We did not use a different solution. There was mostly the three-tier architecture, and people used to replace or upgrade at the storage level, networking level, or server level until HCI came into the picture. With HCI, all those things went away. It reduces your DC footprint and gives you a powerful solution. There are different HCI players in the market, such as VMware vSAN and HPE SimpliVity, but wherever we have positioned Nutanix, clients have been happy. We had positioned HPE SimpliVity for a client, but in the next tech refresh, they got it replaced with Nutanix. 

We have had some clients who had their workloads on Azure and for their Oracle Database and SAP environment, they had purchased a Nutanix box from us. They had put their on-premise applications on Nutanix. When they saw those applications working so smoothly, they brought their Azure workload on-premises and bought another Nutanix box. I was a part of that migration.

Nutanix Prism dashboard and one-click upgrades are the points that make Nutanix much better as compared to other solutions. They give you a single pane of glass. The UI is very good. It gives you an experience similar to Azure or AWS UI. You can have all the insights about your hardware in a single pane of glass, and it is very easy for management as well to do regular reporting. They can make fast decisions regarding their futuristic plans.

I have not worked with any similar solution previously.

I also used VMware. It was useful in a consolidation environment. However, Nutanix gives us a boost when it comes to IPaaS convergence.

We previously used VMware. We didn't use a previous cloud solution. 

Previously, we relied on a hypervisor and VMware for our virtualization needs. While VMware offered some advantages, the process was entirely manual. This led to frequent issues that required time-consuming workarounds. Additionally, every new VMware release necessitated manual installation on all our computers and servers, which was a major headache.

Nutanix, on the other hand, provides a one-click solution. Both installation and updates can be completed with a single click, saving us significant time and resources. On top of its efficiency, Nutanix boasts high reliability. Unlike VMware updates, which occasionally cause problems or software malfunctions, Nutanix upgrades have been smooth and trouble-free. The challenges we faced with VMware are no longer present with Nutanix.

We had another solution, VxRail. We did a comparison between Dell VxRail and Nutanix and we found that Nutanix is more compatible with our organization.

We used VMware which was helpful for a lot of things, but in terms of the scalability, the main thing was the central storage architecture. That became a bottleneck. Scaling up the storage was a little difficult. When it came to usability and ease of management, we decided to go with Nutanix.

Previously, we used Hyper-V. We switched to Nutanix because of its simplicity. Nutanix is simple and easy to learn.

Before NCI, we were directly using one of the standard cloud-vendor solutions. But the cost was quite high. Once we went with Cloud Infrastructure and started using it, we saved 20 to 25 percent on annual costs.

We still have some VMware floating around, but it's considerably smaller. I used VMware when it was just VMware hosts, and I could throw that on top of Windows and have VMs.

We switched from VMware to NCI because we wanted to get rid of the three-tier solution. On top of that, our hardware was aging, and we didn't want to increase it. So we just started shrinking it down, and now the old hardware is going to end. We only have around 16 to 17 nodes of VMware left, but everything else is Nutanix.

We were using VMware previously. However, we moved all of our guests to Nutanix Acropolis AOS

In my organization, we used VMware, and when comparing it with Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure, the latter stands out for its high performance and efficient and robust infrastructure. It provides high-speed live migration capability. We migrated from VMware to Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure.

We used to use XenServer, Hyper-V, and vSphere among other solutions. We decided to consolidate everything under one console to save on licensing and having to check multiple places. It makes manageability and the ability to extend easier. 

Previously we used VMware and Hyper-V. We switched the solution because Nutanix’s support is excellent.

I have worked with Cisco Hyperflex and HPE Simplivity but they don't have software that is equivalent to what Nutanix has. The others are still developing their software.

And Nutanix is far better than a standard SAN solution because it is an all-in-one solution. The read/write speed is far better than in three-tier architecture.

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

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

We used NetApp Storage in conjunction with Dell Blade-Servers for compute and we switched from vmWare to Nutanix AHV as a hypervisor.

