpace and he began explaining to me that they'll help you with a problem you have installing Apache , but they wont actually install it for you unless you have a big problem installing it, but then its up to you to configure it as well.



I was surprised by this and I pretty much believe it since it was a tech from RackSpace who told me this himself - if anyone has any information contridicting this please do tell as I would - just for informations sake - like to know how it is really handled.

Although on the other hand, they did say they do things like weekly checks for comprimisation etc. but the software side of things were left up to you or something?

let me know

That's odd.

From their ads, and websites, it sounds like they fully manage the servers.

I just looked at:
http://www.rackspace.com/support/sphere_table.php

They have 2 levels of support also, and looks like they just consider managed the initial installation. :\

Here's a great example of a reseller stating that the servers are "Management: FULLY MANAGED".

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=199772

http://nocster.com/policy/managed.shtml

You see a few spots where it mentions

... billed at a rate of $65/hour


Personally to me, that is not "FULLY MANAGED"

Originally posted by Mrdredd
I was surprised by this and I pretty much believe it since it was a tech from RackSpace who told me this himself - if anyone has any information contridicting this please do tell as I would - just for informations sake - like to know how it is really handled.

If you look at what's included with their managed service, it's nothing much "outside of the square". Anything other than what a box would ship with is fee based.

Looks like RackSpace was patient zero.

Saying they offer "Managed" servers, when in reality they aren't. :\

Well WOW I never really checked out their site because to me its pretty confusing.

They charge some pretty high prices for "management" which is kind of lacking for that price.


Somebody who actually did offer REAL fully managed support would be a in a nice place to gain a lot of high end customers then, eh?

Originally posted by Mrdredd
Well WOW I never really checked out their site because to me its pretty confusing.

They charge some pretty high prices for "management" which is kind of lacking for that price.


Somebody who actually did offer REAL

Which site RackSpace or NOCSTER?

RackSpace

I've talked to Rackspace and Verio and their default servers are not managed in the definition that we're using in this thread. Servint is by far the most "managed" host I can find. In the case of Rackspace, more money does not equal more management. At least with Servint there is no service plans. Which is helpful. My definition of management would have to be everything except custom programming. A managed host should be responsible for the server being online at all times and working in the way the client wants. It shouldn't have to be more complicated than that.

Would you count installing 3rd party software and debugging it as a part of managed-services? Or would it be extra?

We currently do it now, but are reconsidering our deicision due to a few clients having some problems our techs spending more than 10-12 hours to fix. (3rd party company went BK, so trying to fix the scripting for them)

Originally posted by nectar
Would you count installing 3rd party software and debugging it as a part of managed-services? Or would it be extra?

We currently do it now, but are reconsidering our deicision due to a few clients having some problems our techs spending more than 10-12 hours to fix. (3rd party company went BK, so trying to fix the scripting for them)


We offer true managed services on our Pegasus line with a min server cost of around $500 a month per server (single proc server) on a yearly contract. And in my idea of managed services is we will be required to install the software for you. If you install it and break it while installing it then we would charge you. But if you come to a managed host looking for a solution say dual front end web boxes with redundant mysql boxes in the backend with realtime replication and heartbeat failover. You better let us install and configure that for you while you just upload the site and input the database structures.

There is NO dedicated server provider charging $100 a month or even $200 a month that can truly offer MANAGED servers and still expect to stay in business. The tech support costs would just be monumental. IMHO DedicatedNOW, Nocster, Servermatrix all offer SEMI-Managed servers while Rackshack offers no managment at all. Granted at any of the above companies you might be a tech willing to work with you and help you out on a 3rd party application or help you with a problem outside the realm of support that is just good customer service and loyalty building, but to do it ALL the time would make the service offering not profitable.

I used to talk to rackspace, it did look like they do NOT offer "managed" server. e.g. I asked, do you install firewall for me, they said "NO". under your managed service, I do not even have to touch SSH correct? answer is "NO"...

So far and only company I believe "managed" is clook's managed server. WHM is all I need to know. Xeon 2.4G for 399USD/month is not too bad.

ServInt is fully managed IMO. I haven't had to do anything outside of WHM, and they have installed plenty of software for me.

A fully managed server where the provider handles all aspects of daily support for the server, including 3rd party software installs and maintenance, custom firewall solutions, patches, monitoring, security analysis, etc... is going to cost more than the sub $200 servers being offered in the mainstream. A company that does this 100% of the time that is. We know many companies where the techs will help out if they can or have spare time, but it's not part of their service.

We accomplish this fully managed concept by not providing root access unless absolutely needed by the client, charging much more per month for the servers, and making sure that it is our staff that does any installs or upgrades to any software on the servers. If we can control 100% of the environment, then management is manageable. Of course we have a few savvy clients that we allow more access to the server and allow them to install things on their own, but we do this on a case by case basis. Most business clients are happy to never have to touch the inner workings of a server, ever. :)

- John C.

Some excellent points have been made in this thread and I agree with many of them.

