Improvement is necessary wherein the memory or storage should not breach 90%, because if breached, it becomes unmanageable. We have to set alerts or CPU triggering for 95% for the first warning. Other activities on nodes or file systems should be properly maintained.

We must monitor the dashboard for P1, P2 alerts in the Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) file share system including SMB, NFS, objects, and blocks. Attention should be maintained for any alerts such as CPU, memory, and RAM alerts, as exceeding these creates issues within teams. If triggered to 95% and forgotten, it crosses the SLA breach, causing disturbances to application, web, and platform teams. Continuous monitoring on the Nutanix dashboard is essential.

Even a highly experienced person in Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) cannot provide a 10 rating out of 10 because it is a vast system. I would rate it eight from my perspective.

View full review »

I can't think of any improvements for Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) as a platform. It works, and it's simple. I use it for specific things, and I'm used to it, so there aren't any issues that bother me. I don't use it for AI, so there may be other things that matter more. As for backup and recovery, it works great—it's performant enough for my uses and simple to manage. 

Since it's part of Prism, I might suggest integrating the management console into Prism instead of having a separate console; that's the only change I would recommend, and it's not a significant issue.

View full review »

From the speed perspective of Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS), it could enhance some features to make it the best storage solution in the market.

If Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) can enhance the speed and IO perspective, it will definitely be rated a ten. We faced a couple of challenges in SBCs.

View full review »

Since we just deployed the new instance, it is so much better than the old one that I cannot think of anything to be improved on specifically.

I did not know that you were implementing all the separate storage areas now. That was the biggest thing to be improved, so not having to do it inside the node yet have external pure storage or something similar.

I would them to have more communication with other platforms, and it appears they are already doing that.

It would be beneficial to see something NetApp in there.

It's still pretty expensive. 

View full review »

It would be beneficial if there were a migration tool for the new way of syncing data for data protection. Currently, we have 30 days' worth of snapshots going back and forth for data protection. A migration tool to transition to better syncing for DR would be valuable, as otherwise, we lose 30 days because of the storage requirement.

To improve the solution further, there could be different ways of integrating or connecting different systems to it. They should make it easier, along with providing different ways of visualizing files and storage space.

View full review »

Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) can be improved involve the limitations I've seen in Files Analytics, specifically to the number of FSVMs today that File Analytics can analyze. It's either two or three, and if you want to build out multiple FSVMs, you should expand them; instead of doing a couple of FSVMs with lots of shares, breaking it down more granularly would help. If you want to implement a version of micro-segmentation where you can create FSVMs tied to specific VLANs to really lock down the data logically, the problem is that File Analytics can't hit all those FSVMs. Anyone wanting to see what's going on in their environment might benefit from unlocking it so that File Analytics can hit any FSVMs in the cluster, which would be perfect. This isn't the case today, however, it would be something for Nutanix to consider for the future.

View full review »

Regarding Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS)'s performance for high throughputs and low latency requirements in AI and ML workflows, the problem is that we need to invest a lot of money to get AI, and therefore, we are not going to purchase AI right now because I work in a global company, and they need to figure out who we are working with, and everything. It's not something I can decide; if it was packaged or something similar, maybe I would use it. Right now, in the way that it is, I don't know where I'm going.

I really want some AI or even basic AI to be included in the Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) license. Even if it's basic, if I can do some AI on the information that I have already, that could be great, even if it's simple. I think they are making a mistake by adding everything extra because for big organizations, you need to show ROI, and if you are just playing with it, you won't have ROI.

View full review »

Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) can be improved in the area of big data workloads, as we still need to improve performance there. With big data going with Kubernetes, we need to have something more robust than the existing performance.

View full review »

Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) sits in a good place for us. The biggest improvement would be to make it more cost-effective from a storage node and storage perspective, so that the solution isn't so cost-prohibitive versus other vendors.

View full review »

A more consistent flow of information would improve the solution, as I've noticed some inconsistencies, mostly stemming from the coordination between the hardware vendor and Nutanix. 

