An area that could be improved is the replication of virtual machines from site to site for disaster recovery. Another noted issue is driver support for PCI components, which occasionally presents challenges.
For now, it’s too early to determine what needs improvement as it's only been three months. I don't have enough experience to say what can be improved.
Proxmox VE editions should be made available to other Linux distributions because they are only attached to Debian. There are people unfamiliar with Debian or have no environment with Debian. It would be very nice if Proxmox VE could eventually port to other Linux distributions.
Some parts of the Proxmox installation are a bit complex. Proxmox relies on the ZFS file system, which can be difficult to understand and configure correctly. There is no documentation or videos to discuss the process.
Independent Consultant at Toby Champion Associates
Consultant
Top 5
Mar 1, 2024
Improvements are needed for the API. Currently, there are several features inaccessible through the API, necessitating the use of either the WebUI or the command line interface. While the command line interface suffices, it's apparent that efforts are underway to enhance this aspect. In future releases, one potential feature enhancement could be improved remote screen access, allowing users to connect to the screen of another machine more seamlessly. Additionally, integrating with Terraform or providing better support for Terraform workflows might be beneficial, as there seems to be some lacking in that area. There's a minor inconvenience where you have to switch the license file from the open-source community license to an enterprise license.
Proxmox VE doesn't offer a good interface for monitoring. From an improvement perspective, Proxmox VE can offer a better interface for monitoring. Other products like Nutanix offer better monitoring capabilities than Proxmox VE. Proxmox VE doesn't have any other product integrated with it for storage. My company has to look for products from other vendors to take care of the storage part in Proxmox VE. Proxmox can offer its users a storage solution integrated with Proxmox VE. Feature-wise, the console was the only place where my company saw an issue with Proxmox VE. The console provided by Proxmox VE is not much of a console meant for virtual machines. With Proxmox VE, once you have deployed the virtual machines, you realize that the initial console is not very good, because of which the graphics may seem boring. My company also finds many compatibility issues with the tools you need to install for the virtual machines to work in Proxmox VE, like the drivers and other stuff. My company has to look into many logs and other sources to resolve the compatibility issues related to Proxmox VE. In Proxmox VE, my company installs ISO when the setup phase of a virtual machine is carried out. One of the problems my company faced with Proxmox VE was installing a server with MySQL since it didn't function as an out-of-the-box product, because of which we had to shut down the machine and go through a configuration process. The default processor provided by Proxmox doesn't work.
Proxmox needs to improve the integration of its network, machines, and virtual machines. It is very difficult to test, but it is possible to use scripts to make the process easier.
Enterprise Solutions Executive at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Reseller
Jul 14, 2023
We are having some problems with the product. It is suitable for small companies with 20 to 100 servers. My organization has more than 2500 servers in the hypervisor platform. We have problems when we try to migrate some servers to Proxmox. We are facing issues with disk utilization and disk performance. We are considering migrating all the servers back to VMware. The product must improve the disk performance and disc issues in general. The servers in Proxmox freeze sometimes. The file systems become read-only file systems after we restart the server. These are the main problems we are having nowadays.
Since I face issues importing Windows OVA inside Proxmox VE, a clickable button should be added to select the OVA format and import it inside Proxmox VE. It would also be beneficial to view the import and import of the VM inside Proxmox VE.
Senior Support Specialist - Technical at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Top 20
Mar 14, 2023
We had issues with this solution when it comes to resources. We have officially created four to five PMs and it just continues to make more resources even though they are delivered in the main post mode. Another thing I'd like to see improved is the stability and performance of this solution.
IT Solutions Architect at a insurance company with 501-1,000 employees
Real User
Mar 9, 2023
The management can be better. It's not like VMware where you can get all clusters on a single dashboard. In VMware, you can literally see all the VMs running in one cluster regardless of the host.
Assistant Manager at a tech company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Feb 22, 2023
The solution needs to move to the cloud. It would be nice if they made it more robust there. We'd like to see more resource and user management. If they had virtualization technology, it would be even more useful. That said, it's pretty good right now, as an open-source solution. As long as they provide what they have right now properly, we are happy.
The solution is not good at upgrading and this is why I using version 6.2 and not version 7. There is no easy way to implement the upgrade. I don't have enough experience to do it safely.
