Our client had some old Citrix Xen servers for which there is no direct migration. Nutanix has a move utility for Microsoft Hyper-V clusters or VMware clusters. You can easily migrate them using the move utility, but the Xen clusters cannot be migrated in a simple way. That is the only thing that is lacking, but nowadays, no one uses the Citrix Xen server for their clusters. Everything else is already there. Nutanix keeps on upgrading its hardware's or hypervisor's capability to be able to support new technologies. 

Usually, there are separate administration teams that take care of servers, but in our organization, servers are usually looked after by the application owner. However, the application owners cannot reinstall the software, OS, and other things. That only aligns with the role of the HCI administrator. If these rights can be provided, it will be very easy. Previously, it was there, but after certain updates, we found that they have withdrawn those services. For example, you requested a VM, and based on the business use case, I approved it and gave you a bare-metal server. Now you are the owner of that particular VM, so whatever you need, you should be able to do over there, but currently, you have to request me for the installation of the OS that you need, and I have to do it. It is an overhead for the HCI administrator. If that can be offloaded to the VM owners, that will be much easier for us. I have already shared this feedback with Nutanix.

The cost is a pain point.

Nutanix can be a bit complex to understand. There need to be more technicians that can be more specialized and work more closely with the final customer. There needs to be people with more technical skills with Nutanix in the market from countries that aren't just the US and UK.

Sometimes there are language barriers that are hard to overcome.

I only started using the solution a few months ago. So far, I've found error reporting needs work. The reporting feature isn't very good. Sometimes it takes time for data to be reflected in the dashboard. 

We'd like to have more Kubernetes information in the dashboard. That kind of dashboard would help.

The documentation could be improved. To better assist new users, I'd recommend including more detailed instructions and making the content more user-friendly. For example, it would be helpful if Nutanix offered a video explaining the key differences between their features and those of their competitors.

They need to improve the look and feel of the interface. The functionality is fine, but the appearance could be better.

I would like to see more Kubernetes and container-related workflows and multiple cloud-partner management. I would also like to see how they will synergize all these AI/ML functionalities that are available on other platforms. We need to see those intelligent functionalities included.

One of the improvements I would like to have is related to naming. It gets confusing because they are using three-letter acronyms, which are more or less misleading. What I do not like is that they changed names and reused names. They had a meaning in the past and they are still using the names for something similar. It is not related to the product. It is related to the naming conventions thing because this is driving partners and even customers crazy because the name is still the same, but the product in the backend is a completely different product. 

The product should improve its naming convention. The name of the solutions offered by Nutanix does not indicate what the tool does.

It already has the capability to integrate with the major cloud providers but, in an upcoming release, if there is a possibility to have it integrate with other cloud providers like IBM, Alibaba, and other moderate-level cloud providers, that would be good.

Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure lacks compatibility with certain older processors. When a customer purchases five or six nodes and two or three of them intend to buy two additional nodes, there can be compatibility issues with the hardware configuration.

The price is high and has room for improvement.

The maintenance can be improved.

NCI's pricing is expensive. 

Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure's LTS version needs to be more reliable. I've run into too many issues where I've found the bug, and it caused a lot of grief. Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure should do more testing on its LTS version and get that straightened out.

Performance-wise, there is an upper limit on the number of nodes that Prism Element and Prism Central can handle. My two Prism Centrals are scaled for huge workloads, but I struggled with them for a better part of five or six months, where they were timing out on my admins and throwing random errors. The same thing was happening with Prism Element in our larger clusters.

The support could be improved.

Some customers who use Oracle on-premises would like something similar. They don't want to migrate their dedicated server, which is on-premises. They would like it tied to Nutanix on their premises, however, right now, we can only offer a migration for them from their on-premises Oracle model to our Nutanix cloud. For security reasons, they aren't allowed to do this. They can't move to the cloud.

We'd like to have more resource management.

In the next release of this solution, they could improve by being more competitive with VMware. I would like all third-party solutions to work well with Nutanix Acropolis AOS.

The latency needs improvement, particularly in terms of storage. The current system has complex storage issues, compounded by legacy infrastructure-blocking incident software. To address this, an enhancement in storage capacity is crucial, which, in turn, would contribute to a decrease in latency.

The feature that is lacking right now is the backup. It does not have good backup feature tools, like having templates or being able to back up every two or three days. 

The product requires a lot of resources. We have to assign a lot of resources to the servers.

The reporting section of the dashboard could be improved to include more detailed reporting about the servers. 

Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure's cloud platform management software could be improved so that I can manage my load between the cloud and on-premises.

They could improve the graphical user interface. 

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

I would enjoy an advanced mode where experienced users can leverage their knowledge to do advanced things currently only allowed using the command line tools on the CVM.

While using the Shell is okay for such advanced things like take a disk image as a ground for a Calm blueprint it would be easier to get it done via GUI. Even more so if you just follow the directions of a colleague.

Currently, that kind of task is limited to the shell.

The software-defined networking should be improved. It is quite substandard as compared to the VMware variant. The software-defined networking is quite limited, and we usually use other products to do that. We're aware that Nutanix is working on that and will be coming out with better solutions, and we can't wait because to do a fully software-defined architecture, the abstraction layer needs not only software-defined storage, which you have, but also the software-defined networking piece.

