Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI) Reviews

I advise my customers to have a unique management operation center for the three layers. The primary reason is to convert the storage, computation, and hypervisor into one frame. Of course, you have to replicate the data between all the nodes to have redundancy, so you have two or three nodes in case of failure, depending on the resilience you want. I advise my customers to use this kind of technology when they want to focus on their business and don't want to talk about the layers of the subsequent infrastructure that is matched to their business.

The technology has a lot of room for improvement. For example, when they want to segment applications in conjunction with NSX, which VMware uses, Acropolis is not compatible with the competitors. The integration in the security layer is not compatible with NSX for the application segmentation that uses VMware. And the licensing has a lot of room for improvement also.

I've been using Acropolis AOS for about four years.

Acropolis AOS is stable.

This solution works in small companies with 10 users and large enterprises with 100,000. Acropolis can scale vertically and horizontally by adding more CPUs or nodes. It's quite easy to scale, and you have the option to have distributed nodes everywhere around the world that work as one. You can also have a solution for small branch offices with only two nodes for redundancy, and that's good enough to start. You could even deploy it on a ship or a car or whatever unit.

It's quite technical, so IT departments are the main driver of expanding usage. However, it's an easy sell to decision-makers because it tries to abstract the technical things to the business. When a managing director of a company knows about the benefits of this kind of solution, they give the green light and focus their IT department on the technical business requirements, solutions, and innovations layers, instead of managing the technical layers, like network, storage, and computations. 

We have a contract with Nutanix for 24/7 support, and it's excellent. They contact the customers directly when there is a failure or they need to replace a disk. You only take action when you need to evolve the platform, like installing a new model or a patch because you need preventive action. If we need to patch to the latest firmware of the solution, then they call us. However, that's something that is scheduled well ahead of time. For example, we schedule with the customer to install the latest firmware every six months.

I don't have a lot of hands-on experience with Acropolis because I'm a sales executive, but I can say Nutanix solutions are easy to deploy. The only hang-up is compatibility with other solutions like OM, Lenovo, HP, Supermicro, etc., because sometimes the drivers change.

For example, sometimes you could have a different release of the driver that isn't compatible with the latest release of the software, so you need to match the release with the nodes that support the Nutanix software. You could also have problems with the support and matching all the nodes to the software release that makes the work correctly. I've had a lot of problems with customers trying to match the software with the hardware layer. You have to choose the right vendor for the hardware to avoid problems. Otherwise, the setup is straightforward. 

However, you always need someone with technical expertise. We usually handle the deployment ourselves, but we occasionally ask for support when we have to deploy an uncommon configuration, like Oracle. For example, Acropolis has different ways to support Oracle databases, so we sometimes need Nutanix support to configure the Oracle rack.

We only need a small team of around 10 people to deploy and maintain because 

Return on investment happens when the customer realizes relative value. For example, if the customer is comparing cloud computing to an on-premise server, on-premise Nutanix is always going to be more expensive compared to AWS or Azure if you use it in a typical way. You have to consider the hours that the technicians spend maintaining the solution. Also, if the technicians are spending less time, they could start doing things that create more value for the company.

It's not easy to see a return on investment for this kind of solution, but you need to solve this problem at a higher level of management because the IT department is not involved in innovation at the company, so they might feel the solution is doing the job for them.

Also, they might have a personal stake in keeping the solution because they could see a risk to their livelihood if the company decides to switch to the cloud. It's something to sell to the upper management because even the CIO might not see it because they think their position is at risk. These solutions are like a robot that makes everything by themselves. The return on investment is a reduction in the time spent managing the infrastructure, and you could start seeing that time savings in six months to a year.

Many of my customers have issues with Acropolis' licensing model because they are charging the customers based on two things— the CPUs and the capacity in the solid stack disk — and that's a problem. Nutanix's competitors are not licensing that layer, so this is something that they should change. They should abandon this licensing model because it's too complex. Technical support is bundled with the subscription.

I rate Acropolis AOS seven out of 10. 

It is used for local file management.

Right now there is no downtime as such because it's in high HA mode. I can add different types of VM servers on the fly so it helps to rebuild or launch any application within a short period of time.

