Nasuni Reviews

I am currently using Nasuni for seismic data. We have a huge data size, and we want to reduce costs. Nasuni acts as a caching solution, so we put some data into the cache, and the rest goes to the blob, which helps us save on costs. We use it for applications like Petrol and Tech Log, where 3D modeling is important.

The features I find most valuable in Nasuni are the unlimited snapshots, antivirus capabilities, auditing, and ransomware protection. Version control is also helpful, as we have almost all of our Nasuni deployments on a single version. Although upgrading involves some downtime, it's easy to upgrade and manage version control.

I used Nasuni for a client in the energy sector. Their entire subsurface storage portfolio is in Microsoft Azure. They have different types of storage, like database storage, blob storage, and what we call project storage. In Azure, there's also something called AFS or Azure file storage. 

We use Nasuni in a couple of ways. The primary use is to act as a sort of surveillance tool for managing our storage on Microsoft Azure. Natsuni also has options for storing data. We're managing our data inside of Nasuni. We allocate specific resources and server volumes. We use Nasuni to monitor our storage space and tell us when it will run out of space. 

It helped us manage some analytics out of there. Every cloud provider has a cost attached to every type of storage. We can do an economic analysis on our storage between Nasuni and Microsoft Azure. We've found that Nasuni storage is cheaper on some fronts, so we use Nasuni to copy some of the data from Microsoft Azure into Nasuni Storage. If I had to summarize it, Nasuni is a storage management, control, and surveillance platform that we use. We also use it to gain some useful insights into the cost and economics of storing data in these two different environments.

We weren't using Nasuni when we initially moved all our data and applications from on-prem to the public cloud, but we quickly realized that it was a valuable platform for economic reasons and ease of use. A year or two after we migrated to the cloud, we brought Nasuni on board and could use it. Some other people might not have felt it was such a good tool, but our focus was always cost reduction and economical cloud computing. Nasuni played a significant role in that.

Nasuni reduced the cost on Azure because we realized that we could be more economical about our storage. Hard data is the most expensive storage option in Azure. Using Nasuni for hard data storage saved us almost half the cost. It enabled a quick reduction of monthly costs per terabyte. We realized some cost savings when we moved chunks of data over, so we decided to increase data migration from Azure to Nasuni. It was around a 40 to 45 percent reduction in cost. One year, we needed to save around $1 million dollars. Moving the data also enabled us to clean up that data much faster than we could in Azure.

The solution has helped us adapt to organizational changes. The company operates in multiple regions. Some nations have restrictions on taking the data out of the country.  Countries in the Middle East or North Africa have export restrictions. We set up a specific area and connected it to Nasuni inside that region, so we could easily configure Nasuni to help us with these export restrictions. It has a quick turnaround. If we needed to decommission volumes quickly, it was easy to copy data from one volume into another. We're using NetApp file servers, and it works really well with NetApp. I could use a tool that connects directly to Nasuni, copies data out of there or into it, and then the commission within volumes. We see the benefits almost immediately. It's highly flexible. It requires more intensive configuration on certain tools in Microsoft Azure or AWS, but Nasuni made it simple.

I was never involved in infrastructure purchasing, but Nasuni is very dynamic from my perspective. When we increased our quota or added new volumes, it was almost instantaneous. It took minimal time to spin up new storage devices or volumes. It's pretty much the same across public cloud providers or on-prem. 

Our use case at the moment is for our file storage for all our London offices. It's for our London editorial teams, our London business units, and also our college.

We tend to keep it up to date in terms of the version. We're pretty much only a week or so behind a certain release because we know how easy the upgrade process is and we also know how successful the upgrades are. We've never had to roll back any upgrades. We've never experienced any issues with the upgrade process. So, we always keep it on its latest and greatest.

We're currently only using it in our London offices. We have our backend storage, which is AWS at the moment. It's about 100 terabytes of S3 storage, and in front of the S3 storage, we have three physical filers. Two of them are in our London offices and one is in our colocation data center. We have a virtual filer as well, which is running on our Nutanix hypervisor. 

It's pretty much all cloud. The on-premise is pretty much just a cache. They're just filers. They're just for the speed. We're a media and publications house. So, we need our files quite close to us so that we have a cache of those files, and our editors can access those files quickly and responsively.

When we purchased it years ago, we could only get it on Azure, but because we are 99% AWS, it was better that we moved over to have our costs in line with our other AWS spend.

