Trade Offs Between Managed Services and Self Managed Services

In this article, we explore the trade-offs between using fully managed services provided by AWS and managing services on your own. While AWS handles various elements of operational management, some aspects—such as physical data center access—remain beyond reach, narrowing our focus to cloud-based operations.

Operational Management and Traffic Handling

Fully managed services simplify operations by having AWS take care of tasks such as handling traffic flow, scaling, and routine maintenance. On the other hand, self-managed services require you to directly configure, maintain, and scale your systems.

For example, compare using a custom setup of Amazon EC2 to host your application versus leveraging AWS Lambda. With AWS Lambda, a fully managed service, you trade full control over the infrastructure for ease of use. In contrast, an EC2 instance gives you complete control over the environment—with additional overhead for configuration and maintenance.

The image illustrates a "Self-Managed Service" model, showing a building icon representing the customer managing services, with an arrow indicating traffic flow.

Comparison of Control Levels

The diagram below clearly contrasts fully managed services and self-managed services by showcasing the difference in operational responsibility. Fully managed services offer lower control over the underlying infrastructure, whereas self-managed services provide a significantly higher level of customization and control.

The image is a diagram comparing fully managed services and self-managed services in terms of control, with fully managed services offering lower control and self-managed services offering higher control.

Convenience versus Operational Overhead

When it comes to convenience, fully managed services substantially reduce operational overhead. AWS handles patching, scaling, and other backend issues so you can concentrate on your core business. Conversely, self-managed services require more hands-on management and increase operational responsibility.

The image is a diagram comparing fully managed services and self-managed services in terms of convenience, with fully managed services offering higher convenience and self-managed services offering lower convenience.

The following diagram summarizes the trade-off between control and convenience: fully managed services deliver ease of use at the expense of granular control, while self-managed services require more effort to maintain but offer superior control.

The image is a diagram comparing fully managed services and self-managed services, highlighting the trade-off between control and convenience. Fully managed services offer lower control but higher convenience, while self-managed services provide higher control but lower convenience.

Similarly, fully managed services are associated with lower maintenance and operational overhead. In contrast, self-managed services demand greater attention and ongoing management.

The image compares fully managed services and self-managed services in terms of maintenance and operational overhead, indicating that fully managed services have lower overhead while self-managed services have higher overhead.

Cost Considerations

Cost efficiency is another critical factor. Fully managed services typically use a pay-as-you-go pricing model, which can result in lower costs when scaling dynamically based on demand. Self-managed services, such as provisioning an EC2 instance, commonly involve fixed capacity costs regardless of usage, potentially leading to higher expenses when resources are underused.

The image is a comparison chart of fully managed versus self-managed services, focusing on cost. It highlights that fully managed services may have lower and more variable costs, while self-managed services may have higher but more predictable pricing.

Responsibility and Security

A key consideration is the division of security responsibilities. Fully managed services offload much of the security management to AWS, reducing your administrative burden. However, with self-managed services, you are responsible for nearly all aspects of security, maintenance, and operating system setup.

The image is a diagram comparing fully managed and self-managed services in terms of security responsibility. It shows a spectrum from shared responsibility in fully managed services to more responsibility in self-managed services.

Setup Time and Customization

The time it takes to set up your service is another important differentiator. Fully managed services often allow you to deploy with just a few clicks, ensuring a rapid start. In contrast, self-managed setups require detailed configuration steps, increasing deployment time but allowing for deep customization.

The image is a diagram comparing fully managed and self-managed services in terms of customization and flexibility, with fully managed being less customizable and self-managed being highly customizable.

Monitoring and Debugging

Monitoring tools and debugging capabilities can vary significantly. Fully managed services may offer limited insight into lower-level system details, whereas self-managed services provide extensive monitoring options. Integrating additional monitoring tools is often necessary with self-managed services, though the initial setup requires extra effort.

The image is a diagram comparing fully managed and self-managed services in terms of monitoring and debugging, indicating that fully managed services offer limited insight while self-managed services provide deeper insight.

When to Choose Each Approach

Below are some key factors to consider when deciding between fully managed and self-managed services:

Fully Managed Services

Ideal for Limited Operational Expertise:
Rely on AWS to handle routine management, allowing your team to focus on development.
Quick Deployment:
Perfect for scenarios requiring rapid deployment of standard workloads.
Lower Maintenance Overhead:
Benefit from AWS managing patching, scaling, and backend operations.

The image lists four reasons to choose fully managed services, including limited operational expertise, focusing on application development, needing rapid deployment, and fitting standard services.

Self-Managed Services

High Customization Needs:
When your business requires specialized infrastructure configuration and advanced security measures.
Dedicated Management Team:
Suitable if you have a team that can handle in-depth system management and monitoring.
Avoiding Vendor Lock-In:
Opt for flexibility and control over the environment by managing services independently.

The image lists four reasons to choose self-managed services, including the need for customization, specialized workloads, a dedicated team, and avoiding vendor lock-in.

Note

While vendor lock-in is sometimes mentioned as a reason for choosing self-managed services, it is generally not the primary factor. Always align your decision with the operational, security, and customization requirements specific to your business.

Conclusion

This article has compared fully managed and self-managed services across multiple dimensions, including control, convenience, cost, security, setup time, customization, and monitoring. Understanding these trade-offs will enable you to choose the approach that best meets the needs of your organization.

For further reading, consider exploring the following resources:

Watch Video

Watch video content

Practice Lab

Practice lab