Managed or Self Managed ?

[mangoface]

I run a couple of dedicated servers and despite having been a big fan of self managed many years ago I've slowly come to the conclusion that managed servers even if they're a little more costly a far better in the long run than self-managed.

24/7 support, continuous server updates and security fixes, means I never have to worry about hаckers and the normal run of the mill updates. Yes you pay more but if you're in the business for the long haul, it helps to have an expert on hand. I personally can do all the server admin tasks myself but choose not to and hand them out to the experts.

P.S I use liquidweb and they're awesome.

[bigzee]

I use self managed but pay a server admin to manage it. I've found it works out cheaper that way. I previously use rackspace and they cost an arm and a leg. I know have my own server admin team which manages 5 of my dedi's.

But overall agree with you if you have a dedi you gotta eventually look into outsourcing and paying for the management.

[truffleshuffle]

Managed all the way for me and I think many of the larger web hosts are seeing the value of providing this service. Also I've noticed that the managed providers are slowly becomming less expensive and it's becoming more of a common thing for most hosts to offer managed services within their basic prices. 

[tradedemon]

If you've got a lot of sites, it's really gotta be a managed solution. No point worrying about all the techy type server patches, hot fixes and updates, you've got better things to be doing

[Sevam]

Yes, if you have many sites it would be better to have managed server. You will have less problems.

[captaincaveman]

I just use normal web hosting which I guess is all managed anyway, however if I was going to a dedicated box I'd certainly consider getting it managed but only if I had more than 25 sites on it...