- Backup/snapshots does not always restore properly

- Would be nice to build servers direct from ISO's

- Custom Kernels can be tricky

The solution could improve by having integration with GitHub.

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 doesn't provide many features. 

I'd like to have more integration features. 

We found the solution to be a bit expensive. 

I would like to see improvements to the logging and user interface. The verification process could be more streamlined.

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.