Nasuni Reviews

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 The upgrades were not very smooth, but the most important thing was that it was outdated.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.

Nasuni Management Console (NMC) is super valuable, and both physical and virtual filers are also valuable. 

NMC is the one-stop place for all our filers, both virtual and physical filers. They are definitely doing a great job in housing all our documents and surveillance videos. 

It comes at a reasonable price, and their support is also very proactive. Remote support assistance where we can just turn on remote support and then Nasuni's support people help us is valuable. 

There is some room for improvement when it comes to monitoring. We are not using Nasuni monitoring. We are using our own monitoring through Xenos. Nasuni can provide better monitoring capabilities for us to monitor all the filers and NMC so that we don't have to use a third-party tool.

In our company, we have been using it for many years, but I have been using it for more than a year.

It is pretty stable. Every now and then, we face some issues, but on average, it is pretty stable, and it is pretty efficient. It is the best solution which we can use. 

The upgrades are going smoothly. We get upgrades from Nasuni once or twice every quarter, and we make sure our product is up to date. We normally have one or two weeks of cooling time after we get the latest release, but we do ensure that NMC and all filers are always up to date with the latest release and security patches.

Nasuni is scalable. We just have to buy more licenses to meet our needs. Currently, our usage is at its peak. If the license is around 226 terabytes, we are already using more than 200 terabytes. We have not crossed the limit, but in the future, we probably will have to increase the licensing capacity. I don't know about our exact plans to increase its usage, but we are definitely using it super extensively.

We have more than 1,000 users from different backgrounds. Some are from the application development side, some are from the infrastructure side, and some are from the video surveillance side. The infrastructure and operation team is one of the main users of this solution, and we take care of the infrastructure and operations side, but we also have users from all other areas who use these filers to access their documents, surveillance videos, etc.

They provide great customer service and support. Their support is very proactive, and they help us with all the issues. I would rate their support an eight out of ten.

I was not involved with its setup.

We have absolutely seen an ROI. We are super happy with our ROI.

Its price is fair and reasonable. I don't have anything negative about its pricing and licensing.

For us, there is also the cost of monitoring. We are monitoring through Xenos and not through Nasuni. That is another cost for us from the monitoring perspective, but as far as Nasuni goes, we don't have any other cost apart from the licensing fee.

I would definitely recommend Nasuni. It is a very effective and efficient product. It is reasonably priced, and it comes with great customer service and support.

I would rate Nasuni an eight out of ten.

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.

Nasuni is replacing our old file-sharing system based on StorSimple, a Microsoft appliance that uses server message block technology. SMB enables you to store a range of file types. You can store Office files and various file types that require this technology. They are application-related files that interact with executables, such as INI files, library files, etc. 

Now, Nasuni is fulfilling StorSimple's role as the multipurpose storage solution for our application-related files. It isn't storing documents like Office 365 files, PDFs, email, VIZIO, etc. We can keep those files in SharePoint.

The management console runs on a private cloud, but Nasuni hosts the file servers on an AWS public cloud. We have around 12,000 users, but the active user base is approximately 5,000. Various departments access Nasuni, including HR, finance, legal, and occasionally C-Suite executives. 

Our insurance and banking operations use it because they have managed and user-developed applications that use Nasuni and require SMB technology. It stores all the files apps need to run. Reports, documents, snapshots, and things like that are also stored in the same place in Nasuni. That's the appropriate use for it, but some users are misusing it. For example, some people are using unified storage instead of SharePoint. 

We have less downtime and fewer trouble tickets from users who cannot access their shared files. Nasuni has reduced the friction and noise associated with file management because the devices are more reliable. 

When we were using StorSimple, we had at least two priority-one incidents in which business-critical applications were affected. Those were serious problems, and we were required to notify the regulator. We haven't had any critical failures since we started using Nasuni. 

Our previous solution was noisy and awful. Now, it's quiet and smooth. We don't hear anything. I don't have precise figures, but the percentage reduction in issues must be huge. Storage was a problem for everyone, from the CIO to the engineers. We don't hear the same complaints. When we get tickets, they're not related to reliability. Our tickets mainly relate to access issues where the end-user doesn't fully understand the self-service or automated components.

StorSimple was complex and out of control. Nasuni is relatively simple, so even I can understand it. It's easy to manage, and we're happy with it operationally. 

Nasuni is adaptable to organizational changes. For example, if we did a merger or acquisition, we could easily add another volume or file-sharing instance. Nasuni could accommodate a rapid expansion or merging of data. I don't think Nasuni would make removing file shares any harder or easier. That comes down to how well the shares are named and whether we can identify who owns them. There's not enough metadata about the organizational unit on the shares to help us, so it would still be a bit of a manual process.