Proxmox VE can improve the management of virtual discs. For example, if my virtual disc is 200 GB and I want to decrease it is not easy. I have to do a lot of things to decrease the size of existing virtual machines. If the Proxmox VE team can make it easy for customers to instantly increase or decrease the virtual machine hard disc, it will be very helpful for me. However, the containers I can do it easily.
Proxmox VE can improve by importing OVF or OVA files directly from OVA. I need to convert all the images to raw images before importing them to Proxmox VE. If there is a solution that I can import directly from VMDK, it would be better.
Scientist at ISRO - Indian Space Research Organisation
Real User
Sep 27, 2022
We are not fully satisfied with the solution. We have some streams of data from different channels. We have to try to figure out how to monitor everything. There's no great integration of everything. We are not able to identify everything. We are only just able to see ICMP and TCP checks happening. Some systems are there which don't have protocol support. The templates and reporting could be better. We find it difficult to find the root cause of the issues.
Head of the Systems Department at Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador Sede Esmeraldas
Real User
Jun 27, 2022
We’d like them to ensure there is an easy migration towards the cloud, which is where we’re moving. Right now, we are on-premises. We’d like to have a nice, simple interface to synchronize through the cloud. It might be interesting to have the ability to integrate with other cloud solutions.
Backup and recovery could be better. It's a bit problematic. If you're not well-versed with Linux, it tends to be a bit of a challenge when setting up and recovering. It's not really GUI-based, and if you're not a good Linux user, it becomes a bit difficult. In the next release, I would like to have something like Hyper-V's Data Protection Manager, where you could do an offsite backup and keep a copy. I haven't seen that incorporated yet, but I'm sure they will do that.
Head of IT Operations at a tech services company with 1-10 employees
Real User
Feb 4, 2022
Its user interface can be improved. In the version that I am using, not all functions can be performed by using the UI. There can be some improvement on that. I'm assuming that it has already been improved in the latest version.
Senior Systems Engineer at a insurance company with 201-500 employees
Real User
Dec 21, 2021
The only issue I have with Proxmox VE is updating it. You have to manually update it or you have to have a way to update it automatically. The main area for improvement is with the automatic updates, if it's even possible, even if you have to pay for the cloud services. Updates are very important. If they could fine tune the updating process that would be good.
One issue with Proxmox is that some processes are not automatic. For some processes, you have to do it manually by command line. I don't know about the last version of Proxmox, but I had that problem with this version.
It is a good solution, but it is very complicated in some ways. It is not easy. You must have experience in the console mode to do some configurations. A lot of documentation and YouTube videos are available that you can use to learn about it.
Information Technology Manager at a consultancy with 501-1,000 employees
Real User
Jul 22, 2021
We are using servers individually, and we are looking for a reliable application that allows us to hop between servers with high availability. It is one of our primary goals to have a hyper-converged solution. With the high availability, we can make some hop-switch deployment teams between our servers. It could be more user-friendly with the configuration.
Jefe de Servicio de Ciberseguridad at a tech services company with 201-500 employees
Real User
Mar 2, 2021
The facility of deployment is an area that needs to improve. The support is an area in need of improvement. I would like to see support for other container technologies such as Kubernetes, as well as other platforms. If they had local container support, it would be very good for Proxmox.
For now, we're planning to migrate to another solution because there seems to be a lot of backups that we have set up. We have reviewed Proxmox VE but we want to focus more on our customers. In fact, we have already finished our first deployment and we will receive more features that will go to the cloud.
1) PVE-Zsync GUI implementation - This is a very important tool, it could delivery the more advantage in comparision to Xen Orchestra and Microsoft Virtual Machine Replica Service. 2) Central Cluster Administration: The possibility to manage many clusters sites in "one only page" instead of oppening many browsers tabs! IT Cloud companies as us, usually need to access diferent clusters sites, I think it's good idea to centralize the administration GUI for companies that own two or more cluster sites! 3) In connection with my suggestion number 2, the possibility to create a "farm cluster". In few words, the possibility to move virtual machines (live or not) among diferents clusters sites separated by WAN links. Actually, PVE Cluster is realible on local links, due to multicast or udp rings, but in some scenarios when a entire cluster site needs to be put offline (eg, for maintenance or internet issues), a virtua machine migration to other cluster that belongs to the same "farm" but in other region will increase the "value" of Proxmox simular to Microsoft Azure Site Recovery ou Amazon. That will make my evaluation increase from 8 to 9 or even 10!
