Nasuni Reviews

We use Nasuni to provide local access to files with data stored in the cloud, so we don't have to worry about backups. It offers fast access to the data and supports multi-site configuration. Nasuni allows us to collaborate across five or six sites using the same data set.

We have probably 600 filers deployed predominantly on-site, and the rest are primarily on a public cloud. However, we still have 20 filers on a private cloud. We use Nasuni on Azure and AWS, but we mostly work on AWS and have Clever Safe for our private cloud. Nasuni supports everything, including Azure, VM, GCP, and private cloud. It works on any cloud that supports S3.

Nasuni allowed us to replace a significant number of Windows File Servers with a single global system, and it gives us on-demand file storage capacity. It's essential. On a scale of one to ten, I would say it's probably a nine in terms of importance to our operations.

We can also use it with VDI environments, which is somewhat important. It creates a centralized repository every VDI workstation can access. We don't have to worry about how we present storage on each one.

it's solid and does a great job from a management perspective. However, its data propagation was pretty low when we first started using it, especially for the multi-site capabilities. For example, if site A accessed data site B, it took a while for them to get the updated version of that same data. They have vastly sped up data propagation and improved snapshot performance. 

The most valuable feature is Nasuni's multi-site capabilities. Another beautiful thing about Nasuni is centralized management. We can see all our storage and manage it from a single pane of glass. It's definitely a lot better than Windows and NetApp. We have a bunch of NAS, so you have to manage each one as a separate silo. That was much more painful.

The continuous file versioning is top of the line. We can do snapshots of up to five-minute increments. The ransomware protection is also great, and we can roll back a version from any snapshot at any point in time. It has the ability to do end-user recovery, or a user can simply contact an admin who can perform a recovery from the management console. The versioning has simplified everything. Now we don't have to worry about those components.

We've had some organizational changes that Nasuni has not been able to keep up with, mainly from a data or file system perspective. Moving a filer from one management console has been a challenge. It lacks the flexibility to move files in and out of the management console. We have six management consoles now, and we're constantly telling Nasuni, "Hey, please allow us to move a filer from management console A to B." They can't do that.

I'd like to see Nasuni add the ability to search and access your data when your users are remote from the system. 

We've had Nasuni for about eight years.

Nasuni is highly stable.

Nasuni scales to what a single piece of hardware can scale to, and it allows multi-site functionality. However, it could get a little complicated in a scenario where I have an extreme concentration of users. Everyone in our company is using it, so it's around 80,000 users in roles across the board, from finance and creative to business and IT. 

I rate Nasuni's support 10 out of 10. Their support is great. They not only help you with their solution but also often help with issues that aren't even related to them. For example, if an Active Directory server is having issues, they'll help point us to the solutions that help us from an agency perspective.

Positive

We were predominantly using Windows File Servers. We mainly switched to Nasuni to increase our company's agility by enabling cloud-based storage utilization.

It's straightforward we provisioned an S3 bucket and deploy a management console. You only need to deploy the filers after that. It took a couple of weeks to deploy and several years to finish migrating all of our data 

We did it everything in-house, and we have probably 20 people worldwide managing it, which is pretty modest compared to the solution's scale.

Nasuni reduces our expenditures and makes them much more predictable. We don't have to buy as much storage because we can scale up in the cloud if we have a spike in business. Nasuni reduced our overall storage footprint at our sites by 70 to 80 percent. The vast majority of our infrastructure isn't related to our file servers, but it has greatly reduced our need for file-server architecture.

In most cases, it enabled us to completely eliminate our backup architecture, which costs nearly as much as the primary storage. It simplifies everything because we don't have to worry about IOPs and storage. We just keep it all in the cloud. 

It also allowed collaborative features we never had before, so we didn't need to invest in a third-party solution.

Nasuni is competitive with any other solution on the market. You have to pay for object storage and the cost of the backend object storage, which is where your data will actually reside. You also have to pay for filers and the hardware to run the filers themselves. However, those costs are pretty nominal compared to what we were previously paying in total storage.