The patch updates of Nutanix Acropolis could be improved. I'm work on the corporate side, but I get feedback from our IT team that patch updates and other updates are taking a significantly longer time. This definitely needs to be resolved. We are in discussion with Nutanix regarding certain configuration issues we are having, so maybe something can be changed to ease these patch updates. 

Although Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure is adding features that can enhance the solution, there is still room for improvement in terms of functionality. 

The licensing cost could be lower.

Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure can be improved in terms of the sizing of the solution. Recently, I have had minimum requirements or usage of the solution. So, small and medium enterprises will not fit into such a scale.

There is a cost for us with a Controller VM. For example, if you are purchasing a Nutanix node with 500GB, then 32GB of that node will need to be allocated for Controller VM. Therefore, we need to spend 32GB of RAM for Nutanix, which is not in our production requirements. This is an area that they need to improve.

Most other software comes as an OVF template. These kinds of OVF software templates are only supported in VMware. We technically can customize and use them in Nutanix, but the vendors tell us that there are technical issues that they will not support. So, they either have to improve this or software providers have to provide the proper software for Nutanix supported software.

It is a CentOS-based operating system, but CentOS releases security patches almost every week or every other week. However, Nutanix releases their upgrade at three or four month intervals. According to my organization's SLA, if a critical patch is released during that time, then I need to implement the patches within 30 days. If it is a standard patch, then I need to patch it within 60 days. Since that is my SLA, I cannot meet my SLA for security because Nutanix will not release the upgrade within these 30 days. Between the critical patch release and the Nutanix release, my customers say they are vulnerable and I am accepting the risk while the SLA is breached. Because of this SLA breach, I am rating this solution as eight out of 10.

In terms of what I would like to see improved, I would say the life cycle management. I don't know if it is because they changed to an LCM from the previous way of upgrading the hardware or software but sometimes it feels that it needs a wizard that says, "Check this, check this," telling you your options. The only thing that's a bit frustrating for me is the life cycle management interface. That's the only thing on the entire system that frustrates me. I'm very, very happy with the other stuff.

Nutanix needs to improve network features like Passthrough – SR-IOV. It could be improved by supporting SR-IOV, if they had that support, I would not have needed to implement the VMWare vSAN.

SR-IOV give the ability for a VM to use the physical NIC as its own NIC with all the network featuers on that NIC.

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

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

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

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

There are various areas, but all points that I could mention are under development and get to you free of charge with another single-click cluster-upgrade.

To name some: Native File-Services are under heavy development and Container Services just came out.

The pricing model for software and hardware subscription renewals can be improved.

Nutanix Files is a new feature and, as I mentioned, it's immature, although it's a good tool. I have already given this feedback to the engineering team. 

In terms of automation, I know there are ways to do it, but it's not very user-friendly. I've been working for the last three years with Nutanix and I've managed to automate certain things, but it's a somewhat more complex job than it should be. I would like to see more documentation or knowledge base articles. There should also be some pre-built, basic tasks that are shared by Nutanix. That would be helpful. I understand the other side of the picture, that we might hamper production, but some basics that can be shared by Nutanix, for automation, would be good.

There are a lot of things to be worked on. They need to provide more features and certain features that have been released need to be made more mature.

The ability to create clusters faster would be nice to see in a future release.

As Nutanix Acropolis AOS is on the expensive side, one of its areas for improvement is the price.

An additional feature I'd like to see in this product in the next release is for it to have integration with other cloud providers, e.g. Amazon, Azure, etc. Currently, it's only for private cloud, so it would be better if we can benefit from integrating Nutanix Acropolis AOS with other cloud providers.

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

One thing I've noticed is that, when you do a shift from VMware to Nutanix, it opens the setup of the VM that's currently running. If people from another site double click on it, it opens the VM instead of the setup of the unit. So I would suggest that this could perhaps be switched. That is so far the only change I would like. I would like it if they could fix the instance where you double click on a VM and it opens the VM instead of the setup. That's the only thing that's a major bother to me.

Nutanix Acropolis AOS is new technology in a competitive market. Pricing is too high for a new product and requires better discounts to be able to compete with IBM, Dell EMC, and HP.

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

I think some of the tasks that must be done using CLI could be added to the web interface.

I think it is kind of frustrating, opening a CLI session going through all the CLI commands you have to run to accomplish that task and then get back to the web console to continue doing what you were doing. It would be much easier to have that same setup option available on the web console.

Also, I believe that running several different commands through a CLI can increase the chance of typos/mistakes, resulting in a bigger issue.

Our challenge has been to simplify our data center, reduce OPEX, easily scale out, and improve agility. Here are some improvements that we would like to see:

• Reduce our data center footprint.
• Reduce its power consumption.
• Make it easier to manage.
• Have an agile data center.

In a hybrid cloud setup, we should be able to port our floors from on-premises to the public cloud and from the public cloud to on-premises.

It has the ability to connect to Azure or AWS for storing backups. I would like to have the capability to spin up a backup on Azure or AWS for disaster recovery purposes.
Right now, you can only send a backup to either Azure or AWS. We would like to take a backup and spin it up to an actual server that could be connected to by users from the outside. This is on their (Nutanix) roadmap but the functionality doesn’t exist at this time.