We couldn't just say that we're selling off this business unit that owns these, so we need to ready them for migration out of Nasuni to the host of the next organization that's taking over. There's not enough metadata on the shares to tell us. However, we could identify those using a different tool. We could analyze the data and identify the owners. That's no problem. And if we could link those to business units being sold, isolating or tagging those for migration wouldn't be that hard.

The continuous file versioning is excellent. We have a refresh cycle of around five minutes. If there were a ransomware attack, we could roll it back to as recent as five minutes ago. We typically wouldn't discover ransomware attacks too quickly, but we have that enabled, and it's handy. 

Users can also roll back files to a previous version if they know how. Otherwise, they will need to raise a ticket to notify us when a file has been corrupted, or there was an unauthorized change. Nasuni creates lots of versions and works pretty efficiently. It snapshots only the differences, so the storage doesn't get out of control. 

With continuous file versioning, we don't need to worry about timely backups and restorations. We trust Nasuni to do their full backups in an environment we can control. It's a contracted service-level agreement, so we don't need to test it, and we have no desire to. We have tested the disaster recovery process in a training scenario and will do it in production eventually. That's scheduled for later this year. It will probably be in Q4. I believe the tests we've done in training fairly represent what should happen in production if we need to restore. 

It has replaced some on-prem infrastructure when discussing hybrid situations involving a private cloud. In this case, we use a private cloud for the management console, and the file storage volumes themselves are sitting on the cloud. Most of the data is not on-prem, but we still have some on-prem infrastructure. It's on-prem because we configure and manage it and control the VM for the management console. 

I think Nasuni is cheaper to operate than our previous solution. We removed some data and plan to eliminate more, so our overall storage footprint will decrease, but it hasn't yet. We're still working on that. That will reduce costs. We had one person managing StorSimple nearly full-time, and two or three people had to frequently stick their noses in it because of the problems. It only takes half a person to manage Nasuni daily. 

We spend a little more because we're cleaning up the ownership and improving our technical state compliance monitoring. We're working with Splunk and are getting the Syslog server configured and reporting correctly, so we need a full-time person.  

Nasuni simplifies infrastructure purchasing and management because we're only responsible for our management console and the Syslog server. We provide that as VMs in our private cloud. The file storage is Nasuni's responsibility, and we pay a subscription fee per terabyte. If we want more terabytes, we ask them. They do the provisioning and expansion and seamlessly match up the volumes. 

Nasuni's security is excellent. The data is chopped up and encrypted. Even if someone manages to intercept the encrypted data, they can't make sense of it because of the way it's chopped up. 

Another thing I like about Nasuni is the way it handles private keys. It's like an escrow service, which I find trustworthy. They allow us to manage the private keys. I would think twice if Nasuni had a service where only they could control the private keys. If they had no escrow service, that would also not be ideal. The sole responsibility for the keys would rest with the customer, who may not always know how to manage those keys. If you lost the key, then too bad. All your data is gone and can't be retrieved. I think they've struck a nice balance by allowing the customer to make that choice. 

Nasuni provides enough reporting to see what's happening. You can see the number of shares, total volume, issues, conflicts, etc., but it doesn't provide much visibility from a content perspective. For example, it doesn't tell you the data age. When you're trying to sort and filter information, the data creation date is a critical factor. Nasuni doesn't give you that. You can't get a count of all the file types, like the number of PDFs, Word docs, and PPT files.

It lacks some content reporting. Then again, it's doing what it is designed to do. Nasuni provides a management console that lets you do specific functions, and it does those well. However, they haven't tried to include functionality that would be useful to people who want to manage the information at a global level. We have to use another tool for that, but it isn't expensive. 

We run scripts that take a month or more to complete because we have a lot of data. It's taking us a long time to get more detailed information on what is in there. It would be handy if Nasuni offered built-in features for reporting on data ages and file types.

Nasuni went into production in the fall of 2022. I became the product owner this month, but I have been training on it since February. 

I rate Nasuni's support a nine out of ten. I don't have regular contact with support. My engineers deal with them. I haven't heard any complaints, which is a good thing. If they were getting anything other than prompt, accurate answers, I would hear about it. 

The lady who provided the training was excellent. She used to provide advanced tech support but has since shifted to a customer success and training role. She's completely reliable. We know her and like her.

Positive

I wasn't involved in the deployment, but I believe Nasuni was relatively straightforward to deploy. At the same time, there is a lot to learn, and you need to do a lot of configuration. Based on my experience in training, I know there are probably a hundred configuration decisions to make because you have various options. I don't think it was complicated or too difficult to understand.

The deployment required four employees who were involved for several months. You need an architect and some integration people who know how it works with the licensing, provisioning, and automation of the design. After deployment, you only need one full-time person to maintain and administer the platform. 

There are cheaper forms of storage, but Nasuni is fairly priced for the functionality it offers. I can get basic file shares provisioned in Azure and pay for the storage and the CPU. The overall cost would be much less than Nasuni, but I would need to build the management console and encryption process, so it would cost a lot to develop that kind of functionality. 