The interface can be a little bit rough in places. There are some things that need to be done using the command-line interface, and these should be moved into the web-based interface. There are also aspects related to storage that are difficult to do with the interface.
Systems Administrator at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Sep 17, 2020
The so-called free support that the solution offers doesn't allow you to access the repositories. If they would allow that access like they say they do it would be better. It does work for about a week and then it times out and never works again. It would be preferable if they had a different viewing product other than VNC. The initial setup has a pretty steep learning curve. I'd like to see more high availability capabilities.
Really every user interface could use a little bit of improvement. It is already very user-friendly at the present time but there are some ways that it can get even better. Another area that might have room for improvement is either building in or having third-party tools that could report on CPU and memory usage across your virtual platform. They have those tools for VMware and that helps you to point out resource bottlenecks so that you can right-size a VM. If a VM is soaking up too many resources, it is defeating the purpose of virtualization. Proximo is really missing those kinds of tools right now. You have to do that on your own. So that could definitely be an opportunity for improvement. It is not necessarily just room for Proxmox to grow, it is more of a possibility industry-wide for these products.
The product should have more enterprise features, perhaps DRS. I don't think Proxmox has the ability to sense that a host is running hot and needs to be evacuated. So DRS, dynamic resource scheduling, is a feature that constantly monitors the host and if it sees a particular host taking up a lot of resources, it will take that host off and throw it on a different host in the cluster that's not running as hot and doesn't have as much utilization. It protects the overall cluster As above, I think the DRS would be a helpful additional feature.
Propriétaire et Technicien Système at MBTechnologies.ca
Real User
Jun 18, 2020
I think the team is already doing 150% on improvements (started from 4.6 and now on the 6.2-6 version and every 3-4 weeks we are given new functions to compete with all hypervisors competitors). Releases are much faster than VMware or XCP-NG but be aware unless you have a paid support licence, then you're a non-production client (updates are tested on you so don't expect 100% uptime without giving it some love). The Windows drivers could be easier (unlike manually installing Ballon, QEMU and optionally SPICE, VIRTio, etc.) I would like to get new containers and/or new stuff that, unlike the leader VMware, is so new that it would now lead the market.
I don't have any real challenges about improvement here. (As most IT required features are included and they do have roadmap). Plus API & Command tool is lot helpful. I personally keep exploring other players and backup/Restore/DR software. And believe more advance features of backup/restore & DR Data Sync for Ceph on GUI fronted would be added benefits for users coming from other platform. On Security/Firewall/Software-Defined-Switch with more advance feature on webGUI would be also more helpful too.
Senior Systems Engineer at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Oct 23, 2019
I would like to see an improvement in the virtualization itself. We use the physical servers for easier migrations, but the virtualization can be better.
If this solution could import directly from OVS format then it would make migration much easier. Not many people know about this product, so bulletins and advertising should be done to make people more aware of it.
The backup solution is a little bit slow and sometimes sluggish on the restore side. It takes a little bit of time, but that could also be the fault of the hardware. We had some challenges with management including volume and storage management. Setting it up properly and making it work, specifically shared storage between the virtual machines, is difficult. The installation could definitely be easier. For the vendor, if the solution offered better information, they would have more users on it. The solution should implement something that enables me to at least get an overview of the loads and the statuses of the machines and applications from my cell phone. An app for mobile management would be great.
The solution should include some features that can help with converting raw files into different formats. It should offer better management around raw files.
This solution needs a more flexible and efficient backup solution in the dashboard. The capacity for integrating deployment through WAN is needed. Something like a Federation tool for Central monitoring and management. UPS supervision integration would be a nice feature because right now this has been integrated by ourselves using another tool that is not on the platform.
Mostly simplify web interface, simple things like the use of right mouse button to change VM attributes, make it more intuitive, but it is just cosmetic improvements, the core functions are all there. Support for Docker are missing, it can be usefull nowadays .