Site-to-site replication needs some work. It’s not as feature rich for a disaster recovery implementation as I would like to see, but my understanding is that it is slated for improvement in near-future releases. DRS-like functionality is also a much-desired feature that is also slated for future release. Third-party solutions are also few and far between as of right now since Nutanix is so new. In regards to third-party backup solutions, your only agentless option is Commvault, which is expensive, complex and requires intensive vendor training. We opted to use the built-in snapshot replication options to Azure.

The look and feel of the web GUI of Nutanix Acropolis AOS needs improvement, when compared to other systems, e.g. VMware Orchestrator. For example, finding important features of the system should be easier. The features should be made more visible and easier to find, rather than having to figure them out and reconfigure them.

Another area from improvement for the system is hardware integration. I had some issues with the integration with the hardware vendor, in particular, Dell. The integration was really tricky, but the reason could be between the two vendors: Nutanix and Dell, because they have different life cycles for the deployment. The integration issue could be because of the hardware, firmware of Dell, and Dell had a different life cycle for the renewal of an update of the firmware, for the servers like Nutanix. We also had some issues with some Dell-related drivers, and that consumed a lot of time.

A one-touch system for integration could be an improvement. Having a one-touch update is also a very good idea. For example, you'll just need to push the button for the system to be updated automatically, e.g. for updating the firmware, hardware, disk, etc.

Nutanix Acropolis AOS which was integrated with Dell was not running well. What was running well was less than 50%, and the other updates have failed because of issues between the firmware, the server, and the system. This is why hardware integration with this system needs improvement.

Storage utilization and optimization should be better. 

While the product is great, in certain situations we find it less easy to deal with than how it is presented. 

In the next release, I hope to see a certain and easier means of doing updates, since we have encountered many problems in this arena. 

While the solution is stable, we find it difficult to update. I thought this should be easier to do, but we have encountered difficulty with updating the ESXi and Nutanix versions.

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

There are several features that need improvement. Some of the areas are:

• The Nutanix flow is only for micro-segmentation functionality.
  
• It doesn't integrate with their cloud solution.
  
• It's only for on-premises, even though they have micro-segmentation, it doesn't extend it through the cloud.
  
• It (Flow) doesn't work with the XI frame.
  
• Life Cycle Management is very simplistic for the HPE DX.
• Some of the applications are not supported yet.

We have to look at the ecosystem that Nutanix is trying to create. It's lacking in some features but overcompensating in others. They are trying to be holistic, but they have a lot to catch up on when it comes to VMware. For example, they only support Citrix, and if you run Nutanix Acropolis you can't run VMware Horizon. There are limitations and the Kubernetes solution is limited.

Performance was not bad, but it could be better. I never fielded complaints from developers or users, but benchmark testing indicated that workloads did slightly better on our Vblock by a few percentage points.

This wasn’t a major concern, as our stated use case for Nutanix was purely non-production.

It was not a great fit for really large databases that required high-end or lots of compute. They might already have addressed this concern around very high-end databases that require high-end compute. In the past, it wasn't a great fit for them.

The initial setup can be a bit difficult. 

Troubleshooting is a problem. 

There are a lot of updates even though the solution itself is fairly long-lasting.

There are no licensed technicians; you have to reach out to Nutanix directly.

They need a more stable operating system.

In terms of what can be improved, their local people in this region are not good, to be frank. They don't support any inquiry. They don't support anything we need, especially for projects. So either we need to bypass them or we need to get support from the other regions.

I would say that applies from the sales cycle to the support.

The sales cycles is a very closed group kind of thing. Cons, region-wise, sometimes it's a monopoly. And the pricing factor is there. Plus, they are not open and transparent.

Procurement can be an issue as well.

Plus I don't see any updates happening in this region in terms of what's cooking in the head offices. It should be updated and alerted to the partners. For example, recently Nutanix has done many things in its acquisitions. What new features are going to be added? Certainly partners and other people should have a right to know. And they may gain advantage, an edge, over the other products when they are pitching this.

As for what I would like to see in future releases, maybe the cloud things which were very recently added. What is the roadmap for the cloud and what are there exactly? These things are very new to Nutanix now. That should be more transparent. What is their good part, like Azure or AWS? I would like to know these things. They just need better documentation in general.

The Nutanix uses controller VMs for disk I/O, metadata, etc. and they can consume significant resources so be sure to account for the additional CPU and memory the controllers will need. There is one controller VM per node so Nutanix and/or your reseller can help you calculate what additional resources you'll need.

The Nutanix OS (NOS) is proprietary so, out of the box, you will need a Nutanix Support Engineer's (SE) help to configure the appliance. This doesn't take long and I haven't needed to make any adjustments since the configuration was performed.

We have (2) 10G ports per node (you can have 4) so all of the network, vMotion, storage, etc. traffic goes through the same nic. This hasn't been an issue for us and the 10G nics handle all the traffic quite well with no bottlenecks. In fact, we are still seeing 0ms read and write latency with 40% resource utilization.

Everything has room for improvement.

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

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

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

Coming from a XenServer environment, I would like better integration of XenServer into the AOS and Prism Central.

None, as I like that Nutanix listen to their customers, and implement new features to improve the kit.

Nutanix has the potential to replace most of today's traditional storage solutions. These are classic hybrid SAN arrays (dual and multi-controller), NAS Filers, newer All-Flash Arrays as well as any object, big data etc. use cases.