It replaced multiple data silos and toolsets with a single global file system. The main reason for purchasing Nasuni at the time was that it took out so many tiers of other technologies that we were running at the time. We had on-premise file servers. We had virtual file servers, and we had replication going from three or four different sites and that replication was going to colocations. We had tape backups. We had physical backup storage. There were multiple vendors we had to deal with. We had multiple contracts. We had outer support, hardware, and software. By bringing in Nasuni, which was pretty much full cloud-based technology, we managed to remove heaps and heaps of infrastructure, and management as well. Previously, the management was like a day job of checking backups and checking the replications running and things like that. They weren't even replicating over to the other side. Nasuni changed all of that. We were instantly making one copy straight to the Cloud, and it was available and protected. It was definitely very important for us. It was probably our biggest project at the time. It fitted perfectly into our disaster recovery process and plan. It was something simple to work with, and we didn't have to deal with those workloads. 

Some of the benefits were obviously the cost savings from not having to manage and have so much infrastructure in our colocations. Our editorial teams felt secure knowing that we had forever backups of their files. We have to have multiple copies of our publications, files, photography, and things like that, and whenever we've spoken to the departments about how secure their data is, we just tell them, "Things are never going to get lost here. We've got multiple copies. It's forever."

It offers a single platform with a 360-degree view of our file data. Having the dashboard or a single pane of glass means that you're not moving between different management GUIs. It's very important that everything you need to know and see is there.

It provides file storage capacity anywhere it’s needed, on demand, and without limits. We pay for a set amount, but there have been times when we've gone over that amount, and we've continued to work. We just spoke to our account manager and we could spin up more data. Our invoice changes because we're using up more storage, but it's there on-demand, and we use as little and as much as we like.

It's easy to configure it to support organizational changes. We have changed. Our organization has changed over time, and we've continued to make changes to the product. Although Condé Nast is a global company, we were working as 12, 13 different entities in that company. We've now merged all our offices together, which meant more people wanted access to UK data. We've now got people from the US, India, European countries, and all other areas of the globe accessing that data. It was simple to make configuration changes so that those users could access the data via their domain or via their active directories.

It does continuous file versioning for us. The files are always protected in AWS S3, and they're also protected from ransomware, which I believe Nasuni guarantees. It's not something that we configure or switch on. It's just something that's been mentioned to us by the account managers.

There is snapshot retention. There are snapshot schedules that you can set on each share or file level. You can set up whatever level you want to set for the schedules. We sometimes have our scheduling done once an hour, so we can make changes back to an hour. There are forever snapshots from day one of a file appearing.

It has increased our productivity knowing that we can restore things in an instant. We've never had any complaints from any users about bringing back the wrong type of files or not being happy with a file that we've brought back.

It has helped eliminate on-premises infrastructure. We had a number of physical file servers and physical storage and backup infrastructure, and it was also the same in our colocation where we were replicating our entire infrastructure. We managed to remove tons of on-premise hardware and virtual machines just because we could install Nasuni. In terms of the effect of this reduced infrastructure footprint on our costs, one of our higher costs would've been the rack space at our colocation. That's a massive cost reduced from our monthly outgoings.

It has simplified infrastructure purchasing and support requirements. We have a single provider for our file storage and file backups. It has simplified purchasing and management. It has enabled us to be more proactive with other projects. We don't have to manage all that old infrastructure. It has enabled us to move forward.

It's a lot simpler and more cost-effective as compared to buying fixed assets through hardware refresh.

We use Nasuni for our network file servers. My company switched from Windows file servers to Nasuni, and we leveraged it to manage migrations between data centers.

The storage is fully in the cloud, and we are starting to migrate more as a company towards the cloud. I would say today, we have about a quarter of our overall workload in the cloud.  However, in the next few years, we will shift even further into the cloud.

Nasuni helps us streamline file storage and access across multiple locations. That's why we bought it. We had performance issues with a single Windows file server in one location when we had users and data centers in multiple locations. The technology enables us to make data more local to multiple different locations for users. We've been able to consolidate some of our file systems. We've combined SMB file shares and NFS into a single product.

The solution improved our organization by simplifying management and helping us to consolidate products. It makes recovery easier and ensures high resiliency. It has reduced our management overhead by about 30 percent. We used to have two different teams—managed NFS and managed SMB. We've consolidated collapsed teams, which is good from a support perspective. Also, we don't need to patch and upgrade the capabilities as much anymore.