The features that I have found most valuable include its HA facility, viability, robustness, flexibility, it's time to go live is very short, and it has a friendly user interface.

As far as what could be improved, they have some built-in backup functions already, but any built-in isolation features like vision security features and free LAN features become a security concern. 

Also a few more backup options and IT security functions to isolate different VMs would be good. Better features would include more on the security side, meaning drill down on the VMs. Also, more on the reporting side for more exclusive reports.

I have been using Nutanix Acropolis AOS for almost four years.

Nutanix Acropolis AOS is a very stable.

Its scalability is very good. We can scale up to our limitations.

Our entire organization uses this solution. I can't give the exact number, but almost all the people are using it.

Deployment and maintenance hardly require only one technical person, who understands networking and the system. One or two people are enough for implementation.

We do have plans to increase the usage. It is a very comfortable and usable solution.

The technical support is very good. The support and response is good from the technical team.

The initial setup is easy. Not complex.

The deployment was within four-five days. Our deployment strategy was that it is the right move from physical to virtual.

The ROI is very good. We'll see an ROI in two-three years only.

The license is almost three to four lakhs per month, I think.

There are some additional operating system licenses. It depends because we are not using a Microsoft license. We are using a Linux based one, so that determines the license cost.

I evaluated some other VMware options, but cost-wise, Nutanix Acropolis AOS was the best deal.

My advice to anyone considering it is to go with the latest solution and latest software and that you can go with any hardware. There are different vendors now, they know all this stuff, but go with the best, most updated solution.

Its uptime is good, its flexibility and scalability are very good.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Nutanix Acropolis AOS an eight.

We have used Nutanix Acropolis for deploying a private cloud. We are using the latest version of Nutanix Acropolis AOS.

The feature that I have found most valuable is its software Move, which we use to migrate virtual info from another platform to the Nutanix platform.

Then you have the Prism Central Core, the user management consoles, for managing most of the VMs. And there are a few options which I bought, including for the reporting.

In terms of what could be improved, they keep updating the product and releasing new features. They are quite up to date with the product. But the fact is that the new features are not free. You need to pay for each feature.

Since it is a high convert solution, we don't need any downtime because all the VMs are being moved to another node. So no downtime is required.

It is very stable and reliable.

Nutanix Acropolis is very easy to scale.

It requires about two people.

We have the technical support. If you pay for maintenance, you have a subscription with maintenance and you get support from them.

We were satisfied with the support. We have been able to resolve any technical issue.

We are still using Palo Alto NG firewall, which we have been using for the last 10 years.

Installing Nutanix Acropolis was quite easy. It took one day.

There was no downtime.

We did not implement with the vendor, but we have a local integrator.

The pricing has been very expensive. Previously, the prices were okay, but now the price has increased since you have to pay additionally for all the features that they are making.

Overall, I would recommend Nutanix Acropolis to other users. On a scale of one to ten, I would give it a nine.

My primary use case for Nutanix is for running Windows servers. Nutanix is deployed on-premises. 

Nutanix was a very good business solution for our site. It's an expensive system, but it provides power savings, in terms of the low costs for running it, and it was a good business investment. 

One of the most valuable features of Nutanix is that it's easy to use. I love this solution—it's easy to maintain and update, and I think it's almost perfect. 

I'm sure there are a lot of things that could be improved, but I'm actually very satisfied with this product. There may be some possibilities to move the virtual server dismounting points or to move the server from one group to another, but I can't think of any special improvements or update features. 

I have been working with Nutanix for the past two years. 

I'm very satisfied with the stability and performance of Nutanix. This solution is easy to maintain. You use the LCM module, press update, and it's done for you. It's wonderful because you don't have to do anything—it's almost too easy. I am the only one handling maintenance for and managing Nutanix. 

This solution is scalable. I just added some extra discs to the system because we were running out of space and all I had to do was put the discs inside the service—Acropolis took care of the rest. It added volume and said that everything was done automatically, so it's difficult to make the process any easier. 

Whenever I have had a support case, Nutanix has always helped to solve it the first time around. I have never had to wait for an extra or false opinion on the product or problem; it has always been solved within first contacting Nutanix. Compared to what I've seen of other technical support, it's hard to get better than this. 