We evaluated everything, including NetApp, Panzera, etc. We looked at 20-plus solutions, and Nasuni beat them all. The advantages include flexibility and fast access to files in branch offices while retaining a single source of truth for our storage in the cloud. It allows us to scale by putting as many filers on multiple sites as needed. 

One disadvantage is the strict rules on the filers. Also, it can only be managed from one NMC, and you can't change it. The lack of search has always been a major con for our company, too.

I rate Nasuni 10 out of 10. The hybrid cloud concept is Nasuni's bread and butter. It's good for anyone who wants to migrate to the cloud but maintain fast local access to their storage. 

My advice to anyone deploying Nasuni is to study the best practices carefully, especially if you have a Macintosh workstation. It's important to follow them closely to avoid performance issues. Study the knowledge base articles to learn how to set your POS correctly and use adequately sized filers.

We primarily use Nasuni as a file server. It is an enterprise cloud gateway.

Nasuni has helped to replace multiple data silos with a single global file system. Through digital transformation, Nasuni has helped us centralize and then normalize one solution for all, rather than having silos everywhere. This is important primarily when it comes to information security. This is my concern because I'm the global business information security officer for the company. Nasuni provides us and our clients with some assurance that we can secure the data properly, in addition to having resiliency.

This product provides a single platform with a 360-degree view of our data, which is important to us because, with all of the regulations introduced in the world, such as GDPR, we need visibility of the data. Nowadays, one of the most important things is having visibility of your data and being able to classify it properly. You need to be able to secure it. You also need to know exactly where it is because regulators and clients have the option to audit us if they decide. Without knowledge of where our data is, we can easily fall victim to a hacker or have issues with regulators. 

Nasuni enables us to provide file storage capacity anywhere it's needed, on-demand, and without limits, although it's subject to licensing.

With the help of Nasuni, we have been able to reduce our on-premises infrastructure. This includes both virtual and physical infrastructure. We have been able to do so because it consolidates storage into one appliance, which is connected to the cloud.

The most valuable feature is that it provides single-point connectivity to our cloud storage and at the same time, it helps to keep our data secure.

Nasuni is fairly simple to manage and there haven't been many issues with it. In comparison to any other solutions that we are using, it was a big difference. It is significantly better than our previous solutions, in terms of providing a simple, high-level overview.

We use Nasuni's continuous file versioning feature and it fully protects us. With the ability to version files and have continuous recovery, it helps in terms of resiliency. If we have an incident then we would be able to easily recover from it by using the technology.

If a user accidentally deletes a file or one becomes corrupted, the continuous file versioning allows us to easily recover it. It has significantly improved our ability to recover files and in that space, it has helped us to improve our restorative IT operations. We have been able to take away legacy solutions and bring backups to the next level.

We would like to have a user desktop agent to help improve the end-user experience. They had a legacy agent but do not currently have the capability. This is something that we have been working with Nasuni on and are looking forward to.

We have been using Nasuni for between five and seven years.

We use it quite extensively, globally within the organization, and stability-wise, we have not had many problems. The earlier versions did present some issues but as new updates were released, it was improved and all of the issues were rectified. 

The solution is highly scalable.

The technology is easy to deploy. It's easy to scale in terms of connecting all of the Nasuni Cloud Gateways. It's self-explanatory.

Nasuni as a supplier is pretty responsive and provides us with all of the support we need. They have helped to resolve any issues that were occurring, pretty quickly.

There have been small shortcomings with support so it isn't perfect, although I don't think that any supplier I have dealt with has support that I would rate a ten out of ten. Ours involved the crossing of timezones.

Prior to this solution, between five and ten years ago, everyone was using physical appliances including physical servers. Everyone started shifting to the cloud and as we began to do the same, we found that Nasuni was the ideal solution.

We came up with a cloud-first strategy and started moving to the Cloud. With this, and because of our security and compliance requirements, it was the solution to implement at the time. This is why we chose it.

Implementing Nasuni was quite easy and it was not difficult to make the transition from our previous system. There were some challenges initially but they were resolved. We still work with Nasuni if there are any problems, but we don't have very many issues.

