Here's the deal with "managed providers", in a nutshell:
Firstly, many don't let you have "root access". Why? NOT because they don't want you screwing things up, but because they
don't do their jobs, end of story.
I can't count the times I've seen "managed providers" and "server admin" pull this one. From FastServers (whom I used to be really for
, until I found this out) to touchsupport (I won't even comment on them), it is the same.
Server A is rolled off the line with phpx and kernelx
6 months to a year later, server A STILL has phpx and kernelx when both have been updated. The DC's response? Oh there is no need to update those. Ummm, NO, there is ALWAYS a need to update software, especially
php and kernel software when they're released.
Then we have the logs:
DC's don't have the staff to go through the logs, period, and I have YET to see one whom is smart enough to have the SENSITIVE stuff forwarded. Naaah, it's just "let it run". Now, that is the wrong approach. Logs contain valuable information about servers, server status, and what is going on with the server. They should always
be paid attention to.
Then, of course, we have custom stuff. When dealing with managed providers (again, such as FastServers), the problem is that THEY don't support EVERYTHING, and at SOME POINT, you need root access to get in and configure things.
Think about it for 5 seconds and you'll realize that it's the truth. Would you rather:
A> open a ticket, wait for a response, then another response (minimum 2 hours there)
B> go in and resolve the situation yourself within 15 minutes
The choice is clearly, and obviously B
Then, I won't even go INTO the "time" thing. What happens when your server needs something and you've used up all your "admin time" for the month?
When it comes down to it, don't even bother. If the provider isn't giving you root access to something you're paying out the tail end for, forget it, find one that is reasonable
, because THAT certainly isn't reasonable.
The provider we were considering finally said that they do not offer root access, but it was pulling teeth to get that answer; when I asked a question in a thread (on another board) about why a problem couldn't be solved by going in under SSH, I got a "Oh, but we just do everything for you, all you have to do is put a ticket in and we take care of it, much easier that way" response. Only when I directly called them on giving an evasive answer did they actually say "No, we do not ever give out root access" and it had simply never occurred to me that this was an option, so I was unaware of whether it was industry standard or just their policy.
It sounds like this provider is simply trying to hide the above (the fact that they don't do SQUAT for client servers).
As for industry standard? Well, it's a 50/50 right now, until people wake up and realize that they need to stand up for their rights to something they're paying that much a month for.