We worked with VMware for some years before switching to Nutanix. We had a problem with our SQL servers, which were running on VMware, and the performance wasn't good. There was a product called Pernix that we installed to VMware, to speed up the storage process when it was saving files and data. Pernix worked very well.

They implemented that technology from Pernix into Nutanix, which is why I think Nutanix performs so well. There is an internal storage service, rather than a storage center, so you don't have to spend time waiting for the network. That was what Pernix did: it moved the storage, or part of the storage, inside the server, which then took care of saving to that storage. It's a little complicated to explain, but that was why our SQL servers were working as a traditional server with a separate machine. This is the way that Nutanix works as well. You have the server you are running always located on the local stores and it will make sure to back everything up. Instead of looking at VMware, I would advise looking at Nutanix or something else that's similar. However, it's IP, so it's always evolving. 

The initial setup was done by Lenovo at delivery, but it seemed to be quite easy. There is always some setup in the beginning, but once the setup's done, it will only take a few minutes to add an extra node or anything. It's done almost automatically—you don't have to do anything, just put them in and then they're up and running. 

We implemented through a vendor team. The initial setup was done by Lenovo Professional Services, but on a day-to-day basis, I handle the running of Nutanix. I only contact Nutanix if there is an error I cannot solve myself, which has only happened three or four times. 

This product is expensive, but they do have discounts. At one point, I saw that they were giving a 70% or 80% discount, which is a good thing, but maybe they should have a more realistic price and then a 5% to 10% discount. 

I rate Nutanix a ten out of ten. I recommend this solution to any companies considering implementation. It was a good business investment for our company and as an extended working system, it is easy to maintain and use. The costs for running it are also low. For most companies who are already running some system at a certain scale and on-premises, I think a lot of them could benefit from this solution. 

I'm an end user and don't have any direct business connection with Nutanix—I only contact them when I need technical support. 

For our company, basically, we run all of our production VMs on it. Also, we have two demo networks that we do a lot of testing and whatnot for.

From an operator's perspective, we released from two to one person managing it, and pretty much the main benefit is the ease of use, ease of install, and ease of protecting, et cetera. 

From a grander view, it's allowed our customers to actually reduce the amount of software that they have to purchase. Not only do they have to purchase the hypervisor, and if they're in VMware, in most cases, they're purchasing disaster recovery tools and a whole bunch of other things. However, Nutanix has it all built-in so that users have one area to manage and maintain.

There are lots of different pieces. From a Disaster Recovery perspective, it is very valuable. Some of my customers are getting into Flow. We don't use Flow, however, we're testing it. Flow is their micro-segmentation, which is very useful for protecting your VMs and the traffic that goes to them. From an automation perspective around deploying virtual machines, Calm is pretty good as well.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The solution is very stable. 

The product scales very well.

Everything has room for improvement.

I could probably name quite a few things from a Nutanix perspective. The area of improvement that they're working on now is more of the files index and more of the API integration into those. From on-prem to public cloud, they already have AWS Nutanix clusters, however, a lot of customers are going to be utilizing a public cloud at some point and they're basically deploying Azure Nutanix clusters as well soon. That's an improvement that they're working on. That said, from an administration perspective, the software's pretty big. It would be great if they could add more features and API integrations to the higher-level products.

I'd like it to be more API-based. They need more additional features around their APIs and additional integration in some of the automation platforms that are out there. Nutanix is a solution where the hyper-converged portion of it is mature. They're working towards the cloud integration portion. 

I would like to see more improvement in that area of being easier to manage, or easy to implement, and easy to orchestrate in an AWS or an Azure type scenario.

I've been using the solution for about three years. 

It's probably the most stable, hyper-conversion environment I've seen on the market. I base that on the storage portion of the hyper-conversion environment.

The solution scales well.

To expand the clusters, you don't really have limits as you would in other products from a scalability perspective. There are still best practices around how big you want to scale it. However, the expansion process is pretty simple and straightforward.

I have probably about 10 people utilizing it within my company and their roles range from infrastructure admins to solution architects that do testing as well as some engineers that we do consulting with. If you look at our customers quite, it ranges. It depends on the products they deploy, however, they might have infrastructure admins, DBAs, or automation engineers. It just depends on how big the deployment is and what products they're using.