We find it frustrating (although it can be amusing too) that prospective clients contact us stating about how they can get a fully managed server with 500GB of bandwidth for $100 per month and want to know if we can compete with or beat this offer. I'm sure people that experience this "full management" at $100 per month would be rather alarmed to find out how far off "full management" is (if you can define such a term).

We do offer root access to clients but our fully managed line is aimed at people upgrading from reseller accounts primarily, so in most cases they have a good understanding of hosting and some understanding of how a server works. We (apparently) differ in that we also try and educate / teach clients to do various tasks simple tasks on their own - allowing them to complete such a task quicker should they want it doing. We do this because of the nature of our target audience though and not because we expect clients to do things on their own.

Jay makes a good point about one off help of infrequent help - yes, a company might do it once or twice but are they will to help you in the same case 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?

I'd have to agree with many of the points already made here. Unfortunately, in sales, the trick is to lie (or stretch the truth however you claim it) as much as possible. Advertising "FULLY MANAGED SERVERS" means the following (literally):

A> You don't need a control panel because we'll add that user and their domain for you.
B> If software stops and fails, we'll figure out why it does.
C> Every few hours we'll take a look through your logs, see if anything funny has happened.
D> We'll install and maintain a firewall on your system , checking it to make sure it's optimized (at least) once a week.
E> We'll keep your server up to date with kernel and the like.
F> We'll install any and all software that is possible to be done on your servers.
G> You have no limit on the amount of time we spend managing your servers.

Now, you take a host that has 15k+ servers, that's going to take a LONG time to do, and a LOT of man hours. You figure you're paying techs good money to do it,and you're NOT going to get servers for under 200/month.

I explain it like this to my customers:

The NOC's job is to keep the network and servers up and running, as well as provide support and build new servers.

A server admin (a good one) won't be watching over more than say 30 servers at any given time and specifically states exactly how much time is going to be spent each server.

Unfortunately, it's already been expressed, and it's quite true, customers want the cheapest deal around for their server. That doesn't mean they'll actually get the best service around, because usually just the opposite is the case, but they WILL go wherever it's cheaper, or wherever it LOOKS like they're getting the most for their money, until they actually try using some of those "fully managed" services.

Unfortunately, in sales, the trick is to lie (or stretch the truth however you claim it) as much as possible. I strongly disagree. Not everyone has to lie in order to get sales...

Originally posted by Watcher_TVI
Unfortunately, in sales, the trick is to lie (or stretch the truth however you claim it) as much as possible. I strongly disagree. Not everyone has to lie in order to get sales...

No, no, I didn't say that, but a large percentage of the companies DO (I'm one of the ones that don't). Stufff like "One server doesn't mean the whole network (which is true only to a very basic degree)" or "We offer Fully Managed servers" when they offer bare managed services. The idea is to make the service look better than it is.

TO Watcher_TVI
you said with Servint , I do not even to touch SSH, correct?
They will install firewall, tweak server and setup server based on your request for you? Also,do they "automatically" upgrade your server software or by requests?

Greetings:

There are managed service providers (MSP) that offer server administration, security services, and more.

Most of the good ones will support a wide variety of operating systems and applications.

All of them will have certain limitations because the good ones try to be a master of the areas they support rather than being a jack of all trades and a master of none.

The really solid managed service providers will try to be as proactive as possible offering service level guarantees backed with $$$ if they fail in the areas they guarantee.

Proactive, at least to me, means that the customer involvement is minimal to nil. They don't have to put in a ticket, because the MSP would already be on top of the issue.

There are MSP’s that can work with other hosting providers; though, in those cases they do need arrangements to handle hardware issues.

There are MSP’s that have very specific arrangements with a small number of quality providers like Rackspace.com, NTT/Verio, and Interland whereby there is a more holistic approach to hardware and software issues.

And there are MSP’s that either have their own data center or co-locate in a data center whereby they, the MSP, can manage the hardware and software.

As several very knowledgeable and experienced people pointed out, a good managed service provider will be an investment.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Jori
TO Watcher_TVI
you said with Servint , I do not even to touch SSH, correct?
They will install firewall, tweak server and setup server based on your request for you? Also,do they "automatically" upgrade your server software or by requests? For me, I have used SSH, not because I had to but because I wanted to. I use WHM pretty much exclusively to handle that server. ServInt has handled everything there for me thus far. Now if you set WHM to automatically update everything that comes from CPanel you're going to have major problems. So far I have not had any issues that they haven't taken care of proactively and completely. Including some support for issues that went well beyond what I expected...

finally, a thread where i can speak up. every time i try to debunk the 'managed' in threads about server matrix, i get flamed by their fanboys- 'but they are excellent!'. every time i do that in a nocster thread - 'the network has been up most of the time in the last few months!'.

the 'fully managed' tag is the next big fraud in hosting after unlimited transfer. stop lying you fraudulent bastards! heck, we have done more for our unmanaged server clients than nocster has done for their managed service. on one occasion, a nocster tech logged into the client's box to 'fix dns' (it was affecting the nocster box) and wiped out the zone for the anonymous domain the servers were under. we had to fix the box the client had with us *and* the nocster box. needless to say, we told the client that we will charge the full management rate the next time they allow incompetents from other providers to access the machine.

paul

Greetings:

Personally, I don’t see how a company offering $250 per month or less for renting their dedicated server services can offer anywhere near fully managed services.

