Proxmox VE vs. Windows Server Failover Clustering

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Proxmox VE
Score 9.3 out of 10
N/A
Proxmox Virtual Environment is an open source server virtualization management solution based on QEMU/KVM and LXC. Users can manage virtual machines, containers, highly available clusters, storage and networks via a web interface or CLI. Proxmox VE code is licensed under the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3. The project is developed and maintained by Proxmox Server Solutions GmbH.
$7.50
per month
Windows Server Failover Clustering
Score 8.9 out of 10
N/A
Windows Server Failover Clustering (WSFC) is a group of independent servers that work together to increase application and service availability.N/A
Pricing
Proxmox VEWindows Server Failover Clustering
Editions & Modules
Community
€ 90
year & CPU socket
Basic
€ 280
year & CPU socket
Standard
€ 420
year & CPU socket
Premium
€ 840
year & CPU socket
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Proxmox VEWindows Server Failover Clustering
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
YesNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional DetailsProxmox Virtual Environment's source code is published under the free software license GNU AGPL, v3 and thus is freely available for download, use and share. A Proxmox VE Subscription is an additional service program that helps IT professionals and businesses keep Proxmox VE deployments up-to-date. A subscription provides access to the stable Proxmox VE Enterprise Repository delivering software updates and security enhancements, technical help and support.
More Pricing Information
Features
Proxmox VEWindows Server Failover Clustering
Server Virtualization
Comparison of Server Virtualization features of Product A and Product B
Proxmox VE
9.2
10 Ratings
10% above category average
Windows Server Failover Clustering
-
Ratings
Virtual machine automated provisioning9.410 Ratings00 Ratings
Management console9.410 Ratings00 Ratings
Live virtual machine backup9.510 Ratings00 Ratings
Live virtual machine migration9.010 Ratings00 Ratings
Hypervisor-level security8.69 Ratings00 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Proxmox VEWindows Server Failover Clustering
Small Businesses
Oracle VM VirtualBox
Oracle VM VirtualBox
Score 9.3 out of 10

No answers on this topic

Medium-sized Companies
VMware vSOM (discontinued)
VMware vSOM (discontinued)
Score 10.0 out of 10

No answers on this topic

Enterprises
VMware vSOM (discontinued)
VMware vSOM (discontinued)
Score 10.0 out of 10