For capacity, it usually comes down to the price for large amounts of data where Nutanix may offer higher-than-needed storage performance at a price point that isn't very attractive. This has been addressed in the first step using storage-only nodes which are essentially intelligent disk shelves (mainly SATA) with their own virtual SDS appliance preinstalled. Storage nodes are managed directly by the Nutanix cluster (the hypervisor isn't visible and no hypervisor license is necessary). While this is going in the right direction, larger storage nodes are needed to better support "cheap, big storage" use cases. For typical big data use cases today's combined compute and storage nodes (plus optionally storage-only nodes) are already a very good fit! 

The Nutanix File Services (Filer with active directory integration) are a very welcomed addition customers get with a simple software upgrade. Currently, this is available as a tech preview to all Acropolis Hypervisor (AHV) customers and will soon be released to ESXi as well. This is one example of a service running on top of the Nutanix distributed storage fabric, well integrated with the existing management layer (Prism) offering native scale-out capabilities and One-Click upgrade like everything else. The demand from customers for a built-in filer is big, they are looking to not depend on legacy filer technology any longer. We are looking forward to seeing this technology mature and offer more features over the coming months and years.

Another customer need is to be able to consume Nutanix storage from outside the cluster for other, non-Nutanix workloads. These could include bare metal systems as well as non-supported hypervisors (e.g. Xen Server etc.). This functionality (called Volume Groups) is already implemented and available for use by local VMs (e.g. Windows Failover Cluster Quorum) and will soon be qualified for external access (already working from a technical point of view including MPIO multi-pathing with failover). It will be interesting to see if Nutanix will allow active-active access to such iSCSI LUNs (as opposed to the current active-passive implementation) with the upcoming release(s). Imagine if you upgraded your Nutanix cluster (again this would be a simple One-Click software upgrade) and all of sudden you have a multi-controller, active-active (high-end) storage array. (Please note that I am not a Nutanix employee and that these statements describing possible future functionality are to be understood as speculation from my side which might never become officially available.)

The cost of the solution is too expensive. There are other options, such as VMware, that are offered for less money. In Latin America, it seems to be overpriced for the market.

The One-Click Upgrade process could/should offer the ability to integrate with 3rd party drivers. For example, we use NVIDIA Grid graphics cards. It would be amazing if, during the One-Click Upgrade process, we could "slipstream" additional VIB drivers for ESXi into the upgrade process. Otherwise, we are left to a typical upgrade/maintenance window process in order to keep ESXi updated with 3rd party drivers for additional hardware installed in each node. If the One-Click Upgrade process could implement this feature, this would limit downtime maintenance as well.

Pricing and varieties of options could be better. I represent an educational Institute, higher education. So, the cost is a major concern. Secondly, we have the 1000 and 3000 series. So we would like to see that graphic virtualization. It should support all the open standards as well as Nutanix. If the other vendor brought some SAN or NAS, it should be very compatible with that. I would rate it at a nine on a scale of ten.

There is always room for improvement. One area Nutanix can improve on is DevOps automation. While there is some built-in capability via REST service exposure, a more robust automation controller would be welcome. The recent purchase of Calm.io seems to be a step in this direction.

This solution would be improved with built-in integration with Rubrik.

I think there is a lot that Nutanix can improve in AOS, in particular, moving tasks such as creating trunked networks and managing nodes from the CLI to Prism Element.

I would like to see more information in Prism Element about how Curator works. 

There is a lot of functionality in Prism Central, but sometimes you want to see those features in Prism Element. One of them is RBAC. If we have one small cluster, and we need RBAC, we must install Prism Central. This is an inconvenience and I hope to see this feature in Prism Element in the next releases of AOS. 

In order to replace massively Install base of VMware vSphere, they need to expand their ecosystem with ISVs (i.e. F5, PaloAlto, Citrix, TrendMicro etc.) in order to provide a wider range of solutions running as a virtual appliance (vApp), just like VMware did years ago. There is currently an ecosystem, but I think it is around 30-40 providers.

So they should expand the eco-system for Virtual Appliances with Acropolis. Network Segmentation is also a must with AHV.

The file services that they also provide need some more features, like on the Windows file server.

The licensing gave us trouble. The licenses for Nutanix are very complicated. Everything had a separate license, and we are having some trouble with that. Some of the licenses are expiring, and when we purchased the solution, we didn't know everything would be all over the place. It's not like there's one server license. Every node has a license, and a person has a license of their own too. They should just group everything together instead of forcing users to worry about separate licenses and various renewal dates. We actually have had some meetings about this and have tickets open about the licensing. 

I don't have a full picture of all the features just yet.

Nutanix could streamline Acropolis' advanced management to keep pace with its competitors. For example, in VMware vSphere ESXi Hypervisor, you can directly put a host into maintenance mode via the GUI. However, it takes several steps to do this with Nutanix Acropolis, and you need to use the command-line interface for most of the steps.

We also faced another challenge in version 5.15. It wasn't easy to upgrade the firmware. You need to set permissions in your cluster to download it from the Nutanix repository and do it offline. After that, you need to create a dark-site web server and put all the repositories or installers to update there. However, I think they enabled upload mode in the new release, so you can download the firmware directly from the website and manually upload it. I haven't tried it yet, but that should be available in the latest version, according to the press release. 