Our customers previously used VMware but switched to Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure because they desired to consolidate their environment.

I was using VMware. However, VMware is more costly since Nutanix has cluster and storage management that creates storage free of cost. In the case of VMware, we need to pay the licensing cost for ESXI as well as purchase a separate license for the vSAN for storage consolidation and the HCI configuration. Nutanix is not like that. If you are buying their node, then you only need to pay for the AOS and Prism licensing costs. Cost-wise, Nutanix is very good.

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

Traditional storage on NetApp with ESX-Blades from Dell. We switched because of the simpler setup and easier scalability.

We previously offered a three-tier architecture but switched to Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure for its reduced data center footprint, improved manageability, and enhanced performance.

Earlier, we were using VMware on Nutanix hardware, but for the last year we have been using the Nutanix built-in virtualization technology, Nutanix AHV.

The switch to Nutanix was a decision that came completely from senior management. Initially, we were using a different environment, HPE and then VMware, and then we moved to Nutanix plus VMware. We had licenses available from VMware so we didn't switch to AOS and AHV. But gradually, as the licenses for vCenter expired, we moved to Nutanix AHV. Most of our jobs are done using it.

We did not use any hyper-converged solution.

We used a different solution before we started using Nutanix. We ran three sites on EXSi from VMware. After doing some research, I saw the feasibility of Nutanix. Not only on costs, but on scalability as well. Although I'm a big VMware fan, I've found that one only has a certain amount of time to build your setup with VMware, and if you don't do it in that time, you must start again. One of the main things I liked of Nutanix, is that I can add an extra node or four extra or nodes if needed within a period of two years.

We previously made use of Scale Computing and HPE SimpliVity.

We used a different product before this one, and we moved to reduce complexity.

Previously, we used three-tier architecture.

We also use VxRail.

We switched from traditional SAN and servers because we needed a smaller footprint while dramatically increasing performance and scalability.

We are currently in the process of switching to AHV from ESXi. We felt the Nutanix solution was significantly easier to manage, has all the features we need, and comparable features to ESX already either exist or are on their way in the near future. We believe that the solution Nutanix offers is the way the market will continue to trend in the future. Finally, going with AHV cuts out ridiculously overpriced costs of ESXi. We were looking at over $100k in licensing with ESXi alone for what AHV will supply us for free.

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

We previously used Vblocks for nearly everything, production and non-production, and we were in a high growth phase.

The large incremental purchase cycles of Vblocks in terms of cost and lead time were causing significant distress.

We had also struggled through some difficult RCM upgrades on the Vblocks. Nutanix was just so much easier to manage and deploy.

We were in the process of migrating non-production to Nutanix and keeping only production on the Vblocks when I left the company in early 2016.

I am not hands-on with other solutions, but I've worked with many different partners in the past, and I know that it is very easy to use. You save money with it by having the virtualization component. The AHV hypervisor is a huge cost saving. If you still want to run VMware in your environment, you can, and we have customers that do that, and they love it.

I've also worked with SimpliVity.

We were using HP servers, switches, and SANs for our hypervisor solution. The hyper-converged infrastructure became a more attractive option since there is less to manage separately. The management portal (Prism) manages everything centrally and can be configured for your SNMP solution.

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

We previously used a huge blade chassis with a SAN. We switched because of a bottleneck in the SAN, and it didn't scale well, as we hit queue depth limits. Some advantages Nutanix has over our old solution are:

• Decreased the datacenter foot print
• No need for hypervisor purchase with the addition of Acropolis
• Reduce costs with regards to virtualisation technologies (i.e. VMware)
• Features are at no extra cost
• Ability to scale virtual hosts fast

We also deal with VMware. There's some competition between the two as VMware is less expensive. 

HP/Dell architecture. These proved as an overly tedious and dead-end solution.