Overall, the implementation was quite straightforward and it was completed in a couple of months. Our strategy included migrating a lot of data to the cloud and it took a while because of the upload speeds.

The implementation was done in-house. We had the entire operations team involved. The executive technology people were involved as well, working with Nasuni. It was a sizable group of people involved in the implementation. 

We evaluated other options prior to implementing Nasuni. As the CSO, I can't speak to all of the reasons that we chose it. However, from a security point of view, it was the best solution at the time.

If one of my colleagues at another company had concerns about the migration to the cloud and the solution's performance then I would say that each solution has its own challenges. With Nasuni, it was quite smooth for us. There were some teething issues but that was at the beginning. When we first started with Nasuni, it was a very new product and we had some problems. At this stage, I am very confident that it wouldn't be a problem to migrate to the platform and use it.

In summary, this is a good product but there are still aspects that can be developed. An example is the desktop agent for users. Things can always be improved and made a little bit better.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

It is mainly used for file storage.

I belong to the administration part of the storage team who use it to handle all the file servers and the SAN storage. I manage a team who handles the day-to-day tasks of Nasuni. We have multiple teams who take care of our work on the Nasuni. There is a separate team who works on deployment and another separate team who handles the BAU tasks. So, we have different teams who work on different parts.

Nasuni has helped to eliminate on-premises infrastructure. We were using about eight to 10 different types of vendors or small storage boxes for provisioning and shared access for users. We got rid of all those. That has eliminated the footprint and operational overhead at our data center. We don't have to worry about any hardware or monitoring particular devices, and hundreds of devices have been decommissioned. Now, for provisioning, everything is on Nasuni. I assume this has made a big difference in costs.

It is without limit. It grows per the need. In one year, I haven't seen anybody requesting any new spaces yet.

We use the Continuous File Versioning feature. Restoration is quite simple. Because of Continuous File Versioning, there are any number of snapshots available with the settings that we have chosen. There is always a backup ready, and all we have to do is find a previous one that is ready to be recovered.

Previously it was a tough job working on hardware, volumes, shares, or anything that was managed by us. Now, it is the same task, but the ease with which we do it is better with Continuous File Versioning. All we have to do is log into the console, find what needs to be recovered, and then use that for recovery.

The user-friendliness of its access needs improvement. When I log into the console, I see all the files that we handle globally. There are hundreds of Nasuni files that I can see on the console, but no way that I can filter them down. While this is a small thing, I need to scroll down and select the ones that I want. "Control F" doesn't work nor is there a dropdown menu that I can click on and select the ones that I want. 

There are some things that we are really looking forward to. For example, we recently had an issue related to the COW disk. Only the Nasuni back-end team can check and see which out of the LANs or volumes provision from ESX is exactly the COW disk. We don't have visibility into that. There are certain things that are only visible to the back-end team of Nasuni, but I feel that we should, as a user, also have visibility into it.

I have been using it for a year.

We haven't seen any kind of outages related to Nasuni. Stability-wise, it has been great.

We don't have to worry about scalability. 

At the moment, we are backing up or protecting about 10 to 15 terabytes. 

We plan to get every NAS box that we have off existing devices that are end-of-life and used for file provisioning. We plan to move those to Nasuni.

I would rate Nasuni support somewhere between eight or nine out of 10 because sometimes we face issues in getting support from Nasuni. For example, if I am running a P1, then I call up Nasuni support but don't get immediate support. We then have to wait until somebody gets back to us. When we get support, it is good, but waiting is the issue.

Before Nasuni, we had NAS file servers from different vendors, e.g., Dell EMC and NetApp. We also had small-time, consumer NAS boxes, like QNAP, Synology, etc. It was quite uncomfortable and tedious, as well as the toughest way, to monitor all these vendors with different technologies and features, just to provide a file share to the user. This is something that has been tremendously reduced since dealing with just Nasuni and nothing else.