Even Rackspace.com that comes very close to offering full server management, doesn’t.

Also, there are MSP providers that will offer their services, and still allow the client direct SSH.

Thank you.

rusko,
watch yourself...

calling another provider a "fraudulent bastard" and "incompetant" will get you kicked right out of here if we push the situation. After 2800 posts, I should think you would know the rules around here.

Incompetant? We have more CPanel experience than just about every other host around here put together. CPanel hires BurstNET techs quite often, due to their sheer competance and knowledge. Wanna try another false jab?

SMA
PRES/CEO
BURSTNET

We have more CPanel experience than just about every other host around here put together. That is quite the arrogant statement considering how many quality datacenters are represented here. Many of which have been in business longer than Burst/Nocster has...

Greetings Sean:

I agree with your stance in terms of others going too far.

I do agree with Watcher_TVI that you are making unquantifiable statements, and treating them as facts.

Also, can you please get a spell checker? <smile>.

Thank you.

sma,

i do not wish to engage in a tit for tat in this thread, it is pointless. i did, indeed, call *one of your techs* incompetent. his actions justify that. please re-read my post (and note the spelling of 'incompetent' while you are at it). it is my honest opinion that claiming full management and providing what you do is deceptive advertising, which you obviously do not. we will just have to agree to disagree on this. waving the rulebook at me is not going to help - there is no rule against disagreeing with someone and expressing your opinion in a pointed manner. if a mod thinks otherwise, he/she is welcome to pm me.

paul

Originally posted by Watcher_TVI
We have more CPanel experience than just about every other host around here put together. That is quite the arrogant statement considering how many quality datacenters are represented here. Many of which have been in business longer than Burst/Nocster has...

Wow, agreed. I wonder how he came to that conclusion. :eek:

Greetings Paul:

“it is my honest opinion that claiming full management and providing what you do is deceptive advertising”

I do agree that when one uses the word, “full,” one should not try to redefine the dictionary meaning of the word.

But in any event, I would agree with Sean on pushing the use of name calling.

Thank you.

Originally posted by BurstNET
We have more CPanel experience than just about every other host around here put together.


I think he might be talking about the number of customers he has that have cPanel.

What type of management would you guys classify this as:

- Server monitoring: Including escalation procedures and rebooting the server for you when its down without being told to.

- Firewall installation and configuration as well as IDS Software.

- Upgrade and install software on request.

- Troubleshoot server issues including software issues.

- Optimizing the machine and performing a security audit weekly.

- Continously updating kernel, Apache, PHP, etc.

- Re-securing machine after comprimisation

- Weekly backups and backup restorations (if needed)

Available by toll free phone or ticket desk

---------------------

What kind of management do you guys think that is?

Originally posted by BurstNET
We have more CPanel experience than just about every other host around here put together. Don't be so full of yourself.

... also admining an CPANEL server is about the easiest thing you can do, dont be so proud of it...

the 'fully managed' tag is the next big fraud in hosting after unlimited transfer.I could not agree anymore.

maybe because cpanel was developed actively while nick was employed at burst.

paul

<< That is quite the arrogant statement considering how many quality datacenters are represented here. Many of which have been in business longer than Burst/Nocster has... >>

But none of which have been using CPanel longer, or who have helped grow the software to what it is today.

SMA
PRES/CEO
BURSTNET

<< i do not wish to engage in a tit for tat in this thread >>

Nor do I. I can respect your opinion, and even see things from your point of view. I just disagree with the strong wording you used, and the pointing of such specifically at our firm. I can agree to disagree over the definition of "managed", but let's do it politely.


SMA
PRES/CEO
BURSTNET


PS - We have been considering changing from the term "fully managed" to "managed" anyways, for the NOCSTER product line. We've long been an opponent of anything termed "unlimited" in this industry, and have no intentions to confuse/trick customers. It's obviously caused a stir as of late, and such is not our intentions whatsoever. We specifically wrote a "Definition of Managed" which we display on our site, so as to avoid confusion, and to be very open with what we are considering "managed".

sma,

quite honestly, i was expecting you to argue your side till the bitter end as you usually do. regardless of what i think of your marketing/operating practices, you have just earned respect from myself and many others, i would think.

paul

Originally posted by BurstNET
<< i do not wish to engage in a tit for tat in this thread >>

Nor do I. I can respect your opinion, and even see things from your point of view. I just disagree with the strong wording you used, and the pointing of such specifically at our firm.

SMA
PRES/CEO
BURSTNET

Originally posted by BurstNET
<< That is quite the arrogant statement considering how many quality datacenters are represented here. Many of which have been in business longer than Burst/Nocster has... >>

But none of which have been using CPanel longer, or who have helped grow the software to what it is today.

SMA
PRES/CEO
BURSTNET Are we to believe that Burst is the only company that helped "grow the software to what it is today"?

You should stop while you're behind....