Prior to Nutanix, we, like everyone else, pieced together our solution using HP Proliant servers, and NetApp SAN storage. Between ordering, qualifying, unboxing, setup and configuration, the amount of time required to get the client up and running was huge. We had to have experts on shared storage and networking; a lot of time was spent doing tasks that didn’t directly translate into value for our clients. Switching to Nutanix flipped the value proposition around, and suddenly one technical person qualified in Nutanix was all that was needed. Our time to deployment was much faster, and both ours and our client’s costs went down.

I have used HPE SimpliVity previously and Nutanix Acropolis AOS is better.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

Previously, we used different solutions from different vendors. We needed to put it all together, and Nutanix helped us.

We previously used legacy infrastructures: EMC, NetApp, and IBM.

We previously used VMware for virtualization and NetApp for storage. We switched because we need to expand and that is not easy with NetApp. VMware only has the best features in the biggest license, which is expensive.

It was migrated from Vblock.

Nutanix is the third virtualization solution that I have used. We previously used a VMware solution. In comparison, Nutanix support is much better, but the installation process for VMware was easier. 

We were using Citrix for our servers previously. However, it is hard to compare to Citrix because it is a different technology.

Our company already had a license for Nutanix so we wanted to us Nutanix Acropolis Solutions before any licensing costs. 

We are using Hyper-V with Storage Spaces Direct. I don't know if it can be called hyper-converged, but it is almost hyper-converged. VMware with vSAN is also hyper-converged, but we're using it without the NSX module, so it is not a software-defined network. It is semi hyper-converged for me. As compared to these two, Nutanix is easier to use and easier to manage. It is more complex to get VMware and Hyper-V up and running than Nutanix.

We were using another solution. I believe we switched because Nutanix provides the failover capability for RPO and RTO. It means RPO and RTO are close to zero because we have the failover data protection from Nutanix as well.

We've only been using Nutanix Acropolis for a short time now so we haven't gone into full production with the product yet.

We have used other hyper-converged systems previously but there were some technical issues and the vendor did not take care of the solution well.

I have used VMware solutions with server and storage on the same switch. It was the same product on the same architecture, so I cannot challenge those architectures. They are one and the same. I used to deploy HP 300 AP, which is the exact same solution from HP with the VSA solution. VMware was embedded, but from my point of view, it was a little bit too difficult compared to Nutanix.

Prior to this solution, we used VMware on Intel technology. We also have IBM IT Infrastructure with Power technology. We switched to Nutanix because it is easier to manage and administer the platform, compared to others.

Yes, we were using traditional server plus storage infrastructure. As we partnered with Nutanix we decided to evaluate it ourselves before we recommended it to our customers. And it’s worth it.

I previously used VMware. I did not have a problem with VMware, but when I did research I found that Nutanix Acropolis AOS would be a better product for our needs.

Our company is fully committed to new technologies and ways to build data centers using hyper convergence, software defined networking etc. We did not (and have no plans) to sell traditional solutions.

We did a full migration from VMware vSphere and vCenter to AHX and Acropolis.

In both organisations where I worked, which migrated to Nutanix, we were on traditional 3-tier architecture. We switched over to Nutanix for the ease of management, scalability, and performance gains. In both organisations, we were on aging hardware and it needed to be refreshed.

We were using central storage and suffered from bad performance latency.

Previously, we were using traditional servers, and storage products, which are common in the market. This product has no SAN concept, which totally simplified the whole architecture of server storage, and is a big credit to them. It was this that led us to this product.

They had used VMware and it became outdated and we couldn't get it to the latest version. The pricing was also a little high, which was why they wanted to switch.

VMware. 

I have used UCS with NetApp in the past. Nutanix makes keeping things up-to-date much easier.

I switched from my previous solution to Nutanix, because this is my first hyper-converged solution.

I previously used a three-tier design for virtualization. Managing three types of hardware vendors (server, SAN switch & SAN Storage) is troublesome.