I've encountered issues while doing manual firmware upgrades on all of our nodes, trying to locate the specific ISO image to upload through the HPE iLOs. Sometimes I've received mixed information on which one to utilize, causing a roadblock. When working within a change window and a maintenance window overnight, I need to get this done immediately and have someone online. Narrowing that down and getting it on the first try would be great.

View full review »

We couldn't access Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) from Prism Central due to bugs. The bugs that Nutanix fixed in newer versions prevented us from accessing Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) from Prism Central. There's always a solution where we can use Prism Element to access it. Improvement-wise, Nutanix should work on avoiding bugs and fixing them faster for clients. As we rely on Prism Central for many workflows, access issues are problematic. That particular issue took four or five months to get fixed due to the slow response from Nutanix. Other than that, I'm satisfied with the performance, and our Oracle team is also happy with how it's performing. I'm not seeing many complaints from them about our storage side, which is a good sign. When I'm not interacting with it every day, that means it's working as intended.

Additionally, Nutanix could enhance its knowledge base with more articles relevant to Oracle. There is a lot of content available for SQL, but not as much for Oracle-related queries. Increasing the number of knowledge base articles on Oracle would be beneficial because when facing issues, I often don't find much Oracle-related content.

View full review »

It functions as intended. We don't have any real requests or improvements. We're primarily focused on protecting our data. However, we use Varonis, so it would be nice to have better integration with that.

View full review »

I haven't dug deep enough into Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) to know where improvements are needed yet, so from an improvement standpoint, it has done everything we've thrown at it so far.

Instead of looking at it as an improvement, what's missing is not clear at the moment. There is direct integration with Pure Storage, but it's hard to say what needs improvement.

Regarding Nutanix Files, I remember they sold an appliance solely that handled file-based expansion for clusters, which raises questions about why they sold that appliance versus all the other integration partners they're compatible with. The initial features and integration with Pure Storage are impressive. The ability to plug and play with any storage solution is incredible and allows us to utilize viable storage without spending millions on Cadillac storage providers for larger flash-based arrays.

In summary for improvements, I would say stay on the integration path, keep those integrations heavy, and let us use the software and technologies with everybody.

View full review »

Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) needs improvement in compatibility with Windows solutions. Right now, we need to put it on Linus to use it effectively. As a Microsoft-heavy customer, it's important to work with Windows applications and infrastructure, and there are currently no solutions from Nutanix for that.

View full review »

The integration feature with Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) could be improved, maybe into a more stabilized version. It seems we've been having to update a lot with simple bug fixes, which is expected with a newer integration with the Cisco servers that we have. Having a long-term stable version would also be nice for customers who are more used to that.

View full review »

In terms of improvement areas for Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS), pricing is a significant issue, and another aspect is that the export of Nutanix backups does not support CD-ROMs, which is a disadvantage. Currently, it only supports QZ bus types for backups, which limits compatibility.

When comparing Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) with other solutions in the market, it falls short because it only supports iSCSI backups, while competitors also support QZ, iSCSI, fiber channel, and NVMe storage.

The solution requires no maintenance for patching since it is designed effectively, but Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) does not support fiber channel connectivity or external attached storage through NAS, limiting its compatibility. Additionally, technical support response time and efficiency are lacking in comparison to competitors.

View full review »

I don't have an answer for how Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) can be improved.

The pricing can be quite high.

They mentioned that there's support for additional encryption beyond the SMB feature on Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS), which would allow us to utilize other platforms alongside Nutanix. I'd like to explore that.

View full review »

Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) needs improvement, particularly for firmware upgrades, as sometimes updates take a whole day and it can be unclear whether the issue is with Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) or the hardware, requiring us to reconfigure everything, which is a main point we want consolidated into one solution.

Regarding the cybersecurity features of Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) when dealing with unstructured data such as ransomware threats, we haven't seen any issues yet, and the security looks good. However, it always needs improvement as technology evolves.

View full review »

Its features can be further enhanced from the DR and high availability points of view to match other vendors, such as NetApp. It has snapshot, replication, high availability, and other data and storage-level replication, but there are some limitations.