<, Are we to believe that Burst is the only company that helped "grow the software to what it is today"?
You should stop while you're behind.... >>

I'm not going to get into an arguement with you over this. It's well known knowledge that we have been with CPanel since version 1.0 back in 1998, and that Nick worked for us for a 3 year period of time, and that our input/requests directly influenced the development and feature implementation of CPanel.

Of course, things have come a long way, especially since Nick left our firm to pursue CPanel fulltime. Since that time alot of other firms have gotten heavily involved, and we no longer are the only huge CPanel based facility. But that still does not change history and fact.


SMA
PRES/CEO
BURSTNET

Rusko:
I couldn't think of a better definition of Burst's "management" actually, a bit vulgar but well said. The stories I've got would (and probably will) shock people.

BurstNET:
Again, with the lies. You claim your company can "manage" a server, you claim you're more experienced with CPanel than anyone, yet you're still not showing anyone a bit of proof. Your staff can't even read to follow directions, how can you make such redundant claims. Trained monkeys could do a better job. This, however is not the time or place for that discussion.

I agree managing a CPanel server is rather redundant and (somewhat) easy. However there's a lot more to do than just run CPanel.

Of course, things have come a long way, especially since Nick left our firm to pursue CPanel fulltime. Since that time alot of other firms have gotten heavily involved, and we no longer are the only huge CPanel based facility. First you say no one has used CPanel as long as you have or contributed as much to it's growth, now you're saying that other companies have contributed heavily to it?

Perhaps this is a good illustration as to why so many people cannot accurately determine what *fully managed* means....

<< quite honestly, i was expecting you to argue your side till the bitter end as you usually do. regardless of what i think of your marketing/operating practices, you have just earned respect from myself and many others, i would think. >>

rusko: Thank you...much appreciated.


<< Again, with the lies. >>

wolfstream: I'm not wasting my time, nor the time of the WHT community, further arguing with you. This is the third time you have accused me of lying, and enough is enough. I have about all I am going to take from you. We have already proven in other threads that you are the one that is doing such, trying to claim false things about our network, etc.

If you don't like our service, then leave. Plain and simple. We are obviously never going to be able to please you.



SMA
PRES/CEO
BURSTNET

<< First you say no one has used CPanel as long as you have or contributed as much to it's growth >>

Correct...in the past, since it's beginnings...


<< now you're saying that other companies have contributed heavily to it? >>

Correct...in the recent present time.


SMA
PRES/CEO
BURSTNET

I have used nocster services and I use ServInt. I can say I am honestly EXTREMELY happy with both services support wise. Both offer great support and they mostly do manage my needs when I ask them. I am also going to obtain another server from nocster in the future and my reasons are simple: To my needs they have fully managed my servers in the past. Their support is excellent and their network has been very stable.

I give props to both companies and hope both businesses continue to grow. You both are doing an excellent job!

To the whiners of managed services: Most providers have actually links to what their meaning of Managed is. It can be found in the TOS, AUP, SLA, Even a definition page which nocster has given. If you can't read contracts or pages before you buy services for your business then I seriously hope you aren't in the hosting business at all. It's all about contracts after all ;).

I would classify managed service as doing everything right down to uploading the site for the customer. Just like you would expect an admin who worked for you to do.

Aaron

<< Most providers have actually links to what their meaning of Managed is. >>

...and that is the key right there everyone.



SMA
PRES/CEO
BURSTNET

Greetings Sean:

"and that is the key right there everyone."

While I agree to a point, one should not use the word "full;" then go and try to redefine the word.

Full means full; it does not mean full minus exceptions. Use a dictionary and a spell checker, please.

Thank you.

<< While I agree to a point, one should not use the word "full;" then go and try to redefine the word. >>

Please see my post earlier in this thread regarding removal of the word "full".

Regardless of that, I still feel we provide enough management to legitimately use that phrase. No matter what provider you are, and how "high-end" your management level is, there is a limit to just how much you will do for a client. For example: If a client needs something custom done, are you going to spend the 15 hours they require on it for them? I don't think so...You may do it, but you'll charge them extra for it. We do the exact same thing, but just may have a different point that we start to do such...but do define that publicly on our site, to avoid such confusion.

My point is, NO ONE is completely 100% fully managed. And if they claim they are, I want a server on their network to prove to them they are not. I assure you, after 48 hours of doing everything I ask them to, they will agree with me.

<< Full means full; it does not mean full minus exceptions. Use a dictionary and a spell checker, please. >>

I have no time for such.


SMA
PRES/CEO
BURSTNET

Well full management can also mean different things to many people. Full Management for me is when the server goes down, or I need a hardware replacement due to a defect. Some may see server management as a way to do everything for you so you just in your chair and work on getting more income through your website. It all depends on the level you are at and what your own definition of "Fully Managed" services is. I can honestly say that Nocster is fully managed to my needs.

Burstnet:
Unlike you, I don't attempt to discredit customer's thoughts and opinions, calling them a liar publicly. As I stated however, this is neither the time or place for that. My opinions are my opinions, and those of a great number of people out of your "network" as well. For the record, I wasn't even referring to "network" status. This isn't a "network" thread, this is a "managed server" thread. Big difference! I was commenting on my PERSONAL experience with your company and the staff you would classify as "server managers" .