No answers on this topic

All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Proxmox VEWindows Server Failover Clustering
Likelihood to Recommend
9.3
(10 ratings)
9.0
(11 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
10.0
(1 ratings)
10.0
(1 ratings)
Usability
10.0
(1 ratings)
9.0
(2 ratings)
Availability
9.0
(1 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Performance
10.0
(1 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
10.0
(1 ratings)
8.2
(3 ratings)
Implementation Rating
10.0
(1 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Product Scalability
10.0
(1 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Proxmox VEWindows Server Failover Clustering
Likelihood to Recommend
Proxmox Server Solutions
We used Proxmox to implement private cloud services, for clusters
of a small number of servers, from 3 to 11 with and without high
availability. Allways with ZFS file systems, and we used to install the
root pool in SSDs mirrored and use other pools with RAID 10 in groups of
four, for the virtual machines and containers, for the backups and snapshots, we used magnetic disks with RAID 10, in groups of four. Do
not use an even number of servers because does not facilitates the
implementation of High Availability, because the corosync service must
have an odd number of servers to detect a failed server for the quorum
system. We used a variety of servers, from clone PCs with AMD Ryzen with 6 cores and 12 threads with 64 GB of RAM no ECC, to high end servers with 64 cores and 128 threads per cpu and 2 cpus per server, with AMD EPYC Rome or Milan, 2 terabytes of RAM ECC.
Read full review
Microsoft
Windows ServerFailover Clustering works very well for applications that can sustain a short disconnect when failing over. It works, and works well, in providing single-node applications HA, meaning an active/passive setup. It is not a load balancing solution. Use NLB for that. Another area that it works well is when used in combination with Hyper-V. We set our Hyper-V hosts up as clusters, and those clusters also host clusters for SQL Server and other enterprise class applications like BMC's Control-M/Enterprise and Control-M/Server.
Read full review
Pros
Proxmox Server Solutions
  • BackUp System, provides extensive propiertes and verifications. An exclusive server for BackUp Administration (PBS)
  • Hardware Customization. You can select several properties to adapt the hardware to your needs
  • Easy administration. You will be able to manage the server with easily accessible tools such as the web console and usage statistics.
  • Certificates Administration.
Read full review
Microsoft
  • Live Migration of VMs between hosts. If you have sufficient network bandwidth, it is fast and I never had a failed live migration break the VM or kill it. Worst case is the live migration will fail (not enough RAM for example) but the VM always stayed up.
  • Windows Server Failover Clustering enables Scaleout Storage, which is probably the coolest feature Microsoft has to offer at this moment. It gives you Active-Active SMB file shares which can now be used by most Microsoft Services like MS SQL, Hyper-V, etc. and clients if Windows 8+
  • Cluster Validation is really complete and easy to understand. The validation gives you comprehensive error messages that help to diagnose and fix rapidly to get your Failover Cluster running in no time.
Read full review
Cons
Proxmox Server Solutions
  • Can't manage ZFS replication or snapshots as easily as I'd like
  • Encrypted disks aren't easily deployed in VMs
  • Moving disks between VMs is not automated
Read full review
Microsoft
  • The setup of the Windows Server Failover Clustering is complex, requiring different networks and multiple network cards.
  • Better integration between the Windows Failover clustering and Hyper-V. Unlike VMWare you have to make changes to two places instead of just one panel.
  • I wish there was a web portal to manage the cluster. Instead you have to remote desktop into the VIP address and go to the Cluster manager.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
Proxmox Server Solutions
Proxmox VE provides the most capable, yet stable virtualization platform in the market today. Licensing options are also competitive and cost-effective for support, and support is extremely fast and knowledgable of getting issues resolved as quickly and soundly as possible.
Read full review
Microsoft
It has proven its value to us both for maintaining SLAs and providing the ability to perform much needed and regular systems maintenance without taking applications offline for more than a few seconds.
Read full review
Usability
Proxmox Server Solutions
Out of every product I have used for this, Proxmox VE is the most concise, clear, and functional I have ever seen. I continue to use Proxmox VE even after occasionally comparing alternatives available because of it's usability, design concept, and great support of features. It's very unlikely I will find a product that can even compete with Proxmox VE in every angle of what Proxmox VE provides.
Read full review
Microsoft
Usability of Failover Clustering on Windows Server is generally good. Failover Clustering console is not hard to understand if the complexity of the product is taken into account. Most of the task on the Cluster can be done via PowerShell, so automation is possible and not hard (PowerShell is very intuitive). Configuring storage is the hardest and most confusing task during cluster configuration, so storage configuration should be planned in advance. Cluster Validation Wizard is verbose but most of the errors are easy to understand.
Read full review
Reliability and Availability
Proxmox Server Solutions
Proxmox VE's ha-cluster functionality is very much improved, though does have a not-very-often occurrence of failure. In a 2-node cluster of Proxmox VE, HA can fail causing an instance that is supposed to migrate between the two nodes stop and fail until manually recovered through the command-line tools provided. Other than this, the HA clustering capability of Proxmox VE has proven to be reliable in 3 or more clustered environments with much less chance of these failures to occur.
Read full review
Microsoft
No answers on this topic
Performance
Proxmox Server Solutions
Proxmox VE's interfacing is always fast to load, both the Web interface and the command-line tool interfaces. Reporting is practically real time almost all the time, and you can see everything in mere seconds, easily able to identify if something is wrong or it everything is in tip-top shape as always desired
Read full review
Microsoft
No answers on this topic
Support Rating
Proxmox Server Solutions
They are fast, understanding, very intelligent, know their product very well, fast, responsive, and concise. Need I say more?
Read full review
Microsoft
Online documentation is excellent. Everything I needed to know, I learned from the online documentation. I haven't used phone support as I haven't needed to but would presume it is similar to Microsoft Support for other products that I've used. Phone support from Microsoft is hit and miss. It depends on who you get. That said, my rating is based on the online documentation.
Read full review
Implementation Rating
Proxmox Server Solutions
It worked, was easy and super fast to deploy, and provided everything we needed in a matter of minutes
Read full review
Microsoft
No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered
Proxmox Server Solutions
Proxmox VE is cheaper than VMware, especially upscaling an HA architecture. Compared with other free or less expensive solutions, Proxmox VE is high compatible with more types of hardware solutions and more VM types. From my point of view, Proxmox VE has no competitor at the same price level, it offers the most complete and production-ready HA solution.
Read full review
Microsoft
Both VMware and Microsoft Failover do the job and they both do it extremely well. For many bussiness and environments though, they will have the existing investment in a Microsoft environment and Microsoft infrastructure. The introduction of VMware will or may achieve the end result however it introduces new dimensions like support, licensing, documentation and ensuring the support team are trained.
Read full review
Scalability
Proxmox Server Solutions
Proxmox VE provides everything you need to quickly add new storage mediums, network and local, as well as networking interfaces, such as using Linux standard bridges and now Open-vSwitch bridges which can be even more scalable than before. Proxmox VE 4.0 dropped support for OpenVZ in favor of the more well supported and native LXC and made an upgrade path to it very simple.
Read full review
Microsoft
No answers on this topic
Return on Investment
Proxmox Server Solutions
  • Proxmox has allowed to us to do more with less. We can invest in a single (or multiple if clustering) host with a decent specification, and run most of our infrastructure on it.
  • Open source technologies allowed us to re-use previous skills and knowledge. There was very little onboarding required because we already knew Debian, KVM, ZFS, etc.
  • Virtualisation has vastly reduced the amount of time required to maintain all our systems. Everything is so much more organised and lends itself to automation (with Ansible, in our case).
Read full review
Microsoft
  • Failover Cluster gives us the power to do updates or hardware upgrade / change without having to create an outage. Which permit us not to work night shifts.
  • By creating one cluster with all Hyper-V servers, it enabled us to move VMs via live migration between host to balance RAM usage which was time consuming and took a lot of time over network before.
  • It created some problems that caused us to have to investigate quite some time before finding the cause. We encountered dll locking that caused the Failover Cluster to force-restart a host. Logs are really not the strong point of Failover Cluster Manager, and even Microsoft Support wasn't able to help much. We had to find the problem ourself.
Read full review
ScreenShots