Proxmox VE is a complete virtualization management solution for servers. It is a powerful open-source platform and supports two virtualization technologies - KVM (Kernel-based Virtual Machine) for virtual machines and LXC for containers. Proxmox VE has a central user interface that allows you to manage not only VMs and containers, but also storage resources, network configuration, and high availability for clusters. It is enterprise-ready and is valued for its scalability and maximum...
An area that could be improved is the replication of virtual machines from site to site for disaster recovery. Another noted issue is driver support for PCI components, which occasionally presents challenges.
For now, it’s too early to determine what needs improvement as it's only been three months. I don't have enough experience to say what can be improved.
Proxmox VE editions should be made available to other Linux distributions because they are only attached to Debian. There are people unfamiliar with Debian or have no environment with Debian. It would be very nice if Proxmox VE could eventually port to other Linux distributions.
Some parts of the Proxmox installation are a bit complex. Proxmox relies on the ZFS file system, which can be difficult to understand and configure correctly. There is no documentation or videos to discuss the process.
There should be a helm feature for managing Kubernetes ports directly from the Proxmox traffic interface.
Improvements are needed for the API. Currently, there are several features inaccessible through the API, necessitating the use of either the WebUI or the command line interface. While the command line interface suffices, it's apparent that efforts are underway to enhance this aspect. In future releases, one potential feature enhancement could be improved remote screen access, allowing users to connect to the screen of another machine more seamlessly. Additionally, integrating with Terraform or providing better support for Terraform workflows might be beneficial, as there seems to be some lacking in that area. There's a minor inconvenience where you have to switch the license file from the open-source community license to an enterprise license.
Proxmox VE needs to make a deal with Veeam. I was also unable to make version upgrades. I have also encountered backup problems.
Proxmox VE doesn't offer a good interface for monitoring. From an improvement perspective, Proxmox VE can offer a better interface for monitoring. Other products like Nutanix offer better monitoring capabilities than Proxmox VE. Proxmox VE doesn't have any other product integrated with it for storage. My company has to look for products from other vendors to take care of the storage part in Proxmox VE. Proxmox can offer its users a storage solution integrated with Proxmox VE. Feature-wise, the console was the only place where my company saw an issue with Proxmox VE. The console provided by Proxmox VE is not much of a console meant for virtual machines. With Proxmox VE, once you have deployed the virtual machines, you realize that the initial console is not very good, because of which the graphics may seem boring. My company also finds many compatibility issues with the tools you need to install for the virtual machines to work in Proxmox VE, like the drivers and other stuff. My company has to look into many logs and other sources to resolve the compatibility issues related to Proxmox VE. In Proxmox VE, my company installs ISO when the setup phase of a virtual machine is carried out. One of the problems my company faced with Proxmox VE was installing a server with MySQL since it didn't function as an out-of-the-box product, because of which we had to shut down the machine and go through a configuration process. The default processor provided by Proxmox doesn't work.
Proxmox needs to improve the integration of its network, machines, and virtual machines. It is very difficult to test, but it is possible to use scripts to make the process easier.
It is difficult to remove a virtual machine. Also, it should be easier to find what we remove.
We are having some problems with the product. It is suitable for small companies with 20 to 100 servers. My organization has more than 2500 servers in the hypervisor platform. We have problems when we try to migrate some servers to Proxmox. We are facing issues with disk utilization and disk performance. We are considering migrating all the servers back to VMware. The product must improve the disk performance and disc issues in general. The servers in Proxmox freeze sometimes. The file systems become read-only file systems after we restart the server. These are the main problems we are having nowadays.
Since I face issues importing Windows OVA inside Proxmox VE, a clickable button should be added to select the OVA format and import it inside Proxmox VE. It would also be beneficial to view the import and import of the VM inside Proxmox VE.
The solution needs to improve its stability.
We had issues with this solution when it comes to resources. We have officially created four to five PMs and it just continues to make more resources even though they are delivered in the main post mode. Another thing I'd like to see improved is the stability and performance of this solution.
The management can be better. It's not like VMware where you can get all clusters on a single dashboard. In VMware, you can literally see all the VMs running in one cluster regardless of the host.
