# Linode Managed! Very reasonably priced!



## Jono20201 (May 29, 2013)

Blog post: https://blog.linode.com/2013/05/29/introducing-linode-managed/

Personally I think their one-tier pricing structure is a steal! </sarcasm>


----------



## netnub (May 29, 2013)

Lol. that is just... no comment.


----------



## MannDude (May 29, 2013)

Meh, Linode isn't targeting the lowend market so $100 a month for a no-nonsense, fully managed service isn't that bad.

I'd pay it, if it meant I could just log a ticket and ask them to do stuff for me that I don't feel like doing myself.


----------



## texteditor (May 29, 2013)

Maybe they should get their own house in order before offering to manage others' servers


----------



## concerto49 (May 29, 2013)

Expected on pricing. It is Linode. Problem is apparently you can only have management or no management and not choose per node!?


----------



## WebSearchingPro (May 29, 2013)

So say you have 5 nodes, but you only want to manage 1, they charge you the whole 500$, that sounds rather ridiculous .

All or nothing! (lottery reference)


----------



## thekreek (May 29, 2013)

Is it just me or is linode repeating the same mistakes slicehost did.

From a developer vps provider to a corporate vps provider.

Higher prices, fewer new features and a lot of marketing.


----------



## rds100 (May 29, 2013)

$100/month for management doesn't sound unreasonable to me. What do you think would be a fair price?


----------



## A Jump From Let (May 30, 2013)

MannDude said:


> Meh, Linode isn't targeting the lowend market so $100 a month for a no-nonsense, fully managed service isn't that bad.
> 
> I'd pay it, if it meant I could just log a ticket and ask them to do stuff for me that I don't feel like doing myself.


Under some circumstances, I'd be as well needing help. Since VPS aren't only used to keep idle nor for running a script and leaving it, but may have critical use. Hence if such management can help saving the day once in a month where I didn't get 10 hours of downtime for any stupid reason, it can be worth it paying for management.


----------



## blergh (May 30, 2013)

If you offer a good service, and you are well aware of your skills and quality i do not see any issues whatsoever with charging accordingly. You people are just cheapskates that need to wake up and realize that things cost money, and that good quality services also cost money.

Expecting magic for 25$ is not really going to work out for anyone.


----------



## jhadley (May 30, 2013)

$100/month for server management is really not that unreasonable.


----------



## Reece-DM (May 30, 2013)

jhadley said:


> $100/month for server management is really not that unreasonable.


Considering that Linode is also host to many business's it isn't a shock that it costs $100 a month, but to be fair its just a label and a invoice that they're actually offering until the client needs help


----------



## netnub (May 30, 2013)

rds100 said:


> $100/month for management doesn't sound unreasonable to me. What do you think would be a fair price?


$100/month/node. So if someone has 4 nodes, they'd be paying w/e the node prices are, then an additional $400 for management.


----------



## Chronic (May 30, 2013)

MannDude said:


> Meh, Linode isn't targeting the lowend market so $100 a month for a no-nonsense, fully managed service isn't that bad.
> 
> I'd pay it, if it meant I could just log a ticket and ask them to do stuff for me that I don't feel like doing myself.


Except it's not fully managed like that, at least from what I gathered from their website.


----------



## mikho (May 30, 2013)

*@**Chronic*,

I think that will be as close as you can get. If they should take care of your applications you should go with a hosted solution instead.

With this you get access to the root account.


----------



## Chronic (May 30, 2013)

mikho said:


> *@Chronic*,
> 
> I think that will be as close as you can get. If they should take care of your applications you should go with a hosted solution instead.
> 
> With this you get access to the root account.


Personally I have no need for such services, but I consider the term *managed* very specific and I expect whoever is advertising such a service to take *complete* care of my servers. If I have to login and do things myself - even if it only involves minute tasks - then it should only be considered semi-managed, no?


----------



## Marc M. (May 30, 2013)

If this discussion would have taken place on LET, I think that most participants would have been outraged by the amount of this fee. That being said, I think that this is in line with what Rackspace is charging for VPS management as well.


----------



## MannDude (May 30, 2013)

Well, I wonder what their definition of 'Co Managed' is, as they seem to 'Co Manage' tuning, and 'Co Manage' the Operating System.


----------



## Marc M. (May 30, 2013)

MannDude said:


> Well, I wonder what their definition of 'Co Managed' is, as they seem to 'Co Manage' tuning, and 'Co Manage' the Operating System.