Nasuni offers considerable value with its scale and attention to this particular type of storage problem. You pay a subscription per terabyte that is much more expensive than the cost of basic storage. But you need to consider the costs of the entire ecosystem and all the other things like security, encryption, reporting, and scaling. Nasuni provides a complete solution, and they've already worked out all the problems we would encounter if we tried to do it ourselves.

You sign a contract for a specified number of terabytes. If you want to increase that, you have to make a formal purchase for an agreed period. For example, we're at 200 terabytes. Once we approach full capacity, we need to make a purchase order for more terabytes and contract to pay for that for at least two years. It's a formal block approach rather than an elastic on-demand method.

I rate Nasuni a nine out of ten. I recommend taking the training. It was excellent. The presentation was clear, and our trainer was highly professional. 

We have multiple use cases. We have a lot of user data from users who share Excel files, Word files, et cetera. It is often used for their home directories, for Windows, and their folders and shared folders.

We also use it for test data.

And at remote sites where there are SQL backups, we'll dump those backups into it to get them offsite, because it's mirrored to AWS.

We also have users with multi-protocol files. They run CE solvers and the results get transferred to Nasuni and then they can get to them from wherever they are.

Nasuni has replaced multiple data silos and toolsets with a single, global file system. Once the data is in Nasuni and the users are using it, we don't have to worry about updating Windows File Servers anymore. We don't have to worry about disparate methods of access, where people are asking, "Where is this file server? Why can't I get to it?" It makes operations easier.

And the ease of backups is even more important than that, knowing data is protected. We used to chase down file servers everywhere, but now we don't have to worry about that.

Another one of the biggest benefits is the resiliency. Nasuni means our users have more uptime. We have a lot of little plants and we would often hear from them, "Oh, the file server here is down." There might only be five guys there, but now that happens way less often. It just runs. The reliability, for the users, is big.

And the Continuous File Versioning means that recovery from ransomware would be way faster. Fortunately, we haven't had any ransomware attacks since bringing up Nasuni, but in the cases where we've had to restore files for people, it's so fast that we know that if there were a ransomware attack, it would be the same situation. Also, this feature has alleviated concerns about timely backups and restores. It's affected our operations by giving us more confidence that everything is protected.

In addition, the users are always ecstatic when we show them that they can get something back themselves and that they can go to the one from yesterday or a week ago. They love it.

Nasuni has helped to eliminate on-premises infrastructure and that has been a cost-leveler. The overall cost is lower.

But the biggest thing is that we don't have to worry about budget cycles so much anymore. Instead of having to deal with spending a million dollars every five years, it's just a monthly bill now. It just runs. In terms of cash flow, compared to buying fixed assets through a hardware refresh, it has made things a lot easier to predict. It also simplifies infrastructure purchasing and support requirements, lowering the cost and allowing us to centralize things more.

The most important feature is that things are backed up automatically in AWS. We have a lot of remote sites where there is a tiny server onsite and, in a lot of cases, we really don't have to back them up because the data is automatically copied to AWS. The cloud replication is the most useful functionality for us.

In terms of file storage capacity, it enables us to provide it anywhere it’s needed, on-demand, and without limits. We just tell the users it'll cost you a little bit for every file, and go for it. They don't have to control it anymore. That's very important because it makes budget cycles easier. We, in IT, don't have to get involved in that anymore. We hand it off and say, "Okay, you guys are getting a bill every month," and we don't have to think about it.

The performance monitoring could be improved.

I have been using Nasuni for about 18 months.

We have a very good impression of the stability, so far.

The scalability is also very good. We haven't hit any brick walls. Almost everybody in our company, and we have thousands of employees, uses it in some way. They might not know that they're using it, but their files are on it.

The technical support is very good. It's definitely one of the better support teams that I've had to deal with.

Positive

We did not have a similar product. We used Windows plus VMware plus EMC storage. Now, we have a single server with a filer. It didn't really replace anything directly but you could say it replaced Windows File Servers.

Deployment required two guys over a long period of time. At this point, we have five people who know it very well and maintain it.

There is a learning curve. The disadvantage is that it's a whole new thing. You can't interview for a Windows guy and then say, "Here you go. Take care of this file server." But once you know it, any one person can take care of way more data.

ROI is hard to talk about because it's apples to oranges. In some areas, we have definitely seen ROI. For example, in user productivity when they say, "I need this file from yesterday," and we can say, "We have it," as opposed to, "I'm sorry, all we have is last week," there is ROI. We have also seen it in terms of reducing backup licensing.

Use Nasuni for a project. Pick a category, use it for that, and watch it for six months. Like a lot of cloud solutions, you don't really know what the ongoing costs of it, plus AWS, are. It's hard to determine what it will really cost you until you have used it and you see what the bills are. It's cheaper than a lot of alternatives but it's not cheap.