It hasn't affected how our business operates much, but that's the great thing about it. It's a service that nobody notices, and if nobody notices, we're doing our job. It's reliable enough to where nobody's complaining about their file storage needs.

We implement Nasuni for our customers. We also manage the solution and provide support. Our client is a global company that operates worldwide with a user base in the thousands. We have a 20-person team working with them. 

Nasuni has helped us to simplify infrastructure purchasing and support. The solution enabled us to replace multiple data silos and toolsets with a single file system.

I'm unsure how much money it saves, but I believe Nasuni has helped by eliminating on-site hardware. We don't need to manage the big storage devices on-site. We only need a single server that can access the cache and device from the Nasuni site.

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. 

I work for a retail company. We have our users spread out geographically across the globe. We have deployed Nasuni in all our remote locations. With this service, we are catering to users across different continents, such as the EMEA, APAC, North American, and South American regions.

It is deployed on-premises through Azure appliances.

Nasuni deployment, along with its DFS capabilities, help with our SLA and RPO requirements. For example, if there is a site in Las Vegas and another site in San Francisco, and the Las Vegas site is down, then with the help of DFS, we can redirect clients to access the site from the back-end using the same path. The San Francisco site is then enabled and in an active state, but still clients will not have any issues connecting because of the Nasuni solution. So, this is an innovative solution that helps with the overall RPO requirements of our enterprise. 80% to 90% of the time, we are satisfied with its performance and with availability.

It is easy and seamless to configure Nasuni to support our organizational changes. We deployed the solution through a virtual appliance. If that particular virtual appliance is corrupted in any way, then we can deploy the OVA within no time. Within an hour, we can deploy and redirect users to the new appliance, then it can continue serving customers' requests.

We are using Nasuni for all of our storage needs. All the storage for our video surveillance and documents is on a couple of Nasuni filers. We have around 29 filers. We have 3 physical filers, and we have 26 virtual filers.

In terms of the version, we upgraded Nasuni Management Console (NMC) on May 20. So, NMC is on 22.1, and the filers are also on the latest version, which is 9.7.3. 

We provide insurance and financial services to our clients, and we rely on physical and virtual Nasuni filers to store all our data and get it replicated and backed up properly on time so that we don't lose any data. It gets cascaded to other filers as well. So, if we can't access the data from one filer, we can certainly access the same data from other filers. It provides us with flexible and efficient data storage and data replication.

It has replaced multiple data silos and toolsets with a single global file system. We were using TSM previously. We replaced all those with Nasuni. We need these filers running, especially during the US daytime. They're, for sure, very critical. If any filer goes down during the day, we normally open a P1 ticket.

We have a lot of users who are accessing the data during business hours. So, if any filer goes down, it is a straight downtime for the users. They cannot access their documents and video surveillance. It is extremely important for sure.

It enables us to provide file storage capacity anywhere it is needed, on-demand, and without limits. Our license is for around 226 terabytes, and currently, we are close to 200 terabytes. It is very important for us that our data is replicated and snapshots are taken on time.

It provides simplicity of management. Our previous solution was not that efficient. It was quite complex. The upgrades were not very smooth, but the most important thing was that it was outdated. It was very old technology. After we moved to Nasuni, there are three locations where we have physical filers, and then there are 26 filers that we can access virtually. Comparing the old system with Nasuni, there are definitely a lot of advantages that we are getting from Nasuni. We are still working around certain issues with Nasuni, but the advantages still are much more than the issues that we are facing.

It provides continuous file versioning, which is very helpful. Just a month ago, an application team lost two terabytes of production data, and because of Nasuni's replication and snapshot capability, we were able to restore the complete data in about 90 minutes.

Continuous versioning helps us to maintain all the versions. When needed, it helps us go back to any version on the filer to support our IT teams and our customers.

If a user deletes a file or a file has been corrupted, we can easily go back to the previous version, and we can easily access the version without starting from scratch.

It has been helpful in eliminating on-premises infrastructure. We have only three physical servers. They are located in Bloomington, Aurora, and Chester, but we have 26 virtual servers. We are saving a lot of space by having those 26 virtual servers. It reduces our maintenance and storage costs. We have saved a lot there.

It simplifies infrastructure purchasing. For these 26 virtual servers, we don't need to have any physical servers. 

Our license is for around 226 terabytes. If we have to buy this much physical storage along with the backup and replication functionalities, the cost would be multifold, which is something we don't want to invest in right now and even in the future. We would prefer to continue with Nasuni.