View full review »

Regarding areas where Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) could improve, they should focus on pricing transparency and reducing licensing complexity. There is a need to resolve monitoring issues and implement deep performance analytics. Third-party integration and storage improvements are necessary, especially when compared to competitors such as NetApp and AWS in terms of file sharing capabilities.

With people working on cloud platforms such as NetApp and Azure AppStacks, performance tuning issues need resolution. The system should move towards AI-driven optimization and enhance S3 object storage capabilities. Additionally, stronger data protection measures and improved data automation features would be beneficial.

View full review »

Nutanix Unified Storage is already a robust and forward-thinking platform. That said, one area for potential improvement is pricing. While it offers great value through its features and support, more flexible pricing models could make it accessible to a broader customer base, especially in emerging markets.

View full review »

I haven't directly worked with Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) enough to suggest improvements. A centralized file share permissions console might be useful for Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS). Getting in and directly managing permissions instead of using the snap-in from Windows itself might be something to consider, but that's a small thing.

View full review »

For future updates, I think Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) should look at features similar to what ONTAP of NetApp is doing, such as tiering to the public cloud. If my data is getting stale and old, I need them to keep it on-premise, but I could also probably tier it to cheaper storage on cloud, maybe archival storage on the public cloud.

View full review »

I do not know if Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) can potentially reduce in costs. Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) itself is satisfactory; I don't have any comments about improvements. 

There is potential to push this product more since it's not common in the market. They could increase their marketing efforts. 

View full review »

Five years ago, the integration and the provisioning setup for NFS were not automatic. That has been improved greatly in the latest release or the 5.x releases. There have been many great improvements. 

Pain points are just in the management and understanding of how the functions work. As far as updating and day-to-day operations, if my staff is properly trained and we have those proper training sessions, we don't have that many issues. There can be more educational resources from their side.

View full review »

Areas for improvement in Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) include more redundancy to ensure no data loss, and balancing the workloads is very important to maintain managed workloads throughout the year.

View full review »

I think Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) can be improved with integration with vendors other than VMware or Dell, seeking more integrations with other storage vendors.

For Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) to be a ten, I would want more interoperability with other platforms.

View full review »

The dashboard could be more customizable

View full review »

They can include some playbooks for storage deployment. There should be more automation. Going deeper, I would appreciate seeing out-of-the-box automation for storage provisioning and maybe some more customer-facing, web portal-type or API functionality to Jira or ServiceNow.

View full review »

The solution needs to be more open to integration with other vendors. Sometimes, we struggle with the support process. Our skilled engineers must explain our problems to everyone, even though we've already done preliminary investigations. The support team follows standard procedures, which can be painful. We're not a small customer, especially in the life sciences sector, so we'd appreciate more specialized support. I've heard Nutanix Unified Storage has teams dedicated to life sciences and healthcare; we should be part of that.

View full review »

Historically, it has been a hyper-converged infrastructure, so when you are looking to grow the solution, you need to scale the compute and storage. Having the ability to scale the storage independently would be a good improvement. 

View full review »

I suggest more flexibility and resiliency for object storage, supporting more protocols. The licensing terms are restrictive, as they go by terabyte cost. It would be beneficial to reduce costs and offer flexibility to encourage more usage of raw storage. Including a more granular snapshot restoration process would greatly improve usability, allowing us to restore deleted files rather than the entire share.

View full review »

There is no tagging concept in Nutanix Unified Storage where you can tag the servers. It is more useful for backups because I manage backups as well. In other solutions, you can group servers in the backup. Although we can do a complete cluster of VMs in Nutanix, we cannot tag the server to a particular tag ID or number you can pull from the backup solutions.

If you call for that number, the server should ideally take the backups irrespective of the cluster in which it is present. We faced issues with those things. We have to protect the entire cluster manually. The server tagging feature could be added to the solution's future releases.

We didn't face any issues in Nutanix after the upgrade, but we had issues with the Cohesity backups. We consistently work with both the vendors, and that has been fixed. So that is the only thing that we had faced up to the upgrade.