I also think Nutanix Flow has some room for improvement. It currently only protects east-west traffic — like a mini firewall. You should be able to set a security policy that will let you disallow some ports and subnets. That's the only feature that Nutanix Flow lacks right now. Competing products like VMware NSX and Sangfor are more robust in security at the networking level. I think that's the crucial part, given the security concerns we face. It's not only on Layer 2 but down to Layer 3 and the routing aspects of networking.

The access speed needs to be improved.

I would like to see official compatibility with Red Hat in the future. This is important because we have a lot of customers who are using Red Hat.

The challenge we are facing with Nutanix Acropolis AOS is its scalability.

The one note of improvement I have for Nutanix is that the installation should be easier. 

The solution has been more than enough at the moment to manage all of my services.

To have internal stability, we needed to network the solution ourselves. Performance depends on the application. Performance could be the lack of IOPS, memory and CPU and configuration issues. 

We are not going to increase our usage of Nutanix Solutions. We are migrating to the Cloud because of the cost.

The self-service side of the product needs to be improved. We should be able to add two-factor authentication and more security layers to it.

We would also like more tiering of the storage if that's possible.

They have improved over the years. They can probably improve more of their software offerings or their innovative upcoming technology.

I would like to see them utilize the spare storage that they use as a redundant space. I feel that now a lot of resources are wasted just for standby purposes because we are using data protection. Instead of utilizing those resources only when something happens, they can have an alternative so that we can utilize these resources all the time.

The problem with Nutanix is you cannot have or attach external storage so there are some limitations when it comes to increasing space. If you have a three-node cluster and want to increase storage, you have to add one more cluster. I can't attach an iSCSI drive as a solution. I'm hoping that the AOS 6 version will have plenty of improvements.

In Thailand, there really isn't a cloud version of Nutanx available to us. I'd like to see the cloud come to the country, and I'd like to try using it.

As of now, Acropolis and VMware cannot talk to each other. Until we have some kind of interface, it would be much better for Nutanix if they built an interface that can talk. Otherwise, if I have a VMware stack and I already have a Nutanix stack, I can create containers, I create clusters on VMware, I create clusters on Nutanix. All of these clusters cannot talk to each other. Then it has to be then subverted as parallel execution.

I would suggest that this could perhaps be switched. That is so far the only change I would like. I would like it if they could fix the instance where you double click on a VM and it opens the VM instead of the setup.

For now, I can't think of anything that can be improved. They've been pretty innovative and have provided a fairly comprehensive roadmap. I've worked directly with some of the backend TME guys and they're very responsive and have addressed anything that's come up. However, I would like to see better visibility with the main OEM backup integrators to have a full backup recovery from site to site and from site to cloud and cloud to cloud - the full range. The cloud ecosystem for public/private, site to site visibility with a single backup product.

• Site-to-site deduplication needs some work. It’s not as feature-rich for a disaster recovery implementation, but my understanding is that it is slated for improvement in near future releases. 

• DRS-like functionality is also a much-desired feature slated for a future release.
• Third-party solutions are few and far between right now since Nutanix is so new considering the production of the software. Improvements should be made to compensate for upcoming software and solutions. 
• Regarding third-party backup solutions, the only agentless option is Commvault, which is expensive, complex, and requires intensive vendor training. We opted to use the built-in snapshot replication options from Azure.

One thing I would like to eventually see from Nutanix is the ability to install the Nutanix OS on any hardware, making it hardware agnostic instead of depending on their expensive servers. NOS is what makes the whole Nutanix cluster work so well.

The price could be lower.

I'd like to see an improvement in the notifications because it's not very useful as it is now and it's quite difficult to find out what the problem is when something goes wrong.

When we have issues with the solution, they tend to be around networking. 

When we tried to upgrade the LCM, we had issues around the process. When we refreshed the CVM of VM and restart the upgrade, the CVM would not start again. We needed to see the logs to see if we could figure out what happened and if there was something we could do.

We'd like to see a bit more integration with certain products, for example, Qlik, among others. 

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

The process of migrating from old hardware to new could improve.

There are a few improvements needed to make the solution better. There are some limitations on the hard add side when you are planning to add more memory or CPU on a running machine already removing something. That's something that is still lax. 

The second thing is compatibility. Nutanix is compatible with third-party hardware, but it's still very limited, and it's not very flexible on that side. Give people the ability to reuse whatever investment they have down the hardware. The other HCI providers are a bit flexible on that side, so that's a negative side of Nutanix right now.

The solution doesn't support older systems, which can be a problem for some organizations who wish to implement it. It became a problem for us due to the fact that some of our systems are older.

They have offered some new features that I have not deployed so I assume that these issues might have been addressed already, but there was a networking problem. This solution could use network improvements.

I think the next release should include a software improvement, like the ability to deploy with a cloud provider like Amazon or Microsoft Azure. I believe that they are already working on this and I think that the best improvement would be to remove the storage configuration because you don't need to manage or to configure this. By default, it should take all the available storage to present the data. They should create network storage in which the administrator doesn't have to manage or configure this part. They should work on the deployment and storage. 

I think that there are several areas that they can improve slightly, including the mail servers, the application servers, and perhaps even the database servers.

If we can have certified compatibility with other companies, such as Oracle, then it would let us know that they function correctly together.

I would definitely love to see single and two-node cluster setup, as well native network virtualization/micro-segmentation capabilities. These are already announced features and much anticipated. I would also love to get application visibility within the Prism management console with more RBAC capabilities.