It was a tedious process of getting a change approved, looking into the available space, whether the storage had enough space for provisioning additional space to be requested. It used to take probably a time window of anywhere between seven to 10 days, if there was space available on the existing storage. If not, then it was another task that would go for months to procure new storage to add in more capacity. Nasuni has eased our job because we don't have to worry about the user requests for additional space anymore.

When we had NetApp, we had more control of it from a hardware perspective, but there were a lot of negative aspects to it. 

With Nasuni, as an administrator, my life is easy. The only issue that we are currently dealing with is about some access or permission-related issues. There are a whole lot of issues that we do not even have to look into it anymore: 

• People are not getting back to us that they need more space. 
• People are not getting back to us to tell us if there are hardware failures that we need to fix. 
• They are not coming back to tell us that there are some hardware issues going on, which probably might affect the data, data integrity, or probably cause data loss. 

So, there are many other things that we are not even hearing about right now. It has greatly reduced the amount of issues that we have had from previous solutions.

I have heard that it is easy to configure the solution to support organizational changes.

My team doesn't get involved. We have a separate team who takes care of deployments.

Unless you know that you have something better, I would say, "Go for it," in regards to Nasuni.

I would rate this solution as nine out of 10. 

We use Nasuni to share data between our sites. It allows us to use a single volume at different sites and different locations, which means that it is easier for us to collaborate. We used to have a small, constant amount of storage space in our server but Nasuni and cloud storage allows us to grow with no limits.

Using this solution has helped us to reduce the time it takes to recover data in the event of a disaster. Moreover, it has lowered our cost of operations and reduced our workload. Our savings through using Nasuni is approximately 35%.

Nasuni has helped us to replace multiple silos and tools sets with a single, global filesystem, which is important to us because we can centralize our data. Having it centralized means that we can secure it easily, as well as provide granular access to users.

Nasuni provides us with file storage capacity anywhere, on-demand, and we have no limits. Every month, we generate a report to see how our capacity has grown and I can say that it is not a problem in our company. Having no limits is important because we used to have a small and constant amount of storage space. Even now, with the reporting, we can analyze our consumption and limit our storage costs through monitoring.

The most valuable feature is disaster recovery. We can fully recover a site in two hours.

In the event of a problem, such as a storm that is affecting our operations at one site, we can restore the data at another site and begin working again.

Nasuni is easy to manage, and I would rate it a nine out of ten in this regard. We were using a manual solution in the past, and it was a major challenge for the company.

We use the continuous file versioning feature, although we limit the snapshot retention. This feature is very helpful for users who have deleted files, or experience file corruption. Our current system requires a user to open a support ticket so that we can provide them assistance to restore the lost data. In the future, we plan to give each user the ability to do this on their own, although it's not easy to do because we have a lot of users and it's not a very secure approach to give them all access.

Our IT operations spend approximately one hour verifying the backups to ensure that everything is ok. In the past, prior to continuous versioning with Nasuni, this was not an easy task and we had a lot of difficulties determining whether it had been done properly or not.

The performance of the filesystem could be improved.

We began using Nasuni in 2019 and this is our third year with it. It was not in production this entire time but it is now.

Nasuni is not a stable solution.

This is a scalable product.

Our deployment method depends on the size of the environment. In our largest environment, which is our headquarters, we deploy this solution on a physical server because we can provide the highest performance that way. In our smaller sites, we deploy it on a virtual machine.

We have five people who work regularly with the product, including one monitor and four engineers.

There is a lot of information openly available about the product on the Nasuni Blog and through technical support. I would rate the support a ten out of ten.

When we open a case, the response time is very fast and the engineers are professional. They have strong skills in informatics and are good at solving problems hands-on.

In the past, we used a manual solution. This meant that we had to verify daily to ensure the backups were done properly, and check to make sure that the data was available. We had other tasks that included things like maintaining the backup hardware and the required cartridges. Overall, the system was very bad and presented major challenges. For example, we needed about 24 hours to recover from a disaster.

We switched in part because it was much faster to use Nasuni but also, we had issues with storage limitations. We were storing all of our disaster recovery backups on one server and for example, we would consume one terabyte for the month. We needed an on-premises server for this and had to worry about things like security. These are no longer issues for us and overall, Nasuni has been beneficial.