View full review »

Storage has been constantly changing due to a significant improvement in technology over the past few years. As a result, the cost of storage has generally decreased. However, in recent years, pricing has gone up in certain areas due to factors like the COVID pandemic and disruptions in the supply chain. We are currently waiting for the demand and supply to stabilize in order to improve the cost situation.

Another aspect that needs improvement is continuous protection against security threats such as ransomware and potential data leakage. These areas require enhanced security measures to safeguard the data effectively.

View full review »

At this moment, I cannot think of any improvements at the product level, everything is working extremely well.

I would like to see more components, although the analytical component is already included with Lens.

View full review »

Perhaps Unified Storage could be improved by including artificial intelligence to make searches more effective. Also, if someone has access who shouldn't, it could automatically update, so I do not need to physically remove permission. The platform could do it automatically. AI could make it more self-service.

View full review »

Nutanix could improve the ability to track user actions, such as identifying who deleted a folder. Additionally, there is confusion regarding container size management; there should be an easier way to identify container sizes and associated storage usage. Nutanix should also consider archive-like functionalities similar to AWS and Azure for unused data, and allow quota assignment on subfolders.

View full review »

It is hard to say what can be better because we have been using Nutanix products for 11 years. We have been with Nutanix for a long time, and it is difficult to find flaws. The moment we find something that is not up to our expectations, we raise a request for a new feature or engage with support. We usually get an answer fairly quickly. There is not much we are missing. When it comes to Nutanix Files, one thing that would be great is a slightly easier way of managing snapshots and restore points, especially when a third party is involved. We have a third party for backups. They look after the data that we are managing. At times, it is difficult to discern which recovery point has been generated. In a new iteration, they can perhaps amend that piece of management. It is a tiny detail. It already works, but if they can implement a more straightforward way of managing those recovery points, it will be a good thing.

View full review »

Improvement is needed regarding clarification to customers about storage capacity. While 100% storage is allocated, customers can only access 70 to 80% when examining deeply. There are some features that consume storage space, which should be addressed and avoided.

View full review »

From an improvement perspective, maybe some features can be rolled out in the GUI, especially the ones we can do only in CLI as of now. There are some processes, like if I like to change the data storage to another place, I have to use CLI, and I don't like it since I believe that it could have been simpler in GUI.

View full review »

There are some techniques in Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) that need to be improved. Sometimes, processes get stuck on the console, which requires intervention from the command lines. There are gaps between the GUI and command lines. View full review »

One thing I'd appreciate is having a desktop application similar to what VMware offered. With VMware, I could download a separate client program onto my computer, allowing me to log in directly rather than accessing the host through a browser.

View full review »

"When creating a SMB share, Nutanix Files is restricted to 100 characters, whereas Windows allows for up to 254 characters."

View full review »

While Unified Storage has evolved a lot over time, its database handling needs to improve a little. There could be an improvement in terms of costs. It's a little expensive for Brazil but still delivers a lot of performance.

View full review »

Some of the new features in the tool cannot be used with just one click, as was possible in the past. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement in the product.

The throughput or latency of Nutanix Unified Storage for data-intensive workloads, such as AI or data analytics, is better in the present compared to the past. In the past, my company faced some small problems with the latency part, but nowadays, it works very well.

In terms of the use of detecting and blocking ransomware threats, I would say that my company applies some configurations to all the data so that the other people in the environment involved in the administration part can't delete them. If someone tries to attack and delete some data, then my company has a feature in the tool to enable the protection of data so that no one can delete any data.

Implementing Nutanix Unified Storage resulted in a reduction in the number of storage nodes due to increased storage capacity per node. In the past, my company had more servers and appliances, but nowadays, we have reduced the number of appliances in the data center by around six percent. The reduction in storage nodes has affected our company's operation and business in terms of the cost of energy, environment, administration, and contracts for continuing the business in the data center.

In terms of the tools used to protect unstructured data, my company replicates the environment in one data center to another and one Nutanix cluster to another Nutanix cluster.