Nutanix Acropolis AOS could improve by having an auto-update feature. At this time I have to update each system manually. However, I bought the standard license and I did not buy the maximum license they have available. There could be a certain license that does the updates automatically.

I'd like to see more integration with other vendors and integration with public clouds. The feature is there but it could be improved. 

There are few areas in which I think this Nutanix product should be improved, but to name a few I can decide that there should be support for more languages natively. This could apply to the main AOS and Prism environment, as well as the help channels that Nutanix offers.

Except for these points, I don't think there is much more to improve.

They should lower the price. If they did they would fall into a more competitive market because the price does scare a lot of potential customers away when they get the quote. Otherwise, I never had to call tech support. I actually met up with one of their consultants just three days before I went for deployment. It was the very first time I'd actually tested the software, and that was enough for me to go to the site and get all the work done.

There's one area in which they should make the software simpler with the deployment. If they can make it just a few steps easier, it will be unbeatable. I'm technically experienced so it was simple, but others who aren't as experienced might struggle. If they can simplify the software slightly for the installation, that would make all the difference.

Extra features should not be so expensive. We would love to be able to use or even just try some of the extra features without having to buy them. Buying those features is just as expensive as buying vSphere licenses, so the cost savings is nullified.

Given all the amazing features, there is room for improvement around the support ability of different hypervisors. Sure, Nutanix now supports four hypervisors but they are not all at feature parity. If you want all the benefits of Nutanix, you need to be on AHV. For some businesses, that's just not an option. I find we miss out on some of the great features due to being on ESX.

The improvement needed is for elastic clusters, meaning the ability to depart and join nodes in an automatic way. We have a laboratory that needs to perform bare metal tests and therefore needs to unjoin the nodes from the cluster and later on join them back.

The product is quite promising, and is sufficient for daily IT/business operations at the moment.

The GUI of Nutanix Acropolis AOS could be improved that can be done from the OEM side. It's a very basic stable web browser that they're using. It is not very inclusive.

Nutanix should provide its customers with the documents for predictive workload analysis and other performance metrics, such as compression. This would be a great benefit.

I'd always like to see a bit of a drop in pricing. Everyone would. 

I only worked with the product for roughly a year, and it worked well. I don't have any thoughts on improvements at the moment.

We did have some integration issues. We did have a problem with a Veeam integration. We ended up using Wasabi instead.

Nutanix should improve AHV to support migration VMs between clusters and storage containers. Migration between containers is possible, but it requires shutting down the VM. The procedure is long and there is no migration between clusters at all.

By and large, I have nothing more to add, but if we talk about what I have listed, then these functions would greatly facilitate the operation of Nutanix HCI.

I hope they will fix this soon, although I have been waiting for this for a long time.

Lowering the replication window.

• More 10GB physical ports
• CVM resource requirement/consumption

They need to add features for software-defined networking and network security. The multi-tenant features need to add charge back/metering.

I think nothing for now.. I and my clients are enjoying the services provided by Nutanix thus far.

Frankly speaking, there are some issues. For example in the newer version could be better. If there could be good documentation in some instances. While their overall Nutanix Bible is good, they are lacking good descriptions for particular scenarios that might be helpful to many users. 

In the next release, I would like to have a multi-tenant environment. That way, you could set up a special VM for a special group of people and the other group will not be able to see certain things. It would make the solution better. 

The productivity and work efficiency of Nutanix Acropolis AOS could improve.

In the future, the solution could improve by having more cloud features.

• Price politics sometimes is not very transparent for the worldwide organization. 
• Better value for money about file share feature
• We feel that the cost for capacity is still more expensive compared to other solutions.

I would like to see improvements in monitoring parameters, RTO, and access control. Currently, memory utilization does not show as per the actual. This is in pipeline for the next release. The current RPO for DC-DR is high due to the limitation of the replication strategy which will be fixed by next quarter.

I haven't used the solution for that long and therefore don't really have any deep knowledge about it.

It would be ideal if it was more secure. 

It's difficult to discuss what is lacking on the solution. We would have to do a proper analysis because not every client has the same requirements. 

Based on our experience up until now, even the clients, when they are looking for a proper platform, have already identified Nutanix as being the one solution that would be the most relevant to them. We would need to get into a more detailed analysis in terms of what features or benefits the clients are looking for to see if there is something lacking. 

We would need to look at scalability, or reduced latency, and stuff like that. There are so many elements that are implemented for each client. As well, there may be specific areas that the client wanted to be improved. However, from our perspective, we don't see any glaring holes in the product.

The initial setup does need a team with experience with it in order to execute it correctly. It's not easy.

Some clients find the solution's cost to be too high.

There could be better support for high power ESX and other cross-platform applications. A major feature in Nutanix is that it should be able to move from AHV to BFX.

I would like to see an improved interface. I think Dell EMC is going to launch ClarityNow to address this.

The storage and back-up facilities could be improved. The storage and recording back-up for updates where we can maintain the data server and handle an insurance company. 

We need day-to-day encrypting of the database. We're purchasing Acropolis and Veritas. That is a big headache. We are using Nutanix for backup and storage purposes. That is now going well in terms of storage and backup.

The cloud base is an extra feature. It should be the standard. Nutanix Cloud is not that helpful for us.