Years ago we looked at NetApp and one other solution. After the evaluation, those solutions just weren't quite ready. They didn't quite do everything we wanted done.

Then, about two years went by and we decided to do another round and we picked Nasuni. It seemed mature enough at that point and we haven't really compared it to anything else since then. It's done the job.

If a colleague at another company said he had concerns about the solution's performance on the cloud, I would tell him that to achieve performance X, you can do it with less need for horsepower onsite with Nasuni. If you're replacing a solution, you don't generally need hardware upgrades to do it.

Overall, there isn't much missing from Nasuni. It's good stuff.

It's mostly for internal users. We use it for internal file sharing. We have moved our various departments, such as marketing, finance, and HR, to Nasuni. We started using it because of the StorSimple devices coming to an end of life. Microsoft announced that, so we considered Nasuni as the first option for internal file sharing of users.

It's on the cloud, but we started on-prem. We borrowed the filer from Nasuni themselves and completed the migration just to speed up the process, and then we sent the filer back. We are now completely on the cloud backed up by AWS.

We are using its latest version. We did the update two weeks ago to the latest version that we received from them.

Snapshot backup has been a lifesaver. It sometimes used to take us close to five hours to back up one spreadsheet for users because we were using physical file servers. We have not received any complaints from users regarding the performance or a connection or network not being available. It has been good so far.

Nasuni has also helped with data consolidation. It has improved our compliance and risk management with data consolidation. We have all our data in one place.

Nasuni has replaced multiple data silos and toolsets with a single global file system. We are only using a single, global file system instead of the five physical servers that we had previously. It's really good. We started with this project because we wanted to do data migration because of the StorSimple issue, but then we found out that we could do data consolidation at the same time because it did support multi-site access. We now have all our data centralized in one place, which is very helpful and useful. At the time of considering and doing data redundancy, we will only have to do it on one site instead of multiple sites.

Nasuni has helped to eliminate on-premises infrastructure. We were using five physical servers before. Instead of them advising us to buy a physical server to do the migration, they lent us one for free. We did our migration, and we sent it back to them, so that was a great call from them. We didn't even know that option was available. It was their sales team that suggested this. Otherwise, we would have ended up with one file server that we would not have been using. It would have been just on commission if we had to buy it ourselves.

Nasuni offers a single platform with a 360-degree view of our file data. We call it Nasuni Management Console. They do provide their own console for us to manage our data, which is a shift from the old way of managing our data. We used to have to physically log into the server and manage our data, but now, we manage it all in one place. It's quite an easy and straightforward process.

Nasuni doesn't provide file storage capacity anywhere it’s needed, on-demand, and without limits. You would have to sign up with them, but you can always request or demand a capacity increase. You have to go through a process with them, but the customer support is quite fast, so you can request it and then get it applied within the same day. I'm not sure about unlimited, but I know that we're using 20 terabytes, and we're able to expand it if we want to. It's $850 per terabyte. We do need this capability to be able to expand because it's an internal file system. At some point, our security team might decide to do a backup of the data, and that will just double the size. We need to have on-demand storage capacity support because the company data is growing day by day, so we would always need it. We would need to request more storage from Nasuni in the next couple of months.

With the support that was provided for us, it was easy to configure the solution to support organizational changes. It wasn't very easy, but it was easy. They were with us every step of the way. With their support, it got quite easy for us. We expected it to be way more complicated than this. It did not affect our business in a bad way. There was hardly any downtime. We completed the data migration, and then we did the switch within five minutes to Nasuni filer. It affected our business in a good way that the users did not even feel the change. A lot of users did not even notice the changes until we told them. We had to tell them to change the path they were accessing or the directories they were accessing. That was the only way it affected users, but that's not just with Nasuni. It would have been with any other vendor.

Nasuni has also simplified infrastructure purchasing and support requirements. We no longer have to worry about buying physical equipment. In terms of its effect on the time and effort spent on infrastructure support, we will be able to measure that only after a year. Next year, we don't have to worry about backup. We don't have to worry about maintaining the devices or upgrading them to the physical ones or buying or renewing a license. Overall, it has helped a lot. It would be a great shift next year once we do the infrastructure budget again.

Snapshot backup is most valuable. It's quick and easy to use. It's controlled only by an administrator, which is very good. It takes 10 seconds to back up a spreadsheet of three or four megabytes.

It can be improved in terms of retention policy or data retention for the volumes. We found this quite frustrating because different departments in our organization require different retention policies. For instance, the finance team wants their data to be kept for seven years. It's a legal requirement, whereas the HR team needs it to be kept for 10 years. The marketing team only wants it for the next two years. Nasuni does not support different retention policies within the same volume, so you have to keep creating volumes for retention policies. When you create a new volume, it means you're starting from zero all over again. You can't move data between two volumes. You have to move them from your physical device to Nasuni or your cloud device to Nasuni. That has added a lot of time for us because we were not aware of that feature, but when we shared this with Nasuni, they said it's something they'll be working on in the next quarter.