We had some issues when it came to installing Nasuni, although we worked with their support and ultimately we were able to resolve them. Our plan included deploying six Nasuni instances per week and the full implementation took us about two years to complete.

I was not with the company prior to implementation, so I am not sure what other products, if any, were evaluated.

Based on my experience with the product, I can recommend it. If one of my friends or colleagues at another company were concerned about migration to the cloud and Nasuni's performance, I would provide them benchmarks that I have that show why I am very satisfied with Nasuni overall.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from working with Nasuni is that you have to work with bigger companies if you want to learn and grow your own business. For us, one of these companies is Nasuni.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We have two offices and each one has a local appliance that we use as file servers. They both replicate to each other, and we have a third appliance in Azure for DR. If a file server goes down in one office, we can use the other one. And if both go down, we can use the one in Azure.

It's a hybrid. So we have two appliances and one cloud-based appliance.

Nasuni has replaced massive SANs that were expensive, slow, and kept all the data. With the SANs, backup and recovery was very slow. With Nasuni, the simplicity of management is light-years ahead of our previous processes because the old backup and recovery was so slow, and we had to keep growing the SAN as the business grew. Now, we're leveraging the cloud as our storage, and the local appliances mean fast performance for the users.

Eliminating the on-premises infrastructure has reduced our costs by a good 50 percent. We have also had decreased capital costs because the cost of the appliances has gone down.

The solution also provides Continuous File Versioning. We do it every five minutes. There have been many times that people have called me and said they need a file at a specific point in time. We're able to provide that recovery, which is great. Before, maybe we were backing up once a day and, a week later, we wouldn't have the file versioning anymore with traditional SAN. In terms of restores, people delete things by accident all the time and having the ability to restore has been great.

And when it comes to our IT operations, it's made things easier and more streamlined. People have more confidence in the infrastructure. It's had a positive impact.

The most valuable feature is the storage in that it only keeps the last-used data locally, while everything else is backed up to the cloud. That way, we never really have to worry about file space in each office or the replication to the other file servers for DR.

It also provides a single platform with a 360-degree view of our file data. That's very important to us because we always know what the status is. It gives us views into it and also helps with auditing, tracing, and tracking of who's accessing things and who's doing what. And there is also the recovery from the cloud.

Nasuni also enables us to provide file storage capacity anywhere it’s needed, on-demand, and without limits. The unlimited capacity is very important because with other solutions, as files grow, you're always having to add more storage. Here, the algorithm just caches what's being used and archives what's not, and if you need to get those archives, it's very simple to get them back.

The only thing that I'd like to see is more support for platforms like OneDrive or Box.com.

I have been using Nasuni for one year.

It's always available because we're utilizing Microsoft Azure. And on-premises, the hardware seems to be pretty stable.

The scalability is very good. If you want to add a new office, you can scale pretty quickly. You add a new appliance, add the volume, and it just works.

Right now our environment is about 10 terabytes. We expect a normal usage increase of about 10 percent per year. We have 150 daily users. They're across the company, including the business side, the back-office side. Everybody in the firm uses it.

I would rate their support at 10 out of 10. Anytime I have an issue, they answer very quickly.

It's super-easy to configure the solution. They were great to install, cut-over, and it's great to use. I worked with their implementation consultant. We set it up, we cut over the data, and it was all pretty simple and straightforward.

Our deployment took one month.

Our experience with their consultant during the deployment was great.

The pricing is on par with everybody else, and fair.

We looked at CTERA. The main differences between that and Nasuni are the usability features; the global file locking and caching. Nasuni is better.

As for business agility and cash flow compared to buying fixed assets, with Nasuni we still have their appliances so every three to five years we have to do a hardware refresh. We're not 100 percent in the cloud. But it's easy. It's very easy to buy a new appliance and cut over.

If a colleague at another company had concerns about migration to the cloud and about the solution's performance, I would say "Go ahead and do it. It will make your life a lot easier and the transition is not that difficult."

The ease of use is pretty good. It just works well for us. I'm pretty excited about it.