The solution needs to move to the cloud. It would be nice if they made it more robust there. We'd like to see more resource and user management. If they had virtualization technology, it would be even more useful. That said, it's pretty good right now, as an open-source solution. As long as they provide what they have right now properly, we are happy.
The solution is not good at upgrading and this is why I using version 6.2 and not version 7. There is no easy way to implement the upgrade. I don't have enough experience to do it safely.
Proxmox VE can improve the management of virtual discs. For example, if my virtual disc is 200 GB and I want to decrease it is not easy. I have to do a lot of things to decrease the size of existing virtual machines. If the Proxmox VE team can make it easy for customers to instantly increase or decrease the virtual machine hard disc, it will be very helpful for me. However, the containers I can do it easily.
Proxmox VE can improve by importing OVF or OVA files directly from OVA. I need to convert all the images to raw images before importing them to Proxmox VE. If there is a solution that I can import directly from VMDK, it would be better.
We are not fully satisfied with the solution. We have some streams of data from different channels. We have to try to figure out how to monitor everything. There's no great integration of everything. We are not able to identify everything. We are only just able to see ICMP and TCP checks happening. Some systems are there which don't have protocol support. The templates and reporting could be better. We find it difficult to find the root cause of the issues.
We’d like them to ensure there is an easy migration towards the cloud, which is where we’re moving. Right now, we are on-premises. We’d like to have a nice, simple interface to synchronize through the cloud. It might be interesting to have the ability to integrate with other cloud solutions.
Backup and recovery could be better. It's a bit problematic. If you're not well-versed with Linux, it tends to be a bit of a challenge when setting up and recovering. It's not really GUI-based, and if you're not a good Linux user, it becomes a bit difficult. In the next release, I would like to have something like Hyper-V's Data Protection Manager, where you could do an offsite backup and keep a copy. I haven't seen that incorporated yet, but I'm sure they will do that.
Its user interface can be improved. In the version that I am using, not all functions can be performed by using the UI. There can be some improvement on that. I'm assuming that it has already been improved in the latest version.
I can't speak to any improvements. It is not lacking features.
The only issue I have with Proxmox VE is updating it. You have to manually update it or you have to have a way to update it automatically. The main area for improvement is with the automatic updates, if it's even possible, even if you have to pay for the cloud services. Updates are very important. If they could fine tune the updating process that would be good.
One issue with Proxmox is that some processes are not automatic. For some processes, you have to do it manually by command line. I don't know about the last version of Proxmox, but I had that problem with this version.
It is a good solution, but it is very complicated in some ways. It is not easy. You must have experience in the console mode to do some configurations. A lot of documentation and YouTube videos are available that you can use to learn about it.
We are using servers individually, and we are looking for a reliable application that allows us to hop between servers with high availability. It is one of our primary goals to have a hyper-converged solution. With the high availability, we can make some hop-switch deployment teams between our servers. It could be more user-friendly with the configuration.
The facility of deployment is an area that needs to improve. The support is an area in need of improvement. I would like to see support for other container technologies such as Kubernetes, as well as other platforms. If they had local container support, it would be very good for Proxmox.
I had a few problems regarding instability. One additional feature that could be beneficial is application storage.
For now, we're planning to migrate to another solution because there seems to be a lot of backups that we have set up. We have reviewed Proxmox VE but we want to focus more on our customers. In fact, we have already finished our first deployment and we will receive more features that will go to the cloud.
The availability of the solution could be a bit better.
1) PVE-Zsync GUI implementation - This is a very important tool, it could delivery the more advantage in comparision to Xen Orchestra and Microsoft Virtual Machine Replica Service. 2) Central Cluster Administration: The possibility to manage many clusters sites in "one only page" instead of oppening many browsers tabs! IT Cloud companies as us, usually need to access diferent clusters sites, I think it's good idea to centralize the administration GUI for companies that own two or more cluster sites! 3) In connection with my suggestion number 2, the possibility to create a "farm cluster". In few words, the possibility to move virtual machines (live or not) among diferents clusters sites separated by WAN links. Actually, PVE Cluster is realible on local links, due to multicast or udp rings, but in some scenarios when a entire cluster site needs to be put offline (eg, for maintenance or internet issues), a virtua machine migration to other cluster that belongs to the same "farm" but in other region will increase the "value" of Proxmox simular to Microsoft Azure Site Recovery ou Amazon. That will make my evaluation increase from 8 to 9 or even 10!