We started with it in November. We have been actively using it since November, but we started the process of migration in late August. It has been less than a year. 

So far, we haven't had any issues with them. It has been good so far. The stability has been good and on point.

Currently, we have around 400 internal users.

Their support is very good. I'd rate them a nine out of ten. When we send an email, we get a response from them within the next three hours. 

Positive

We had StorSimple from Microsoft. We switched to Nasuni because StorSimple devices were coming to an end of life.

It was straightforward because we got support from Nasuni every step of the way. There were two people involved in its deployment: myself and someone else.

It took us about two weeks between meetings and having an initial deployment. It would have taken one week if we were properly organized from our end as well because a lot of the staff were not available.

It has been a pleasure working with them. They have been one of the best vendors so far. They are quite good, and I just hope we can continue this with them.

It's too soon for that. In one year's time, we will be able to give a full financial overview of how much is saved in terms of costs.

When it comes to business agility and cash flow compared to buying fixed assets through a hardware refresh, with Nasuni, it's the way forward. It's not just Nasuni, it's with everything. It's the way forward for the infrastructure of any IT department to buy everything on the cloud.

We are trying to move everything to the cloud. It has saved us about five grand in the total overall project cost. In the long run, it's going to reduce the carbon footprint as well. At this time, it's hard to say whether it has decreased capital costs. This kind of feedback would be possible in about a year's time because we've paid for the initial project. We paid for the S3 bucket on AWS, so our cost is quite high, but we will be able to evaluate the cost next year. We had to pay for everything at once, and we have been using it for less than a year. Next year, the cost will be very, very low because we don't have to renew the S3 bucket anymore. We've already bought a few years of reservation with them.

We did evaluate Azure Files and AWS as well, but the costs were quite high for both of them. They did not meet the security requirements, whereas Nasuni met the security requirements we had.

Do a cleanup before you get the initial cost. Do the data cleanup. Because we didn't clean our data properly, it came out to be 20 terabytes. We ended up using about 12 terabytes, but we had already signed the contract with Nasuni. This is no fault from Nasuni's end; it's from our end. So, organize your data, clean it up, and then request the quotation from Nasuni.

Any infrastructure team that wants to move to this solution should clean their data and consider retention policies. These are the two lessons we've learned from using this solution. Check with different departments because apparently, every department has its own retention policy. We found this the hard way.

To someone who has concerns about migration to the cloud and about the solution’s performance, I would say that we had the same concern, but four months in with Nasuni, we did not receive a single complaint from the users, whereas with our previous solution, we had filers at the same physical location where the users were based, but we used to get a lot of complaints about the performance and stability. I would recommend testing it out and reading the reviews about it.

In terms of our cloud strategy, we only have snapshots and backups. We have an active backup, which was advised by Nasuni anyway, and we applied a few retention policies as well on some of the files. This is the strategy we currently have. We will be considering redundancy, but because of the cost, we will just put that on hold until next year.

We have not used Nasuni for data protection. It was just a budget issue from our security team. They already had data protection with other vendors, and they will wait for that contract to finish.

We have not used the Access Anywhere feature, but we are considering it. We had a meeting with them last week regarding Access Anywhere. We haven't yet had an in-depth conversation with them. We have also not used the Continuous File Versioning feature or add-on services.

Overall, I'd rate Nasuni an eight out of ten.

We have one parent file system connected to three Nasuni systems. One is in the APAC region, and two are located in the US. The file system is connected across all three locations so that people can access the file system anywhere in the network. 

It's connected to object storage in the background, and we have some capacity there. We have a license of up to 500 TB that we manage, including all the data required for archiving or anything. We use it to create a backup pool in our cloud object storage and only use it for full backup.

We use Nasuni for daily activities. For example, some file shares have assigned tools and servers. People use it to create some requests for data recovery when data on the server is lost. The user asks us to create a new location from Nasuni. We also have some patches that must be updated on the cloud each month, and I'll use Nasuni to monitor any issues. 

Nasuni enabled us to eliminate on-premise infrastructure. This is an important benefit everyone should know about. If you have some kind of VDI environment, people don't want to lose access. Once you have this availability option, it makes your data access seamless if there are any outages.  

We like Nasuni's snapshot technology. The snapshot and recovery features are the things we use most frequently. Ideally, I would recommend NFS or CFS, which gives you more benefits for clients or anyone who wants to access FTP protocol, FTP utilities, SAN, and MSS.

The visibility Nasuni provides is top-notch. When there is an issue in the environment, and you open a ticket, they immediately come into the picture and help you find the solution.

Nasuni's data protection is crucial for our organization. All of the file systems we manage are protected. We're protected if users accidentally delete files or move data from one file system to another. We can recover the data using the snapshot functionality.