We are using it as shared storage so that our users can share data between multiple departments.

We used to have different storage platforms for different regions, but using Nasuni we can actually use one storage platform for our customers who are at different locations so that they can share data. We now have a single global file system. That is really important from both the financial and the maintenance perspectives. We don't need to engage multiple engineers when things are done by a single product.

And the Continuous File Versioning has enabled us to meet our SLAs with our customers. We can deploy snapshots as frequently as we want to match our SLAs.

Continuous File Versioning is one of the best features because it helps you to restore at any point in time. That means you don't have to worry about a ransomware attack. Even if that attack happens, you can restore all the data to five minutes ago and save everything. That restore feature is the most valuable. You can restore in seconds. 

Also, the ability for sharing between multiple regions is important.

Nasuni is not SOC 2 compliant and it needs to be.

Another issue, because it's a cache-based mechanism in the cloud, is that while it keeps some files in cache and some files in the cloud, it doesn't tell which files are in the cache.

In addition, there is no reporting feature available, so we have to generate manual reports of the folder utilization.

It also doesn't have monitoring solutions. They want to do the monitoring of Nasuni using TIV stack, but implementing that takes a lot of time. For every single new filer, I have to deploy the alerting dashboard.

I've been using Nasuni for six months.

The stability is good. I have not seen any issues with its stability.

It's scalable but it's not easy to scale. It's not that simple to manage because it involves size-wise expansion. If we have to add more customers, we have to deploy more filers and that takes time and is not that simple to do. You will end up having some overloaded filers and some filers without load. The scaling process is not good and they don't have any tools to help us scale, so it's trial and error.

It takes at least an hour or so to deploy a new filer, which is a really bad thing. Because it's on the cloud, you should be able to do it in five minutes, but that doesn't happen with Nasuni.

We are currently using it extensively. We have about 20 appliances and we are planning to deploy 10 more in the future.

Customer support is good. Priority-two tickets and lower are handled by customer support via email. I have only had to use the email support so far.

Positive

We were using ZFS Storage but we replaced it with Nasuni. We switched because of the capacity constraints. We needed more capacity and there was a limitation with the ZFS Storage.

It is difficult to configure Nasuni. Adding a filer is an easy task, but deciding where to add them, how many to add, and what size to add takes a lot of time. I have to analyze my existing storage to understand how many users are going to access which folders. I have to design the Nasuni architecture accordingly.

The initial deployment took four to five hours.

I had to deploy multiple Nasuni edge appliances onto the cloud, in the different regions, and then join them with Azure Blob Storage.

We deployed it with the help of Nasuni employees.

We have only had Nasuni for six months so I cannot say that I have seen any cost savings. Even if it doesn't necessarily cost that much, the Azure Ultra Disks are costly.

Nasuni pricing is average; it's not too high or too low.

We evaluated SoftNAS and Azure NetApp Files before opting for Nasuni.

The advantages of Nasuni are the cost and better restore capabilities when compared to the other products. The drawbacks of it are the implementation and designing of the architecture. 

If you don't have multiple users or if performance is not a key for your deployment, go for Nasuni storage. In those circumstances it is good. But if you need performance with less latency, you should go with another solution.

We use Nasuni for our production files so that they can be accessed from multiple facilities at once. 

It is deployed through VMware. 

One of my first use cases was that it removed two servers and made it a single system and improved the workflow then for that team, which spans multiple facilities.

Once you understand their architecture, it's actually very simple. It's just a very different way of thinking about things. So once you understand that, you realize how simple it is.

The ability to access anywhere, the ease of deployment, and the security are the most valuable features. Security is a big one.

It has replaced multiple data silos and toolsets with a single global file system. This is very important to me. It reduces IT workload by having to manage fewer platforms.

It also offers us a single platform. Having a single pane to view the platform on is wonderful.

Nasuni enables us to provide file storage capacity anywhere as needed, on-demand, and without limits. It means I don't have to constantly be upgrading a built-in solution for a fixed box.