Global:
Nobody's "whining" here, whatsoever. What they are doing is stating opinions, some experienced, some not so. FULLY MANAGED means that, FULLY MANAGED, no "time restrictions", no "incident restrictions", nothing of the sort. That's very much like the perverbial unlimited bandwidth. It's not happening, literally. If it were, one client would be assigned their own individual manager who would be available to handle issues 24/7, and believe me, with most that's not the case.

WII-Aaron:
You misunderstand 'management'. Management covers software and operating system only, not specific web design, transfers or anything of the like.

This isn't a !BurstNet thread, or a !sprintserve thread, this is a thread discussing providers offering "fully managed" services, or even managed services for that matter, and how well they live up to the claim. I speak from personal experience when I offer my experience with Burst, NOT on a network level, but on an admin level.

if i guarantee 100% network uptime to my clients (which i do), how do you think they would react if i redefined network uptime as 'some of the uplinks are up', thereby excluding, say, distribution switches? i seem to recall a thread where you claimed that a dead switch somehow didnt mean network downtime. seems you have a penchant for redefining things? i wonder how you define 'thou shalt not lie' and 'thou shalt not covet thy neighbours' wife' =]

paul

<< this is a thread discussing providers offering "fully managed" services, or even managed services for that matter, and how well they live up to the claim. >>

exactly...


<< i seem to recall a thread where you claimed that a dead switch somehow didnt mean network downtime. >>

That is correct, we do not define that as "network downtime", we define that as "server downtime"...because not everyone on the network has the same problem, in fact a very small % would be affected by that problem.

I don't want to keep taking this thread off course though, as wolfstream is right, it is not about us. It is a thread discussing what is, and what is not, "managed" service.

SMA
PRES/CEO
BURSTNET

So can we can all mutually agree that "managed" means something differnet to every cperson, and it is in the eye of the beholder?

If such is the case, then a clear definition of what is included in "managed" service, publically posted on host's websites, should clear up any confusion with such.


SMA
PRES/CEO
BURSTNET

Since fully managed cannot happen according to your standards wolfstream then let us make up a new definition for "Fully Managed" right here. I see no point to letting a term such as fully managed go to waste after all.
But then again this would only include the term to the WebHostingTalk Society. It can be altered by companies if they do not wish to participate in it. Meaning you can agree here, but somewhere down the line companies that go to places like hosthideout will not accept our term of Fully Managed.
As you can see since "Fully Managed" cannot be accomplished and companies have, therefore, altered the definition (WITH AN EXPLANATION ON THEIR SITE) to what fully managed services are to them.

If clients can't read the definition of what fully managed is in a companies terms before buying a server and literaly signing that contract, then it disturbs me to say that society is illiterate :laugh:.

That is correct, we do not define that as "network downtime", we define that as "server downtime"...because not everyone on the network has the same problem, in fact a very small % would be affected by that problem. So Burst has their own definitions of "network downtime" and "fully managed". Good to know...

It is absolutely no wonder why people get twisted into a knot trying to choose a decent provider. Apparently the ones that cannot offer the same levels of uptime and management as other providers just change the definition of those words to better suit their offerings.

Look Global, FULLY means FULLY - its a word - theres ONE definition of it.

There can be differant variations of MANAGED, but not FULLY.

FULL means FULL - NOT Semi-Full but still called Fully Managed.

Definitions of words are not open for interpretation.

We have a singular and known language for a reason.

What would it come down to if I said you were a filthy dog - but I said it meant you were a honest guy?

Would you argue with me? You better not because I think it means your honest, so you cant!

Yes Fully Means Fully, but my point of arguement is as follows:
What is Fully Managed? I see that many people have their own interpretation of what a fully managed service is. Please enlighten me to what everybody's definition of fully manged is (or at least the majority group). And then ask yourself, "Can any provider actually give us fully managed service?". Of course not, so then lets just agree that everybody should remove the word fully correct me if I'm wrong. A filthy dog and an honest guy have a totally different meaning. Fully Managed and Managed however have a many similarities and a few differences. We would then have to know what a managed service actually is as well. I do not know what you mean by the word fully managed so please enlighten me in it. This is a forum to learn after all. Maybe I'm not getting something? Or maybe you are missing what I'm trying to explain?

Deleted with an apology to Sean.

\Ful"ly\, adv. In a full manner or degree; completely; entirely; without lack or defect; adequately; satisfactorily; as, to be fully persuaded of the truth of a proposition.


To direct or control the use of; handle: manage a complex machine tool.


That's directly from Websters, right there. There's no "fully managed" servers out there I hate to say it.
To fully manage a server, a NOC must exert complete and direct control over managing a server, going by the definition. That means user gets no root password, can't install services, etc.

When looking these up, I didn't see an option to "add my own definition" there, whatsoever.

On the same grounds "unlimited bandwidth" should be able to be defined as whatever the user wants it to be, hell, lets call 1g of bandwidth "unlimited". We can NOT just redefine words or terms we want to, simply because we don't like the previous definitions of them.

