There are disadvantages, such as machines getting stuck or disconnected, requiring restarts. Sometimes we lose connection and need to check with the IT service provider from the DigitalOcean service team to reboot. There are issues where even with 8 GB RAM, the performance doesn't meet expectations. The lower cost comes with more issues and disadvantages.
DigitalOcean could offer a pay-as-you-go model similar to AWS, where I would pay for what I use rather than having fixed payments. It would be beneficial to have more flexibility without fixed payments upfront, with a very cheap price structure that adapts to resource usage.
IT Consultant at a tech services company with 1-10 employees
Real User
Nov 29, 2023
The issue with DigitalOcean is primarily the latency. So, when you have a mixed system with some components staying here, and then we encounter network latency, it's not optimal. Our present Kubernetes installation, which has been running for three months, is on DigitalOcean. However, we experience latency when communicating between the CRM server in Milano, our premises, and the cloud system. Otherwise, with Google, we have three data centers, including one in Milano, so everything is much faster. So, network latency could be improved in DigitalOcean.
Other solutions are proving the monitoring feature, like AWS having GuardDuty and SAP having services for logs and monitoring. DigitalOcean doesn’t have any other benefits.
Head Of Application Technology at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Sep 5, 2019
I think the support can be improved, and I also think DigitalOcean needs to work on the reliability of the droplets. I've done some research and discovered that the droplet becomes unbootable. The boot drive gets corrupt, and that is a problem - especially when you're in a production system. That really gives a poor experience and that is why I had to focus on AWS. In terms of support and reliability of droplets I think they really need to improve in that area. I'd also prefer an upgrade on the security.
DigitalOcean has the fastest and most convenient cloud technology to help you easily and more efficiently manage your infrastructure so you can get back to coding. We provide all of our users with high-performance SSD Hard Drives, a flexible API, and the ability to select the nearest data center location.
There are disadvantages, such as machines getting stuck or disconnected, requiring restarts. Sometimes we lose connection and need to check with the IT service provider from the DigitalOcean service team to reboot. There are issues where even with 8 GB RAM, the performance doesn't meet expectations. The lower cost comes with more issues and disadvantages.
DigitalOcean could offer a pay-as-you-go model similar to AWS, where I would pay for what I use rather than having fixed payments. It would be beneficial to have more flexibility without fixed payments upfront, with a very cheap price structure that adapts to resource usage.
The platform could enhance its features, particularly for ETL processes. Additionally, more integration features would be highly beneficial.
The issue with DigitalOcean is primarily the latency. So, when you have a mixed system with some components staying here, and then we encounter network latency, it's not optimal. Our present Kubernetes installation, which has been running for three months, is on DigitalOcean. However, we experience latency when communicating between the CRM server in Milano, our premises, and the cloud system. Otherwise, with Google, we have three data centers, including one in Milano, so everything is much faster. So, network latency could be improved in DigitalOcean.
Other solutions are proving the monitoring feature, like AWS having GuardDuty and SAP having services for logs and monitoring. DigitalOcean doesn’t have any other benefits.
The solution could improve by having integration with GitHub.
The technical support for this solution could be improved.
I think the support can be improved, and I also think DigitalOcean needs to work on the reliability of the droplets. I've done some research and discovered that the droplet becomes unbootable. The boot drive gets corrupt, and that is a problem - especially when you're in a production system. That really gives a poor experience and that is why I had to focus on AWS. In terms of support and reliability of droplets I think they really need to improve in that area. I'd also prefer an upgrade on the security.