It is very important to use the data protection features offered by Nutanix in our company because we can have another point of data in a separate cluster of Nutanix.

My company analyzed a traditional architecture, but we saw a better solution in Nutanix because it is small, and we can run the same appliance everywhere.

The new solutions that users have been seeing for the past one or two years don't have features available in one click like they were in the past, but they do work, though it is not as easy as it was in the past.

View full review »

The graphical user interfaces could benefit from more attention to detail. Simplifying some menus and incorporating a few sub-menus would enhance the ability to manage the clusters through Prism and Prism Element.

View full review »

We need to work on reporting in Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS).

Customizing reporting needs improvement.

View full review »

The feature request I have is for the consistent improvement of how user account permissions are assigned in Nutanix Unified Storage. While there have been vast improvements over the last three years since I began using it, there's still some additional functionality I'd love to see. I believe their team is working towards those goals, but I understand that not everything can be implemented at once, and progress takes time.

View full review »

The graphical user interface could provide more detail. It would be nice if we could click on the service and get some expanded definitions of them. When hiring new people, it's difficult to teach them how everything works, but if they can access everything, they can teach themselves. 

View full review »

The integration could be improved by addressing the outstanding tasks that need to be completed before implementation can begin.

The documentation on the support site needs to be improved.

View full review »

I would like to see the integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies. That could definitely be a major breakthrough in providing a unified, seamless experience for end-users. It could reduce costs as well as human effort.

View full review »

While they are good and they do work, some of the snapshotting and tiering features are not as simple to set up as they could be. However, it has improved from when we first rolled it out about three years ago. In the newest release, they have improved the management of it a lot. I have not configured new storage, so they may have made that process easier and I do not know. The management aspect of it has improved a lot just over the few years that we have had it but the initial configuration of the snapshots and the tiering can still be a little bit difficult.

In terms of the integration of Unified Storage with Prism, the funny thing is that they have now split it out for some reason. We used to be able to manage files within Prism directly, but now they give a link to launch a files console, which then launches as a separate web page. It is not the biggest deal in the world, but it seems odd that they would take something that was integrated and now break it out. I have also questioned them on why they would do that. In the meantime, we still access it from the Prism console. We only need to open a new browser tab, so it is not that it changed that much. It just has a dedicated tab now, but it seems like an odd thing for them to do. I am not quite sure why they did it.

View full review »

The dashboard can have more details and be more useful.

View full review »

I do not have any input as such. It is a robust and simple solution. Perhaps when it comes to deploying NUS virtual machines on top of CVMs, it should not be necessary for them to be in all of them or they should require fewer resources on the servers.

View full review »

The interface could be improved.

View full review »

It could be more user-friendly. You can abstract the technical details. If you look at the IP plans and the services running underneath it, it's quite a simple product. As a customer, you get exposed to a lot of the decisions, which is not always necessary. That should be able to exist for some customers who have special needs but in general, the complexity could be lower. It looks scarier than it is.

View full review »

Its interface is very simplistic. It is a good thing for people because of the ease of use, but at times, I find it too simplistic. It is hard to find advanced options. They should eventually expand it and provide additional drop-down lists or menus with advanced feature sets. They should expand it with some additional menus and options so that we can do more. Currently, Nutanix is too simple, whereas, with other vendors, you get lost among all the buttons and menus. Nutanix is doing all that simply, but if you keep it too simple, you miss the options to do things through the UI.

The routing of their support cases could be better.

View full review »

According to the keynotes announced by Nutanix the previous day or this morning, the data storage for Kubernetes requires improvement as it has a few shortcomings in the area of operations.

View full review »

The product does not offer one console. From an improvement perspective, it should offer one console. With Prism Central, Nutanix tried to manage all the stuff, but I believe that it can be made easier.

View full review »

The solution should include more protocols to access data.

View full review »

The GUI is easy to use, but it's complex to do tasks from the command line. That is one way they could simplify things for the engineers. People tend to use a graphical interface more than the command line interface. If anything goes wrong, we need to do troubleshooting from the CLI. It would be nice if there were more ways to fix issues within the GUI. 