*@**MannDude* I think it means that if I, as a customer open a ticket and ask for Apache to be replaced with Nginx for better performance they will do a (lets say we're using CentOS for this example) "service httpd stop; chkconfig httpd off; yum install nginx; chkconfig nginx on;" at the very minimum and at the most they'll install the old spawn-fcgi daemon to handle PHP instead of PHP-FPM, because they won't touch any other repo than EPEL. This stuff is actually easy, because the hardest part will be to write the Nginx config files so that your web sites work the same way as they did with Apache. If this is the case then I'm not sure it's worth the money.


----------



## A Jump From Let (May 30, 2013)

marcm said:


> If this discussion would have taken place on LET, I think that most participants would have been outraged by the amount of this fee. That being said, I think that this is in line with what Rackspace is charging for VPS management as well.


 

Would you answer the same or differently if it was there? I guess that pretty much answers the question: they'd as well answer the same  

It's mainly because Linode are top notch, though.


----------



## mikho (May 30, 2013)

Chronic said:


> Personally I have no need for such services, but I consider the term *managed* very specific and I expect whoever is advertising such a service to take *complete* care of my servers. If I have to login and do things myself - even if it only involves minute tasks - then it should only be considered semi-managed, no?


You say Potato, I say potato.


What you see in that table is a graphic view of whats included. The only way to really understand whats done by each side is to read the agreement that you sign with Linode.


At my day-job most of our customers are setup like this. They host their server with us and we help as much as possible to solve any issue that can happen.


The part were the customer never have to be involved in are hardware and virtualization. If there upgrades needed to be done to the host, the customer should never notice the upgrade.


If their exchange server stops sending emails, we assist but will send an invoice for our time. Pretty much everything is written down in the agreement thats signed by both sides before the customer gets their VM into our cluster.


Note that we charge somewhere around $100-200 / hour. Depending on customer and work that needs to be done.


----------



## prometeus (May 30, 2013)

I think it's a right price if you look at it with from a business point of view and if the service you get is good and professional. 

I know serveral company (including some of my clients) which are happy to pay hundreds (or thousands) per month to have the servers (physical or virtual doesn't matter) managed by a trusted provider...


----------



## Marc M. (May 31, 2013)

Looks more like semi-managed than fully managed. Most customers expect fully managed, regardless of what they are paying.


----------



## vanarp (Jun 1, 2013)

Personally, if I can afford I would go for WiredTree's fully managed vps than this managed linode.


----------



## HalfEatenPie (Jun 1, 2013)

vanarp said:


> Personally, if I can afford I would go for WiredTree's fully managed vps than this managed linode.


 

Why WiredTree?


----------



## vanarp (Jun 1, 2013)

HalfEatenPie said:


> Why WiredTree?


Well, heard good things about them. They seem to offer quite affordable fully managed vps.


----------



## Marc M. (Jun 1, 2013)

vanarp said:


> Well, heard good things about them. They seem to offer quite affordable fully managed vps.


*@**vanarp* they are cheaper than Rackspace, that's for sure.


----------



## Lee (Jun 1, 2013)

It's certainty not what I would call "managed", but it seems more targetted to those with either bigger linodes or several which is going to remove all the $20 customers from raising tickets every 10 minutes with "can you fix this or that".

If it works for them!  And I am sure it will.


----------



## dominicl (Jun 1, 2013)

IMO, it's not that bad.

If you have, say, 10 servers with Linode then it could be quite a good deal.


----------



## mpkossen (Jun 2, 2013)

marcm said:


> ... Most customers expect fully managed, regardless of what they are paying.


Exactly. I solely have managed customers at the moment. They really expect me to do _everything_, even though that's not what they're paying for. If people pay for managed, in my experience, they really want fully managed.
I don't think Linode's offer is bad though, same with their pricing. They match (for example) BuyVM. $100/month for management is quite reasonable for businesses.


----------



## Marc M. (Jun 2, 2013)

dominicl said:


> IMO, it's not that bad. If you have, say, 10 servers with Linode then it could be quite a good deal.


*@**dominicl* or just get a dedicated box with something like 32GB Ram and partition it into several VMs and pay someone half of what you would pay Linode to manage everything. 10 x $100 is $1000 per month, so I have no doubt that someone would manage a dedicated box with VMs for $500 per month.



mpkossen said:


> Exactly. I solely have managed customers at the moment. They really expect me to do everything, even though that's not what they're paying for. If people pay for managed, in my experience, they really want fully managed.


*@**mpkossen* and I'm pretty sure that you're charging them a pretty reasonable price. I know how time consuming managed services can be so I've passed on the torch to @KBeezie ;-) He handles that now for me.


----------