The product needs improvement in the areas of SAN attachment for high capacity and high I/O profile workloads.

Nutanix has made huge improvements over the past years and the product is very good at the moment. It would be nice to be able to converge the network switch required to connect the Nutanix nodes together. This can then be managed via the Nutanix Admin console.

This was a POC and due to the high cost of the solution we did not end up deploying the technology. Also the initial setup, and ongoing administration have room for improvement.

The compatibility and integration of Nutanix Acropolis AOS could be improved. For example, we have a WAF application firewall and it does not work on this solution. Not all the OS's run on AOS. You need to have a newer version of an operating system if you want Nutanix to perfectly run all the different options.

We haven't come across any issues. Our clients haven't seen any issues with Nutanix at all.

There should be a little more access to Nutanix files. As it is right now you have one type of Nutanix file at no additional cost. Most customers have a little more than a one-byte file server. An initial byte size could be a little more than one terabyte.

There is a feature in Nutanix called fault tolerance that could be improved. It exists in the VMware hypervisor, whoever, it does not exist here. It really needs to. 

To run a fault tolerance feature in Nutanix you need the time to reset the VM and to repair or to recall the backup VM. Therefore, you need a little bit of downtime. Conversely, in VMware, with the fault tolerance feature, if you want to use the fault tolerance feature, it doesn't require any downtime.

I believe the only things that may need to improve is that the Nutanix Controller VM consumes quite a lot of resources. If that could be reduced, it would be great. Secondly, I would have liked it if Nutanix were a hardware as well as a software platform. I think they are currently progressing into a software only path. I think that, in the near future, their own hardware will be discontinued. I can understand why they're doing it, but I would have preferred them to continue being a one-stop shop for hardware and software alike.
However, so far, for our company, the wish list is completely covered.

We would like to see it support other systems outside of the compute stack from which it was built.

There is a hard coded IP in the 192.168.5.x range which comes with Nutanix. This needs to be a variable, not hard coded, as this may clash with customers current IP range.

The hybrid solution we tested showed a big performance reduction after intensive work on the system, due to the caching mechanism that fills the SSDs (typical of low level Hyperconverged appliances).

We're thinking about hosting SAP HANA on the Nutanix platform, but we are still unsure about the path as SAP still has not certified Nutanix to host SAP HANA yet. Nutanix should make SAP a close partner and certify their product with SAP so that the consumer has a choice to migrate their existing platform to Nutanix platform.

As far as I'm concerned, and we already ran the test on an actual Nutanix box, Nutanix can host the HANA without issue. However, without certification from SAP, it looks like we don’t have a guarantee from SAP itself. That will cause us to question whether we should go with the Nutanix platform.

I believe that improvements could be made in regards to the DR in addition to deduplication and integration with others platforms. They also do not offer opportunities for network virtualization so it would be nice to see that in the future.

I would like to see Acropolis add the ability to migrate VMs between storage containers. I don't know if they've added this in the latest versions, but I haven't seen it yet. It's mainly about AHV. When we use VMware, we can move between storage containers. In VMware, it's just like regular storage, and we can move it.

Some of the features in the user interface can only be accessed through the command-line interface.

It would be great if they could improve the GUI features.

A fantastic product that could spend a bit more time in QA between releases.

It would be great if it could emulate some of the features that their competitor VMware has, for example port mirroring or Netflow output at hypervisor level.

The focus on performance improvements over new features is more important to me. It is always fun to play with new buttons in the platform.

In reality, it is hard for me to find flaws in this platform because it is without comparing. For me, the fact that I run all of my workloads on Nutanix, which is a software defined datacenter platform, the biggest advantage for me is performance increases with updates. I was once asked what does "Software Defined" mean to me. My response was "a platform that allows for your next feature or performance upgrade to be as easy as a software patch or update."

To receive a performance enhancement by merely clicking the one button upgrade is the true value of the platform and what I look forward to the most. I do understand that new features provide the wow in the platform and I completely understand this value. However, for a datacenter admin, performance increases without cost, and sometimes unexpectedly delivered, is real wow.

• Manage virtualization layer with Hyper-V

Maybe more functions for Prism with VMmware, for example, cloning VMs in Prism, exactly like Acropolis.

The processing power is OK, but for the future it needs to be better. Replacing all the hard drives with SSD would dramatically improve performance.

There are other services that Nutanix has that could be improved, but I'm not very familiar with the other services of Nutanix, such as Era and Flow. However, they seem a bit hard for us to implement and integrate with the Nutanix Acropolis AOS and other Nutanix tools. We would not dare to implement those other Nutanix solutions into Nutanix Acropolis AOS right now. The implementation of that tool could be the problem, I am a bit hesitant to implement the other tools into Nutanix Acropolis AOS.

Nutanix could integrate all of its solutions into one package to allow one implementation, such as Nutanix Acropolis AOS and the other related ecosystem solutions. You should be able to integrate them all in one step. The current method is to first install Nutanix Acropolis AOS then you need to install Prism, Era, and Flow. I would like to see a setup that implements all of those Nutanix tools at once.

When operating a system which has a large capacity and large block sizes in random write, the performance will slow down a little bit.

In the future, I would like to see multi-tenancy in Nutanix Acropolis AOS.

Nutanix Acropolis AOS could improve by adding some NAS features, similar to the ones that are available in the NetApp solution.