We've used it to provide file source capacity for VDI environments. The security of it is important and the fact that it's object storage, it's immutable, and that it can't be held for ransom. It's a lot smoother than our previous processes that weren't Nasuni-based. A lot of it is done automatically just by the system being in place.

It provides continuous file versioning and helps to eliminate on-premises infrastructure, which lowered our costs. 

Nasuni helped to simplify infrastructure purchasing and support requirements. The single pane of management helps. Having one management console to do everything in, then not having to upkeep the systems in the same way as we would a normal Windows server.

Our capital costs have been reduced because we don't have to buy as much excess capacity. It has been reduced by 75%.

When it comes to business agility and cash flow compared to buying fixed assets through a hardware refresh, it has made it a lot more agile.

Some of their cross-platform features are really good, but it could always use more.

I have been using Nasuni for around seven months. 

I find Nasuni to be very stable and any issues can be quickly fixed.

One of the reasons we bought it was for its ability to scale. 

We have around 80 users at the moment that are production people, but that number is going to change if we continue to grow with it.

It requires one staff for deployment and maintenance. 

We're already using it a ton. It's improved workflows and we plan on expanding a lot more with it.

I would say that they need to make their technical support quicker. I would rate them a nine out of ten.

We used old standard box servers. 

It's very easy to reconfigure, so it makes it easy for fast deployment. This makes us more agile and quick to respond to the demands of management.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. From their side, it took a month. From our side, it took five to six months, but we had other factors that prevented us from doing it in just one month. It really could have been done in a month. It was not the fault of Nasuni.

We worked directly with Nasuni. 

I would advise having a handle on your data or how much data you plan to put into it to be within the price of affording it.

If you use cloud solutions, then there are additional charges to standard licensing. 

We look at things like Hyper-converged infrastructure. 

Given all of the features this offered and its price point, Nasuni was the best. It was far better than even far more expensive options.

End-users won't know that it has a cloud tied into it. So there's no performance hindrance with cloud integration.

The speediest way to implement it is really having your ducks in a row and know exactly what you have that you want to move and work with their team to do it.

You can really have almost everything that you need in one solution.

I would rate Nasuni a nine out of ten. I have been very happy with it. 

We are using it for enterprise file storage. We have its latest version, and it is a hybrid deployment. The actual storage or data resides in the Azure cloud, but you access it either through VMs or hardware that you deploy on your premises. 

With a shift to more remote work during this past year, we deployed a new instance of Nasuni in Azure. This allowed us to be more flexible and support remote work better. We wouldn't have been able to do that with legacy file storage.

The global file locking feature is valuable. The ability to quickly deploy new sites is also valuable.

Room for improvement would be the speed of replication of new files. I would also like to see cloud mirroring.

I have been using this solution for three years.

It is very stable.

It is very scalable. We have about 750 users of this solution. Most of them are technical staff, so they'll be engineers or similar knowledge workers.

It is currently being used company-wide. We plan to increase its usage in the future. We are planning to move some additional data onto it, but we are also evaluating to move subsets of the data from Nasuni to other file storage.

Their technical support is very good. They are definitely above average.

We previously used Windows File Servers, PeerLink, and FileShares. We switched for several reasons. The main reasons were better global file locking, better stability, and better backup and restore.

It was straightforward, and it took days, which is fair for a solution like this. 

It was done in-house in coordination with the software vendor itself. Our experience with them was very good.

It is also very light on maintenance. We don't have any dedicated staff for the maintenance of the Nasuni system. It would be just very minimal time here and there.

I believe we have seen an ROI.

It is around $850 per terabyte per year. Any additional costs that you would incur are for the local caching devices that you'll need to access Nasuni. You kind of provide your own virtual machines or compute to access the data. You also pay for the object storage. So, there are three parts to it. There is the Nasuni license per terabyte. You would also pay for the actual object storage in the cloud, and then you would pay for virtual machines to access the storage.

I would advise others to be careful and pay attention to rightsizing the filers. They should also be aware of certain applications that have requirements that are difficult to fulfill with Nasuni.

I would rate Nasuni an eight out of ten.