You can see whether your data is protected from the console. From there, you can view the missing data and recover it. Every device is visible in a centralized monitoring tool we call the MMC console. It can discover all the nodes or the necessary systems that are managed in the environment.

It's a user-friendly tool with a beautiful graphical interface. Anyone can use the management interface. If you're a layperson who doesn't know how to use Nasuni, I would only need to teach you the fundamentals of NAS technology.

Some applications may not be suited for the Nasuni environment. You may need something with better performance. Otherwise, if you want to run daily operations or some file system, it's a good bet. 

I have worked with Nasuni for three years.

I rate Nasuni seven out of 10 for stability. Nasuni is a stable solution if you understand the environment, and you've properly designed your environment. 

We can expand file storage capacity on-demand and without limitations.

I'm in India, and our support comes from the US, so it's always a little bit difficult to engage Nasuni during non-business hours. I would recommend providing support during the working hours of other regions. 

I don't think we use Natsuni for VDI environments. We do have another environment that uses NetApp.

Setting up Nasuni is straightforward, but it can be complicated to connect it with the technology on the back end. Nasuni is built on the cloud, and there's an appliance on top of that. The initial setup only takes five to 10 minutes. The deployment of Natsuni is very simple. It involves creating a VM in the cloud, and you create a Nasuni image on top of that. In our case, the back end is an IBM product.

Nasuni is cost-effective. If you need something that delivers a lot of value for the cost, Nasuni is a good thing. 

I rate Nasuni seven out of 10. It isn't an ideal solution for all applications you have in your environment. If I'm an IT person, I do have a lot of other applications sitting in there, so I might need to adopt some other storage vendor for those. I might need to procure some other storage technology for other applications if I'm a business person, for example.

We have people in the field worldwide who go to various locations to gather data. After they gather the data, they need to upload it for our lab technicians and services to analyze. Somebody's out in a remote location, and they need to get that data back to the United States, but we can't send it via FTP to the local office. We need a system that can quickly offload the data to the technician and an automated way to deliver it to the branches. That's what Nasuni does for us.

Our company has 10 major locations, and the user count is about 150 at any given time. Nasuni users include data analysts, lab technicians, field technicians, and branch personnel administrators.

Nasuni enabled us to take data from on-premise data centers and put it in the cloud, so our technicians now have access from anywhere that is connected to our network. Everything was previously on legacy on-prem Windows Servers, and employees had to VPN into the network. You had to use standard network transfer systems. Nasuni allowed our entire operations group to become cloud-based.

Our strategy is to migrate everything we can to the cloud. Nasuni is tightly integrated with Azure, so we can seamlessly leverage infrastructure as a service up in the cloud.

We've replaced some of our on-premise infrastructure with Nasuni appliances, which has many benefits. We still have on-premises hardware, but they are Nasuni appliances built to operate in the company's technology.

Nasuni is a top-tier solution, and we pay a lot for it, so I don't know if it's necessarily helped cut our costs. It may have reduced some work for IT personnel. As an administrator, I can say that IT technicians would need to spend more time on standard maintenance tasks if we were working with a traditional solution. 

Adjusting the solution to our organizational processes has been effortless. It's seamless to roll out any update. It's only as difficult as we make it. For example, Nasuni allows us to automatically update all systems within the environment, and we only scale it back to the policy, so we can test those operations before they are implemented. Nasuni fully automates the process of updating to the latest and greatest features with minimal manual interference. 

Fortunately, we've never had a ransomware attack, but that could be because Nasuni has ransomware detection built into it. We have never had to recover from a ransomware attack on our Nasuni systems. Ransomware attacks on our traditional services were a nightmare to deal with, but we've never had that happen on our Nasuni infrastructure.

Nasuni's unified file system makes everything across the world appear as if it were in a single local directory for all users. Regardless of where an employee is, that data appears to an end-user as if it is sitting right there in their local office.
Nasuni's unified file system replaced one of our most critical operations, but not all of them. We still need to maintain software integration with legacy systems.

Nasuni offers a 360-degree view of our files to all global end-users by providing a single location where users can go. Nasuni technology allows us to operate without the delays associated with traditional systems. It provides unlimited on-demand storage capacity for our primary data centers and remote locations. This is mission-critical functionality.

Data protection is another crucial feature. We must protect field data that is uploaded to our data centers, and we rely on Nasuni's security pieces, including encryption and built-in malware detection. Our data must be encrypted, and we would face massive risks if the data were compromised.

Nasuni's continuous file versioning has been crucial on multiple occasions when files were accidentally deleted or when data was corrupted. The snapshot allows us to retrieve that data quickly. We can sit back and allow the Nasuni system to take care of our backups with no additional configuration on Azure or the infrastructure side. Nasuni provides all the essential pieces we need to utilize their service without having to implement any additional third-party products.