Originally posted by GlobalPN
I do not know what you mean by the word fully managed so please enlighten me in it.

Fully managed..to me, would be me having no control over the server and the hosting company doing everything for me.

Managed, fully managed, semi-managed...to me all depends on how much control the customer wants to have. The more control the customer has, the less the hosting company can do.

And I must say, this thread has completely thrown me off on the definitions. Customers agree it's one thing, Companies agree it's another...and every definition is different. $DEITY help anyone who ever comes up with the final answer...because even then..it's still not right.
:confused:

Deleted with an apology to Sean.

"manage a complex machine tool"
Now the term complex. How complex is complex in a sense. I realize I may be going too into detail here but some may find complex easy, you can surely agree with this?

Originally posted by sassSE
And I must say, this thread has completely thrown me off on the definitions. Customers agree it's one thing, Companies agree it's another...and every definition is different. $DEITY help anyone who ever comes up with the final answer...because even then..it's still not right.
:confused: [/B]

I too am confused :laugh:
This I must say is the key to my arguement. Fully Managed, Managed, Semi-Managed can all have different meanings. Sooner or later somebody will make the same post again about these definitions. There can be no finite answer.

Complexity is a different issue altogether.
What is complex to one person may not be to another because of knowledge and training, NOT merely because they wish to redefine the definition of complex.

For example:
I could throw out C code left and right and (most of) you wouldn't understand it, it'd be complex code to you. To me, it's child's play. Why? Because of KNOWLEDGE, not merely because I wish to redefine the word.

So then we still cannot define the term fully managed. The managed portion leaves this term vulnerable you would agree to this correct wolfstream?

fully managed to me is the following:

client wakes up, gets a call from someone who says apache has been dead on the server for the last half hour. said client proclaims that such is impossible and the man must be either lying or crazy. in fact, this client would probably believe the man more if he said that christ has risen. and of course, it turns out that the guy was pulling a prank and the server has been under the watchful eye of the MSP all night.

paul

nice analoogy Rusko;)

Global:
By saying that something is not complex to you but is to me (or vice versa) that's not redefining the word complex (or complexity even). It's merely stating one's experience , which complexity is based off of.

You CAN'T however redefine 1 term, or you have to be able to redefine all of them. In other words, if you define "fully managed" to your interpretation, then "unlimited bandwidth" would be able to be defined to your own interpretation, and "paying the rent" would be defined to your own interpretation and "writing a check" would be as easy as writing figures on a piece of paper, never cashed. See, the line's got to be drawn somewhere.

The terms fully and managed are well defined by websters. By their definition, a fully managed server is one that is simply done. When you want definitions, pull up a dictionary, don't rewrite it to your own liking.

the real question is: when will we come to redefining a network as a group of newly arrived, hungry illegal immigrants that transport buckets of packets to and fro in exchange for food, shelter and warmth? or, for that matter, redefining a support tech as a monkey that was part of the last unsuccessful attempt to get a large group of monkeys to randomly produce a shakespeare novel?

paul

Hahahaha....LOL.....I love this discussion.

I think there should be two kind of server plans only:

1. UnManaged (But security and OS patches should still be done automatically by the provider)

AND

2. Fully Managed ("everything" including the client site upload and the 3rd party software must be installed by the provider.....any objections to the 3rd party software should be resolved during pre-sale begotiations "by the provider".)

NOW the companies that embark on their homepages that they are providing "fully managed" servers, but then have 5 different plans to confuse and rip off the customer after he/she buys are just pure fraud and misleading the customers.

Once the customer signs up thinking he/she got a great fully managed server at a discount price, thats when the fun starts and the customer end up paying twice the price of a fully managed server from a good provider.

There are some very well know companies doing it. I won't name them here but increasingly more and more people are finding about them.

Thats my 2 cents.

Regards,

Kumar

Originally posted by rickkumar
Hahahaha....LOL.....I love this discussion.

I think there should be two kind of server plans only:

1. UnManaged (But security and OS patches should still be done automatically by the provider)

AND

2. Fully Managed ("everything" including the client site upload and the 3rd party software must be installed by the provider.....any objections to the 3rd party software should be resolved during pre-sale begotiations "by the provider".)

NOW the companies that embark on their homepages that they are providing "fully managed" servers, but then have 5 different plans to confuse and rip off the customer after he/she buys are just pure fraud and misleading the customers.

Once the customer signs up thinking he/she got a great fully managed server at a discount price, thats when the fun starts and the customer end up paying twice the price of a fully managed server from a good provider.

There are some very well know companies doing it. I won't name them here but increasingly more and more people are finding about them.

Thats my 2 cents.

Regards,

Kumar
Ok, we are using websters dictionary, which uses a panel of people. These people like on WHT are chosen and discuss what the actual word means. Now we can go look at the American Hertiage Dictionary which describes fully managed a little bit differently and so on and so forth. Heck let us draw up a panel of WHT people to create a definition as well and we may get something different from both of those dictionaries. It all depends upon the panel. My basic point is to argue that nobody can have fully managed service. Therefore companies use the term and bend it to their own liking. Many companies tell us what their term is via Definition, TOS, AUP, SLA. In truth, however, one cannot provide "fully managed services unless each person was watching one computer 24/7/365. Now I'm not saying what companies do is right or wrong but we can discuss that later on after we discover the meanings of fully managed, semi-managed, managed services. Can we agree with that or should we go further into this?

