[eddieroger]

I think "adventure" is how I'd put it, too. Perhaps that which I found most surprising was the difference in defaults between the two. ESXi gave me what I considered pretty good defaults, where Proxmox were more conservative or generic (struggling to find the right word). For example, I was surprised that I had to pick an option for CPU type instead of it defaulting to host, which I would have expected. Saying that, I never checked on ESXi, but I never had reason to look in to performance disparities there.

Once I found the surface, I have really grown to like it, expanding my footprint to use their backup server, too. Proxmox makes you work for it, but is worth it.

[SpecialistK]

> I was surprised that I had to pick an option for CPU type instead of it defaulting to host

I believe the rationale for this is to prevent issues when migrating to different hosts that may not have the same CPU or CPU features. Definitely a more "conservative" choice - maybe it should be a node-wide option or only default to a generic CPU type when there is more than 1 node.