We have four clusters. For customers that have 250 to 300 hosts that are running, it's pretty much one person to manage and maintain that system. You can pretty much maintain it with one FTE.

Internally, we will likely expand usage. We have plans to actually spin up on clusters within public cloud infrastructure to protect our systems. From an expansion perspective that just depends on where our business goes and how many more resources we need. From a customer perspective, expansion is going to be more when they start utilizing more of the cloudlike features such as Kubernetes or databases service through Era, or even Calm. That's where things will expand.

Technical support is very good. It's probably one of the best.

I see a lot of technical support. I see a lot of the people or older legacy companies that have been around for a while, and technical support will usually go downhill.  There's probably a handful of them that are really good. 

If you look at their scores online, they're always rated pretty high and it's hard to do that.

We were on VMware, prior to this product. It was getting to the point of being a hassle to maintain, and this solution simplified things considerably.

The initial setup is not overly complex or difficult. It's straightforward and takes about two hours to deploy.

The deployment for my company, and we're a smaller company, with a total of 60 VMs at most, took about a week total. That involved moving off of VMware to HV including the migration of the virtual machines. That was just done due to the timeframes. You could do those at night. Ultimately, the cluster and everything was set up within a day and ready to go. Then, the move process for those VMs just took a little bit of time to move into. I have other customers who are running migrations that take a little bit longer, however, you're talking 2,500 to 3000 VMs. That's more of a two to three-month process to get those moved. That said, the migration goes pretty quickly and that's pretty small from a migration perspective with a whole new platform.

I cannot speak to the exact pricing of the product. However, as a partner, we do have access to reduced costs.

There are additional costs. Nutanix is a software-driven company. They do sell hardware, however, in most cases, you bring your own hardware. The cost of the solution might be a little bit higher than what you would look at from just a straight out VMware, however, you're getting a lot more and you're reducing the fact that you don't need VMware in that mix. 

The hypervisor that's provided with Nutanix is free. As the costs roll-out, Nutanix is actually a better TCO than any of the other solutions in the market that are even comparable.

We actually evaluated quite a few different hyper-converged infrastructures prior to bringing on Nutanix as a partner and they are the best in the market from that perspective.

I'm a partner of Nutanix. I'm a user, however, I'm also a seller of Nutanix.

We are on version five. I can't remember the exact version number. We have both five and six. I have multiple clusters that are running within our infrastructure and then I have multiple clusters that are running within my customers' infrastructure.

While we currently use Azure for our cloud, we will likely use both Azure and AWS in the future.

I'd advise potential new users to do their homework and make sure that they don't necessarily listen to what the manufacturers are saying. Go find out for yourself.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. I wouldn't say it's a ten. I'm a pretty hard scorer. There are features and functionality where VMware makes things easier. Other solutions make things a little bit easier from a deployment perspective or something along those lines, however, that's just due to the fact that they've been in the market for a long period of time and their solution set has built or has grown from that perspective. They are highly ranked as they reduce the amount of maintenance and administration that you have to keep it running.

The solution allows us to make use of high IOPS requirements.

We used to go with a traditional architecture, storage and server. Now, with Nutanix, we have 30,000 IOPS, up from 1,000. 

A great feature involves real-time hardware changes. There is no need to shut down any VM during the hardware changes.

The solution does not lend support when we connect with a few dongle licenses. There is a need to make use of certain third-party USB switches through which we can have USB access. USB dongle-based licenses do not allow us to directly locate the USB ports on Nutanix. Other than this, I have no complaints.

We have been using Nutanix Acropolis AOS for the last four years.

The solution is certainly stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

I do not recall contacting Nutanix's support within the past four years. Nutanix sends us daily alerts and messages. A year-and-a-half ago I encountered a RAM failure, but there was no need for me to log a case with Nutanix, as the call was automatically logged and an engineer was sent to deal with the problem. 

We previously made use of Scale Computing and HPE SimpliVity.

The initial setup was quick. Previously, the operations involved three days of downtime but, with the solution, the initial migration from traditional architecture to Nutanix lasted three hours, instead of three days. It was so much quicker. 