This product would be improved if it included a hybrid cloud solution.

Better integration with various solutions with Citrix would be helpful, as well as perhaps working with VMware on Workspace ONE.

In the next release, I would like better and more competitive pricing.

having more integrations with security vendors to be able to introduce more Virtual Load Balancers and Virtual Firewalls.

I'm not very technical, so I don't know if there are any features that are really lacking. Our customers seem pleased with it, and I haven't heard of any downsides.

In the licensing, it needs to be clear about features because it is not clear whether Flow is integrated or not.

The GUI for this solution needs improvement.

Pricing transparency: Software and hardware should be separate items.

I would like them to update their licensing to provide more features with their basic license.

This solution offers excellent functionality but could use a stronger interface.

With some projects that we are deploying, there are errors that arise when adding nodes.

I feel like the flow chart and the automated processes have some room for improvement. They're nearly there, and the rest is fine. They've improved a lot over the past few years. 

We ran into an issue as a managed service provider because Acropolis isn't designed to be used the way we are running it. For example, if we want to deploy a Kubernetes service, the customer networks need to reach our protected cluster network. We have isolated our customers in separate VLANs. However, our customers' networks must access our cluster network to get features like iSCSI or Kubernetes to run. It's challenging.

I've been looking forward to Layer 3 networking, which Nutanix is expected to add to Acropolis soon. When I think of a feature I would like to implement, I check the Nutanix site to see if it's coming. Layer 3 networking is a release candidate right now. It's on the roadmap already. They're working on all of the features that I want.

The pricing of the solution is too high. It needs to be adjusted or lowered to be more competitive.

• Uptime
• HA
• Redundancy
• Disaster Recover (DR)

We would like to see a cloud version of Acropolis AOS. Currently, we're trying to implement an AWS environment for some solutions, but we would like to use another technology also to enhance our organization, so we are looking for another technology for this, especially a cloud solution.

In the future, I would like Acropolis to add support for publishing external storage.

In terms of the IT different categories, I would like for the governing sections to be able to use it in the IT department. If they can have something like a one view management portal or software similar to VMware that would be an added value.

Deployment could be more user-friendly - currently, it requires certain skills with the network and nodes. In the next release, capacity planning and reporting should be included.

It would be fantastic if there was a built-in layer, in Nutanix, that acted like a cloud interface. So far, we need to integrate a cloud interface on top of Nutanix for billing the usage for specific customers' domains. It would be great if a cloud gateway was built-in, inside Nutanix.

Also, one of the very important things that I would like to see in Nutanix, but I'm not sure if it's in the roadmap or not, is to have some kind of caching optimization at remote sites, to build active-active data centers more easily.

Snapshot Management needs improvement.

None, everything is working great and I don't currently have any suggestions.

It would be nice to have larger HDDs.

AHV is a great hypervisor but still limited compared to VMware. AHV is the one product they must improve.

Nutanix has a complex infrastructure, we have customers that consider VMware instead. Additionally, the performance could be better.

In an upcoming release, it would be a benefit to have live updates.

We could always use a performance upgrade, or simplified management.

The features I would most like to see added would be: compatibility for HV, improvement to the cloud features, and more private features.

As of now, Acropolis and VMware cannot talk to each other. Until we have some kind of interface, it would be much better for Nutanix if they built an interface which can talk. Otherwise, if I have a VMware stack and I already have a Nutanix stack, I can create containers, I create clusters on VMware, I create clusters on Nutanix. All of these clusters cannot talk to each other. Then it has to be then subverted as a parallel execution. What happens then is that I have to work in two different environments within my data center. Practically, they are two different data centers but physically and logically, they are one. If they cannot talk to each other that creates a lot of issues. That is something which Nutanix has to develop. For example, Oracle is using a function called GoldenGate. They have a feature called GoldenGate which allows them to talk to various different environments which must really help.

I would like to see a fuller integration with the public cloud. It would help the user enter the hybrid cloud infrastructure.

I don't feel that I am receiving the performance which I am paying for.

We should have something called micro segmentation inside the Nutanix box, which can be easily implemented.

They should support more VM, which is not currently supported.

We have achieved great stability and scalability with Nutanix. We are currently running Hyper-V in Nutanix. After setting it up, we are very happy with the provisioning of new VMs as we do not need to worry about space requirements.

I have nothing to suggest.

An area for improvement would be the cyber security features. 

I don't have any requests for features. It does everything that I need it to do, and then some.

I would like to see asynchronous replication in less than 60 minutes, or even in 15 minutes. I understand that they are working to lower replication times to one minute or less.

One disadvantage of Nutanix Acropolis AOS is it doesn't support external storage. Connecting external SAN storage to Nutanix, it's not supported.

In the future, I would like to see integration with external storage using the fiber channel. As it is now, Nutanix can only integrate with external storage using the SCSI protocol.

Nutanix needs more development on DRC solutions embedded in Acropolis.

Areas for improvement would be the memory setting and the CPU setting reserve features, which are not available on Acropolis. I also feel that the DR solution, the reporting, and the component that is combined with the Nutanix OSP need to be improved.

The product could be improved with more security. The product needs a bit more experience in the market. I think you don't have the possibility to add other hardware. It could be improved with the ability to add and extend.

Cloud integration, automation and orchestration need improvement.