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

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

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

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

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

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

The interface could be improved.

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

Unified Storage failed to fulfill our object storage requirements.

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

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

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

The documentation on the support site needs to be improved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lowering the price would improve this product.

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

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

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

The storage could be improved.

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

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