We handled the implementation on our own. 

The pricing is quite good in comparison with HPE SimpliVity, Nutanix Scale, and even traditional architecture. We found Nutanix's pricing to be the best. We did not incur license fees as we did with HPE Simplivity's VMware licenses, so this kept the costs down. 

I rate Nutanix Acropolis AOS as a nine out of ten. 

We have three clusters of Nutanix. We are using Nutanix Clusters for all of our Intel-based workload. The majority of applications are Oracle databases, application servers, our file services, email hosting, etc.

The machines provisioning times have reduced drastically. The single pane of glass management provides ease of management.  Storage 

There are a lot of features in Nutanix that are different from other hyper-converged solutions, such as site-to-site replication. VM-based site-to-site replication is bundled with the software licensing. For the DR, it has the availability groups, which is one of the key features that Nutanix provides.

Its performance management is pretty good, especially the software-defined storage that Acropolis provides is pretty good.

As far as the availability is concerned, it has RAID nodes, so the availability is pretty good. In case of failure, the system automatically shifts machines from one node to another. Their failure debugger is very good.

The only problem is that not many operating systems are supported on the AOS hypervisor. They need to probably increase the support on multiple operating systems. As of now, a very limited number of operating systems and patch levels are supported on AOS.

In terms of additional features, a lot of backup solutions have integration with AOS, but not many backup solutions provide a solution for VM backup. So probably, in the next release, they can make the backup solutions compatible with AOS for VM backups. It would be great.

We've been using this solution for the last three years.

The solution is rock solid, no software issues or compatibility issues may be because we are using it over 

It is primarily a scale out solution. New nodes can be added pretty easily and workload can be divided on the fly including that of Software Defined Storage that comes with Nutanix Hyperconverged Solution. 

I am very satisfied with their support. Nutanix has probably one of the best support in the hyper-converged industry. Whenever there is a problem, they usually fix it within hours.

VMWARE and Hyper-V are good alternate solutions but if you are using AOS on a Nutanix Hyperconverged solution, than AOS provides better integration with the solution. If the requirement is to fully leverage Nutanix Hyperconverged solution than AOS is the go to hypervisor.

Its setup is very straightforward. You just have to plug in the nodes and power them up. That's it. It will automatically rebuild itself and be available. It is shipped pre-configured.

There are three variants in AOS pricing. 

The Evaluation included VMWARE and Hyper-V. The software defined features required including software defined storage, Performance throughput, scale out architecture etc which were not directly related to hypervisor selection but more geared towards Software Defined Data Center put Nutanix Hyperconverged and to fully leverage its functionalities put AOS in front.

I would rate Nutanix Acropolis AOS a nine out of 10. It is pretty good.

We mainly use it for virtual machine workloads on Application servers. We want to use it for disaster recovery and the way they replicate between sites. It has already got these features, but we just haven't implemented or tested them yet.

We have just put it in, so I can't say anything about that yet.

In general, being able to patch and not having to pay for SanDisk is the best thing about hyper-converged.

We had a few problems with the foundation machine that you can use to build your systems out. We've got it working now, but it should be improved.

I have been using this solution for two weeks.

It is stable so far. It is pretty new, and there are no issues.

It is scalable. I can add or take nodes away really easily. We did that, and it works great.

It is only two weeks old, and there are probably hundreds of people using it.

They are very good. They know what they're doing. I would rate them a nine out of ten. We had a couple of different guys trying to help get us set up. One said one thing, and the other one said another thing. Neither of them was wrong, but they weren't on the same page. That's why they don't get a 10 out of 10.

We did not use any hyper-converged solution.

The initial setup was straightforward. Nutanix pretty much brings somebody along for the foundation of your system, which makes it really nice. This is one of the features we liked in Nutanix.

Its price is fine. I can't really complain about that.

Take a look at the network requirements for the solution. It tells you a lot about the efficiency of it.

I'd give it a nine out of ten because it works. It does what they say it does. It is hard to get a 10 out of 10 for me, but it is a pretty good solution. If I rated other companies I've worked with, they'd get sevens or sixes. I like Nutanix. They're doing a good job.