When users inadvertently delete or corrupt data, they can restore a previous version. With a few clicks, Nasuni enables us to do what would otherwise require significant effort with a traditional backup system. This feature reduced costs and effort because it's built into the system.

Nasuni could improve cloud integration and documentation of various ways we can leverage the product. It integrates with Azure, but the native Azure File Sync solution lets you divide data into tiers like hot, cool, and archived. Nasuni doesn't allow you to break the data apart into those tiered categories. 

That's helpful on the Azure side because you can control costs for data that isn't accessed frequently. Data classified as "cool" or "archived" costs less in Azure. The ability to separate that data within Nasuni would be an enhancement that allows customers to save money on Azure-based backend data storage.

We've used Nasuni since 2016.

We have never had a problem with Nasuni, and they have provided excellent support for any minor issues we've had. Most problems we've faced weren't Nasuni's fault. Any outages are typically due to failures in our network infrastructure or a local power outage. Nasuni can come back online as soon as the network connection is restored. 

I rate Nasuni support a 10 out of 10. Nasuni's support is helpful and they're always getting better. They provided solid support in the early days, but I think the product was also new for them. You could tell that some of their support engineers were still getting used to the product themselves. They work with you until the problem is resolved instead of just pointing to the documentation. 

Positive

We previously used legacy Windows File Servers and traditional network setups. That was a pain because we couldn't unify the directory structure, which is a core feature of Nasuni. We had legacy file servers out there in these branch offices and were using traditional file commands to exchange data between the various locations.

It's all automatic once everything is configured within the Nasuni environment. All the data is there. The fact that it comprises files hosted on the local filers means that you're not consuming the type of bandwidth you would be consuming with a Windows system. The difference is night and day. 

Setting up Nasuni was pretty straightforward with some help from Nasuni. There were some prerequisites, and we had to explain to various groups how to prepare. The product was new, so many people didn't understand how it worked. Don't try to go at it alone. It's best to get the Nasuni professional services team to help you implement it. 

The initial setup took a few days, but we spent several weeks migrating large amounts of data from our legacy systems. It took us longer because of limitations on bandwidth. Once the migration was started, it was just a matter of waiting for that data to transfer across.

We had help from Nasuni professional services. 

The ROI is a reduction of labor hours on the IT side. We spend less on maintenance, and our people in the field don't need to go to an office to upload their data. Nasuni allows the technician to do it from the field.

If you plan to implement Nasuni, you should consider your data retention requirements and the amount of data you will use. You need to know how much data will be stored under the Nasuni license and where that data will sit. For example, we have our data stored on the Azure cloud, and we have to pay Azure for that. We pay the license for Nasuni technology to access that data. You need to clearly understand that so you won't be surprised by what you might perceive as double billing.

It's essential also to understand the requirements at each location because there is a charge for outgoing data. For example, you will spend a lot more on a Nasuni appliance at a massive on-premise data center, but a smaller appliance may work for a branch office in a remote location. You can save lots of money on data costs for whichever cloud platform you use. 

Nasuni hardware appliances have a product life of seven years, so you must purchase a new filer if you want continued support. 

Another team in our group evaluated a competing product and ruled it out quickly because it didn't meet our requirements. Nasuni helped us set up a proof of concept in a demo environment, whereas the other vendor was unable to do that.

I rate Nasuni a 10 out of 10. It performs a critical function when we deal with customer data that must be analyzed quickly. Field staff can upload the data and disseminate it to other places for deep analysis. If Nasuni ever went down, alarm bells would go off throughout the company. That's how essential it is. 

I would recommend Nasuni because it's a proven product that has delivered results for us even in the worst-case scenario. If you're still using a traditional cloud solution like native Azure products, you are still susceptible to human error. Also, you would need to architect your backup and DR solutions, then integrate, maintain, and administer them.

Nasuni has built-in security, so we're not worried about hosting our data on it. If you regularly do massive file transfers between multiple locations, Nasuni has an advantage over its competitors. 

I am a Nasuni implementer, not an end user. We have deployed Nasuni at nearly 150 offices worldwide. The backend is an IBM cloud, and we use VMware ESXi on the deployment side. Due to the price of the IBM cloud, we will likely switch to Azure or AWS. 

From a disaster recovery perspective, we have synchronization across three locations: Houston, Atlanta, and one other. Nasuni is replicating among those. The IBM cloud is in the backend, and we deploy the Nasuni filer appliance to various locations. It transmits the cache to that particular location's bucket, which is replicated in the cloud data center, providing redundancy.

We haven't enabled Nasuni's Access Anywhere feature on this project because the client doesn't want users to access storage from anywhere. Users need to connect with the network via VPN, and they access the solution from there. We have also enabled global file locking, where the data resides at other locations, but most users access it from another place. 

In organizations where we had implemented Nasuni, we performed migrations and a few other tasks, like consolidating the data and legacy domains. We migrated the existing data onto Nasuni, simplifying the environment by consolidating multiple file servers at the exact location. We eliminated the numerous storage devices from Windows, NetApp, or other vendors.