View full review »

Unified Storage failed to fulfill our object storage requirements.

The virtual volume has limitations. If I create more than one disk, it encounters limitations. When I mount the volume group to the physical machine, it updates the same disk or partition on the machine, which is not desirable. I was working on a media project that required ten gigabytes of data. I created a volume group of that size, but due to the limitations of the virtual disk, which can be up to 64 terabytes, I had to create a mini disk. Once I mount the disk to the physical machine, it creates a mini virtual disk or mini partition, not just a single partition.

View full review »

Its licensing can be better. They can make it easier for us to scale our infrastructure.

View full review »

From a management side, the one thing I would prefer is if it were a bit less expensive for smaller enterprises. It's a bit costly. 

If they provided flexible modules where you could pick and choose features, and only pay for what you use, that would be an improvement.

View full review »

Unfortunately, I do not have information since I did not work directly with the solution. From my point of view, which is indirect, I did not see any relevant defects or needs for marginal improvements.

The pricing could be improved. 

View full review »

I have heard that there have been latency problems. 

View full review »

There is some confusion in the reporting when I have to create the report for statistics. I find it is not so user-friendly. 

The analysis of data could be improved. We would like to have a better user experience for data analysis. 

View full review »

We are using it in a very narrow area. I am not sure if there are a lot of enhancements for that. Pricing can always be better.

View full review »

A pet peeve of mine is the integration with the hardware platforms. Each one of them presents its own use case. They have let Cisco on stage and they are bragging about it. Generally, when you buy UCS products, they want you to have FIs. FIs are nothing more than just fancy and smarter switches with a GUI. Now that they are partners with each other, you get LCM. LCM did not exist for UCS before. HPE is similar, but the integration points could be made better. 

At the surface level, they have done the handshake, and all those are wins. We are able to pick the platform of our choice and deploy it with the confidence that Nutanix is going to back it, but after having used almost all of the products that they have, except for Lenovo and Dell, I would still go with Supermicro. I would still go with the x nodes all day long. The flexibility is there. We only go to one vendor when something breaks. It just makes life easier. There is no short side to it. It is not deficient in some way based on the other ones. They are all equal, and there is more flexibility at a different price point. I don't integrate with extra partners and have to deal with whatever they have. In the long run, it would be just the devil in the details when it comes to hardware.

View full review »

There should be more information. If it gets used more by more people, they will have a bigger community to share ideas. It is still kind of newer. It is not as big as Dell and other companies. It is still newer. The older it gets, the better it will get.

View full review »

The concept of using the Gflag should not be employed in unified storage, as storage is a particularly sensitive domain. Allowing the use of the Gflag compromises the integrity of the Nutanix system and its established standards. While we do employ the Gflag to meet customer requirements, it's important to note that during maintenance activities, it becomes necessary to reset the Gflag to align with the customer's expectations. Thus, on one hand, the Gflag serves to support the customer, but on the other hand, customers become more reliant on the assistance of the Nutanix support team.

View full review »

The current hardware is not as dense as it could be. In our deployment, we have 2 PB per site, and we have to have 24 nodes. That's a lot of cabling and network ports that we use up. More dense nodes would be better.

View full review »

Security is an area for improvement. When there are vulnerabilities, there needs to be a faster approval process. The solution needs to automatically target the vulnerabilities and not waste too much time.

View full review »

While there are good aspects, I would like to see improvements in networking configuration, particularly regarding overlay and underlay, plus enhancements in micro-segmentation, as that would provide added advantages in security and data availability.

View full review »

The GUI is not user-friendly for new users and has room for improvement.

Nutanix Unified Storage could benefit from additional safeguards to enhance security and prevent data leaks.

View full review »

I haven't had any issues with the solution so far.

View full review »

It is a good solution, but every solution can be better. I would like Nutanix to provide a solution for virtual disks. This is the main problem for which we want a solution.

View full review »

There are still some gaps in the solution's synchronization that could be improved.