We just concluded that you CANNOT have fully managed services. It is a complete Hoax. In order for this to happen then one would need an operation on your server 24/7/365. Companies use these terms to explain their own definitions of Fully Managed. The arguement is not if it is a hoax now but if it is right or wrong for the company to do so. We still have not defined what managed and semi managed is in order to give us a much better understanding of what fully managed can be. If you read this post throughout everybody has a different definition of "Fully Managed" some definitions even falling under what others might consider managed services. Hence we now can define the following two terms: Managed & Semi Managed and whether it is allright for companies to define their own definition of Fully Manged since it cannot exist.

This was a great discussion until certain members decided to have a go at each other. I really think that some of you need to reaccess how you post. ;)

Anyhow, Fully Managed, Semi Managed, Managed or whatever, as long as the provider has a page where their definition of their service is written, I don't have a problem with any definition. It might be that ServInt's service equals Semi Managed and that Nocster's equals Slightly Managed but as long as they define their management service, they can state Fully Managed as far as I'm concerned.

Anyone that takes a phrases like "Fully Managed" or "Cheapest host there is" or "Free ecommerce worth $500" (when it's freeware" etc at face value is looking for trouble. As long as the customer knows what to expect from a provider then all is good.

My definition of Fully Managed is a host that treats their client's servers just like their own and will do anything like build a java extension for php and check the server regularly for issues. Rackspace is far from managed. Sure, you can get them on the phone and they will blind you on kibbitz but at the edn of the day, you will be running Apache that is 3 versions behind, PHP that came with the CP and forget proactive patching. I think I remember only once in a whole year that they said they were going to patch something and only then because we were a "Priority" customer. Since leaving them for a cheaper provider that is unmanaged (yes, Jay - the Pegasus line even though our servers are $300), we now have a team of admins and it absolutely shames and terrifies me of what we endured at a fully "Fully Managed" provider.

My advice to anyone that cares about server security and stability, get an unmanaged service and get your own admins. :)

Originally posted by GlobalPN
Hence we now can define the following two terms: Managed & Semi Managed and whether it is allright for companies to define their own definition of Fully Manged since it cannot exist.

But, to them..it can exist. Because there is no one definition of either. Everyone has their own. So to company X, managed is to them, what company Y is offering as fully managed. Company Z is fully managed and believes that company Y isn't and shouldn't offer such.
This thread has proven that just about every person and company has a different meaning of both managed and fully managed. So I guess it all boils down to:

it is whatever that company or person feels it is at that time they are offering or looking for service?

sassE looks like what you have attained is true. No definition of Fully Managed can come into hand that all would agree on and therefore a company can come to terms and create their own meaning to use for themselves.

One of the best way to avoid issues is simply to sign a SLA. Everything is defined beforehand so there should be less surprises.
The client can rest because everything that needs to be taken care of is included and the isp can also rest because they know the level of service that they have to provide.

Managed Servers use to mean that the companies took care of all day-to-day operations, configuration of the server, etc.
And the client only had to send in requests, and never had to touch the server.
Interesting how things change over time.
I think there should be two kind of server plans only
...
These two options make sense to me, it's all that middle ground that confuses things...
I think this middle ground of semi-management is a valid class of management, but really needs to be clarified more through some kind of standard.
There should be no middle ground like some of these that start blurring the lines on customers when are they are comparing pricing and services.
But then they see that key word "Managed" and it is for the same or almost the same price, and they think they are getting more, when in all actuallity they are not.
To me, 'managed' is way to vague. This needs to be clarified to at least semi or fully managed and then a definition of what's included. This vague term is that confuses people into thinking this and some companies know this and use it to their advantage.
IMHO DedicatedNOW, Nocster, Servermatrix all offer SEMI-Managed servers while Rackshack offers no managment at all.
I would tend to agree with this. What I would like to see though is more clarification with NOC's by them specifically stating this on their sites. Some may, some may not.
We do offer root access to clients but our fully managed line is aimed at people upgrading from reseller accounts primarily, so in most cases they have a good understanding of hosting and some understanding of how a server works.
There are a LOT of things about a server that a reseller may not realize also because most resellers have a lot of the foundation work done for them.
Now if you set WHM to automatically update everything that comes from CPanel you're going to have major problems.
What kind of problems? I haven't noticed any major problems myself yet, just minor issues, or are you refering to edge versions?
We have been considering changing from the term "fully managed" to "managed" anyways, for the NOCSTER product line.
From the way I understand this management plan, I would say it's more of a semi-managed plan than just terming it 'managed' since this leaves it open to even more interpretation.
I would classify managed service as doing everything right down to uploading the site for the customer. Just like you would expect an admin who worked for you to do.
Hey that would be great if a MSP would upload and update my site periodically also. ;)
Well full management can also mean different things to many people. Full Management for me is when the server goes down, or I need a hardware replacement due to a defect. Some may see server management as a way to do everything for you so you just in your chair and work on getting more income through your website.
From the way I understand 'fully managed', you are only utilizing semi-management but it may be all you need.
As you can see since "Fully Managed" cannot be accomplished and companies have, therefore, altered the definition (WITH AN EXPLANATION ON THEIR SITE) to what fully managed services are to them.
This is a good start. I think something that would be really helpful is a master checklist from an outside group that defines management aspects so that each MSP can check off each service they provide. That way there is a common ground and leave little for interpretation. i.e. if there's a master checklist, then we'll say fully managed might be 90+% of those items, semi 50+%, and unmanaged under 50%.
To fully manage a server, a NOC must exert complete and direct control over managing a server, going by the definition. That means user gets no root password, can't install services, etc.
Isn't this what a 'host' provides to customers?
Fully managed..to me, would be me having no control over the server and the hosting company doing everything for me.
'host' is the keyword here.