By switching our clients to Nasuni, we decreased our clients' on-prem footprint and significantly reduced costs. For example, let's say a client has ten NetApp file servers in one location, we can replace all of those with a single Nasuni appliance. A mid-sized appliance can replace five or six file servers, and a small one can replace one or two. 

When existing file servers reach the end of their lifecycles, we must replace them with new hardware. We recommended that the client adopt Nasuni, so the client saved capital costs by reducing the hardware space and hosting charges. At the end of the day, it definitely reduces capital and operational costs. I can't say how much because I'm unaware of the license costs. 

My clients are happy with Nasuni because the transmission is seamless, and it consolidates all the existing file servers into one location. Also, Nasuni has no boundaries. It's infinitely expandable. They don't have to rely on the service provider for backup and restoration. It's self-serve. 

Nasuni has an excellent management console that gives us visibility into all locations worldwide. Everything is visible from a single dashboard. We can see the amount of data stored and the number of servers or users connected. It also has metrics on the utilization of bandwidth and other resources. Nasuni provides a single portal from which we can control and monitor data. 

It offers clients unlimited file-storage expansion with an IBM cloud on the backend. We buy petabyte licenses for our clients and add licenses if we exceed the limit.

Data protection is another crucial feature. Nasuni creates snapshots of the data in my environment with versioning. Users can revert to the previous versions on their own. We have a strong contingency plan if a client is attacked. They can restore the data from the portal. 

We forecasted that the data at my client's organization would grow by about ten percent annually, but we are migrating more data because we are bringing in some servers that had not previously been within the scope of our license. We expected it would take us two years to reach a specific amount of data, but we hit that mark in one year. The licensing cost skyrocketed, so we need to renegotiate. It puts us in a bind because we are reliant on Nasuni for our service strategy. We can't deny our customers, but we also struggle to pay for that. 

I have used Nasuni for two and a half years. Once we finish migrating this organization to Nasuni in July, I will move on to another project. 

We haven't experienced any downtime in the last two-and-a-half years during our global deployment. So we haven't got any downtime because everything is hosted in our organization. We can't say that it's hosted somewhere else. If it is going to be down, that means our infrastructure is going down first.

I rate Nasuni support a ten out of ten. They provide instant support when we have an outage that affects 20 or so users. Nasuni sends a senior engineer. Other vendors like Microsoft don't escalate that quickly. 

Positive

My clients used on-prem Windows file servers in each office, but Nasuni is a cloud-based solution, so it's more reliable. Nasuni has advantages over competing solutions like Windows File Server, NetApp, StorSimple, etc. Nasuni provides a single portal we can use to manage and monitor data. 

It also allows unlimited expansion of storage, which is unavailable on a traditional Windows File Server. You aren't limited by dependence on a storage site or the EMC backup. Nasuni's console backs up automatically without any interventions, and you can restore from there. Nasuni has many features that Windows Files Server or NetApp devices can't provide.

I can only speak for my client's use case, but deploying Nansuni was complex because we migrated data from existing Windows file servers or traditional storage solutions to Nasuni. It was a complex lift-and-shift operation because we needed to consolidate the domains and data. However, it should be straightforward if you are migrating some existing data to Nasuni. 

We did the POC in 2018 but didn't deploy Nasuni until 2020. We were doing POCs for multiple solutions before we finalized our decision. The implementation started in 2020, and we still aren't finished with the project, but we finished deploying most of the locations. The total deployment time depends on the organization's size, the number of servers and locations, and the amount of data you are migrating.  

Our client determined the deployment strategy. After the POC, the client was more confident in the solution, and a strategy started taking shape, but new challenges emerged. We had to consult with the IT teams at each location, who were worried about where the data would reside and complications due to GDPR or other national regulations that require data to stay within the country. The strategy was not a straight line and depended on various agreements everyone had to reach. 

The size of the team needed also depends on your organization and the number of filers deployed across the organization. I can't give a simple answer that you need X number of people. In our case, it involved VM, storage, cloud, and network teams. 

After deployment, we have to do periodic upgrades. Nasuni's management console displays the version of each filer. We need to upgrade, but it requires downtime. Each week, we have a region-specific patching window. The management is easy and practical. 

We are the implementer, but we open a ticket with Nasuni support when we face an issue that we can't fix. We provide them remote access, so they take over the console and fix the issue. 

Azure has a similar solution in its early stages called StorSimple, but it isn't as reliable yet. You can control and integrate multiple clouds in the backend seamlessly and control storage globally from a single console.

I rate Nasuni a nine out of ten. I'm satisfied.

If you plan to implement Nasuni, I recommend reading the company's white paper with all the details and technical specifications during the POC. Nasuni allocated a dedicated resource to help us through the POC process. Contact Nasuni and see what resources are available to help you implement it.