View full review »

The analytics part of Nutanix Unified Storage is too big and should be made smaller and less resource-hungry. I don't use the solution's object storage because I find that part too complex.

View full review »

Nutanix Files Storage lacks a user access auditing feature, and that's the feature I want to be added to the solution.

Managing other storage infrastructure on Nutanix Files Storage is an area for improvement. In particular, I want to add other forms of storage from different vendors not currently in Nutanix Files Storage, to the file server, for better management.

View full review »

What's missing in Nutanix Files Storage is the support for multiple intranets or VLANs on the same file from different networks and network devices. That feature doesn't exist today, so the Nutanix product team is working on it, as requested by my company.

There's a limitation with using multiple VLANs on the same file. Right now, it's coming from two different network switches, and the product doesn't support it because it expects all VLANs to go to the same physical switch. This isn't tolerable in my company's LAN environment, so Nutanix Files Storage needs this product enhancement or feature.

View full review »

There is room for improvement in the solution's customer service.

View full review »

It's a little bit slow because there's so much in the underlying layers that even after talking with Nutanix support, I couldn't really grasp it. 

There's still a little bit of a learning curve, but the support was really helpful.

View full review »

Nutanix needs to improve their cybersecurity options at the storage level.

View full review »

We originally deployed the file server VMs from Prism Element. So now we have to go back to Prism Element to manage them. Since then, Prism Central has gained the ability to manage file servers. It would be great if we could import older file servers into Prism Central to avoid having to manage things in two different places.

We have issues with software updates occasionally. The new features seem to be rolled out before they go through quality control.

View full review »

We would love to see the analytics and ransomware protection extended beyond just file servers to virtual machines, but they have a different product that covers that.

View full review »

I believe that one of the most complicated parts of Nutanix Unified Storage is the configuration of the DNS issue in Active Directory. Sometimes it is a bit complicated to troubleshoot or detect an error when integrating it with Active Directory.

View full review »

The solution's monitoring and security features could be improved. Nutanix Unified Storage is not easily managed by the command line.

View full review »

I don't know how the product can be made perfect. Till date, my company has not faced any significant issues with the tool. Considering that my company is already an existing partner of Nutanix, if we plan to scale up, then some improvements are required on the pricing front and the scalability feature offered by the solution.

View full review »

The solution is very expensive. It is very network intensive.

View full review »

We don't have issues with the storage. We have had to deal with some infrastructure and general cluster issues but these issues don't impact storage. 

View full review »

The solution should keep adding new features to be competitive in the market.

View full review »

The management is pretty clunky, in my opinion. It could be a little bit better.

View full review »

Nutanix should improve the one-click upgrade. There are a lot of dependencies on third-party licenses and HP hardware we use internally. The one-click upgrade fails sometimes. 

View full review »

We haven't gotten any bad feedback. 

View full review »

It is challenging to set up group policies regarding user access to the solution. We have to log on to the system for it. Instead, setting them up directly through the system would be easier.

View full review »

They should integrate additional security with Multi-Factor Authentication. Also, if they can add an integrated DLP feature, it would be great.

View full review »

The only thing I would say is missing for us it is FTP protocol compatibility. We still have some systems that use FTP to send and receive files, and we are missing that feature. The solution would be perfect for us with the FTP support, as we also have a lot of legacy FTP solutions in place spread across several different servers and platforms.

View full review »

The interface is not logical. It should be a little simpler.

View full review »

We have some problems with Nutanix Unified Storage's support because they asked us to change our hardware.

View full review »

Lowering the price would improve this product.

View full review »

The solution should increase its storage capabilities, as it has been required to make use of local data storage and local pockets and magnets. 

Also, I have had difficulty with Nutanix Files and with understanding Nutanix AOS. 

View full review »

As you have to go through all of the steps of technical support, it takes longer to get to an escalated level. The escalation process with technical support could do with some improvement.

View full review »

The storage could be improved.

The implementation is a little bit complex and should be made easier.

Better analysis capability of the files using the API would be helpful.

View full review »