We're currently hosting a number of sites on a self-managed dedicated server.

Some companies, however, offer a managed dedicated server hosting service. They offer:

• Roughly the same server spec
• Ticketing system support
• Managed daily backups
• Virtual firewall (but with a limit of 10 IP addresses allowed through at any one time)

Now, this managed hosting is at extra expense - somewhere in the region of $500 per month, and the limit on the number of IP addresses they'll manage on the firewall is also a real pain.

My thinking is it would be better and cheaper to

• Stay with the same host since the dedicated box is fine
• Get an Amazon AWS account and use their server to manage backups; there are a number of good tools that can be used to automate the process
• Configure iptables so that I have complete control of the firewall

I want to know

• Is a managed virtual firewall likely to be more secure than me configuring iptables?
• Whether, in your opinion, it's best to let someone else take care of backups?
• If, from your experience, there's anything else i'm missing that warrants using managed hosting over a DIY service?

I think there is some reluctance to not having managed hosting since a managed host in effect takes responsibility for your server, whereas any hardware or security issues with a server that we manage would mean we are forced to hold our hands up when a client site goes down.

That said, I personally don't think a managed host does that much in the day to day running of your server (backups are automatic, OS updates are carried out with ease, etc.).