Its performance and support can be improved. Currently, there is a cost for support.
The interface can be a little bit rough in places. There are some things that need to be done using the command-line interface, and these should be moved into the web-based interface. There are also aspects related to storage that are difficult to do with the interface.
The so-called free support that the solution offers doesn't allow you to access the repositories. If they would allow that access like they say they do it would be better. It does work for about a week and then it times out and never works again. It would be preferable if they had a different viewing product other than VNC. The initial setup has a pretty steep learning curve. I'd like to see more high availability capabilities.
Really every user interface could use a little bit of improvement. It is already very user-friendly at the present time but there are some ways that it can get even better. Another area that might have room for improvement is either building in or having third-party tools that could report on CPU and memory usage across your virtual platform. They have those tools for VMware and that helps you to point out resource bottlenecks so that you can right-size a VM. If a VM is soaking up too many resources, it is defeating the purpose of virtualization. Proximo is really missing those kinds of tools right now. You have to do that on your own. So that could definitely be an opportunity for improvement. It is not necessarily just room for Proxmox to grow, it is more of a possibility industry-wide for these products.
The product should have more enterprise features, perhaps DRS. I don't think Proxmox has the ability to sense that a host is running hot and needs to be evacuated. So DRS, dynamic resource scheduling, is a feature that constantly monitors the host and if it sees a particular host taking up a lot of resources, it will take that host off and throw it on a different host in the cluster that's not running as hot and doesn't have as much utilization. It protects the overall cluster As above, I think the DRS would be a helpful additional feature.
I think the team is already doing 150% on improvements (started from 4.6 and now on the 6.2-6 version and every 3-4 weeks we are given new functions to compete with all hypervisors competitors). Releases are much faster than VMware or XCP-NG but be aware unless you have a paid support licence, then you're a non-production client (updates are tested on you so don't expect 100% uptime without giving it some love). The Windows drivers could be easier (unlike manually installing Ballon, QEMU and optionally SPICE, VIRTio, etc.) I would like to get new containers and/or new stuff that, unlike the leader VMware, is so new that it would now lead the market.
I don't have any real challenges about improvement here. (As most IT required features are included and they do have roadmap). Plus API & Command tool is lot helpful. I personally keep exploring other players and backup/Restore/DR software. And believe more advance features of backup/restore & DR Data Sync for Ceph on GUI fronted would be added benefits for users coming from other platform. On Security/Firewall/Software-Defined-Switch with more advance feature on webGUI would be also more helpful too.
I would like to see an improvement in the virtualization itself. We use the physical servers for easier migrations, but the virtualization can be better.
If this solution could import directly from OVS format then it would make migration much easier. Not many people know about this product, so bulletins and advertising should be done to make people more aware of it.
The backup solution is a little bit slow and sometimes sluggish on the restore side. It takes a little bit of time, but that could also be the fault of the hardware. We had some challenges with management including volume and storage management. Setting it up properly and making it work, specifically shared storage between the virtual machines, is difficult. The installation could definitely be easier. For the vendor, if the solution offered better information, they would have more users on it. The solution should implement something that enables me to at least get an overview of the loads and the statuses of the machines and applications from my cell phone. An app for mobile management would be great.
The solution needs a better billing system.
I would like to see more monitoring in the next release of this solution. Currently, it's simple structured monitoring.
The solution should include some features that can help with converting raw files into different formats. It should offer better management around raw files.
This solution needs a more flexible and efficient backup solution in the dashboard. The capacity for integrating deployment through WAN is needed. Something like a Federation tool for Central monitoring and management. UPS supervision integration would be a nice feature because right now this has been integrated by ourselves using another tool that is not on the platform.
IMPORTANT - use separate physical network for Corosync/Heartbeat functions. This is obscure in the documentation - but you'll find it.
Mostly simplify web interface, simple things like the use of right mouse button to change VM attributes, make it more intuitive, but it is just cosmetic improvements, the core functions are all there. Support for Docker are missing, it can be usefull nowadays .