Originally posted by Alex042


This is a good start. I think something that would be really helpful is a master checklist from an outside group that defines management aspects so that each MSP can check off each service they provide. That way there is a common ground and leave little for interpretation. i.e. if there's a master checklist, then we'll say fully managed might be 90+% of those items, semi 50+%, and unmanaged under 50%.


Who's to say that the outside group can be correct. Who's to say that the group may not have interest with one company and therefore side with the companies definition of fully managed? We simply cannot create a group of people to do such a thing as stated by my dictionary example. Words have slightly different meanings in each dictionary because the group that says what those meanings are have different opinions. We cannot rely on soly one group; they may, afterall, start to abuse their power.

As stated before it is impossible to define fully managed or even come into ground terms. Too many if's and but's and personal interest. It is therefore the company that has to decide what their own definition is.

The companies now do decide what the definitions of managed are. I feel that the problems arise when companies try to use words simply to compete with services they normally would not be able to. For example using the word "fully" managed reasonably implies a higher level of server management. Now if a company uses the terms "Fully managed" and yet you have to order OS upgrades or patches is that really a higher level of server management?

There is no question that this is a gray area but to see a company using the words "Fully managed" so they can try and compete with the likes of a ServInt or Rackspace is pretty misleading IMO. Especially if the company admits that using the words "fully managed" have led to problems for the end user.

So what can be done? Not a lot really, threads like this discussing these issues may help, but how many people will really take the time to read through all this?

Originally posted by wolfstream
This isn't a !BurstNet thread, or a !sprintserve thread, this is a thread discussing providers offering "fully managed" services, or even managed services for that matter, and how well they live up to the claim.
Not so sure about that. If you look at it again carefully, I'd say that the thread starter (serveroutsource) was specifically targetting burstnet under the disguise of "managed services" question. He certainly used the word burstnet in his first post (although it has been starred out either by him or by one of the mods) quoting a few paragraphs from nocster's managed services page. He continued to target burstnet in 2 further posts later on.

tandem,

Your not going to get this thread OT like you have the others.

As everyone can see I just posted a question that has been on allot of providers minds, and was for other providers thoughts on the subject.

Which you can read in the thread.

No certain provider was targeted in my original question/first post.

My follow up replies where just that, replies to other posts.

Originally posted by SrvOutsource

Your not going to get this thread OT like you have the others.

This is the most ridiculous and utterly out-of-context statement I have read today.

Your real intentions in starting this thread are crystal clear. You can try to disguise them as much as you like.

You singled burstnet out right in your initial post in a covert manner and succeeded in getting them vilified.

As to the actual discussion, when I first read Global's opinions they seemed slightly immature. Looking at them closer, I can't help but agree with his point of view.

He's saying that his expectations of managed services may be different than others. And he added that he is quite satisfied with the certain services he seems to be receiving from his current provider - regardless of what everyone thinks of it. Who is to argue with that?

Originally posted by tandem
This is the most ridiculous and utterly out-of-context statement I have read today.

Your real intentions in starting this thread are crystal clear. You can try to disguise them as much as you like.

You singled burstnet out right in your initial post in a covert manner and succeeded in getting them vilified.

Tandem,

As always that is your opion, and yours alone.

Even BurstNet has posted to this thread.

You posts are the ones that you are trying to disguise, and are clear, like they always are.

No where in the initial post does is mention any single company, or BurstNet by name.

Very long thread and all words are already said, but i wanna add something too:

client wakes up, gets a call from someone who says apache has been dead on the server for the last half hour
I think that if server is realy FULLY managed client must sleep well and dont worry about his server but tech(s) must be alerted by their monitoring system and fix apache e.t.c. within 5-15 minutes and notice client about problem and resolution.

I mean just simple "managed", yes, its marketing but we all are not perfect IMHO and if NOCSTER will be offering "managed" (without "FULL") with full discription/defination, like Servermatrix's "silver managed" plan it will be ok for most of all.

"Full managed must be full" - great slogan for "fullmanagedmustbefull.com" site (something like unlimband.com about unlimited bandwidth, but about managed servers)