I have previously used VxRail and it is very similar to Nutanix Acropolis AOS.

I did not previously use a different hyper-converged solution before Nutanix.

Before we were using Mascot. Then we started with Nutanix.

We did not previously use a different solution on the hyper-converged platform. Apart from this solution, we converged infrastructures from EMC/HDS vendors.

We used to use an HP SAN but there is no way SAN’s can compete on performance with Nutanix.

This was a POC to look for a solution, but we did not have an equivalent solution in place.

We have not used any other solutions before. We have tested many other vendors, such as SimpliVity, but we haven't used anything before.

Xen.

That was the first Hyperconverged system we tested, so we did not switch to this solution from a different solution.

Previously, we used three-tier architecture, which has lots of points for failure and a lot of consoles need to be attended. It's so tiring and most of the time, we are firefighting to make sure the operation can continue as business as usual. It required a lot of skills and a large sum of money to maintain and to scale, which were painful for us.

I have only worked with Nutanix Hyperconverged solutions.

We switched from a legacy 3-2-1 solution to HCI due to its ease of use and scalability.

I was using a standard server infrastructure previously and found an offer for Nutanix so we switched.

We previously used Vblock, a converged solution. We switched for many reasons. Footprint, power, cooling, savings, and support time.

We previously used DataCore, but scaling it is too difficult.

No previous solution was used.

I have used VMware and Hyper-V. We have different customers using these other solutions.

No, because no one is similar to Nutanix in using 100% software define storage.

We had another solution prior to this one, and it was a corporate, executive decision to switch.

Previously, I did not use another similar solution.

We currently use several HCI solutions.

We switched to Acropolis from an older Hyper-V cluster. It was old — not outdated per se — but it lagged in terms of feature sets like hosting containerized solutions and things like that. Acropolis gave us a solution that improved a lot of areas. 

For example, they have built-in firewalls for the services if we want to use them. We use a different solution for firewalling our customer environment, but I would say that the feature sets are developing rapidly. They come out with new features every year, and it feels like they are on top of developing new things to implement in Acropolis.

I've used other solutions in the past. The main difference between Nutanix and others is that its architecture is superior.

3-tier infrastructure. We switched due to the complexities of multiple vendors with multiple points to blame.

We previously used VMware and we switched to Nutanix because sometimes it's cheaper for the environment, the company, and also for the customer.

We switched to Nutanix Acropolis, because of the 3D architecture. The old architecture has a lot of disadvantages. For example, whenever there is a support ticket that needs to be opened, we used to check with the software manufacturers, and they would point fingers at the hypervisor layer or the virtualization software, so we would have to go open a ticket again with the virtualization vendor. Then, they would say, "No, maybe it's the storage." Then the storage guy would say, "No, maybe it's the SAN switch, not the storage," and we would keep on cycling.

With Nutanix, the best thing is that they support the whole solution. We're getting just one appliance.

One more issue was the storage itself. Regardless of how big the investment was - we could increase the capacity of the storage as much as we wanted - the problem remained in the IOPS. We found a very good solution for this in Nutanix, because whenever we're adding new appliances, not only are we increasing the capacity, but we're also increasing the performance. This is the best solution, especially for a dynamic workload.

Our most important criteria when selecting a vendor are 

• support
• having a decent roadmap
• R&D.

Those are the most important factors. I put support first because maybe they have a very good technical solution but the support is very weak. That would be a very big problem for me, and production. And a vendor that is investing in R&D, it makes a lot of sense for me to use them.

SAN, EMC VNX5300, FalconStor, Switch Cisco FC and CISCO UCS Servers.

I resell all MFGs and needed to replace everything, as my customer wanted to keep his core systems off the network.

I work either with Dell EMC VxRail, but this product is tied with VMware ESXi which requires expensive licenses. It is also a great solution if you have already those licenses. VxRail has a limit in scalability (64) in the 3.5 version.

We wanted to have a data center of our own. I did a lot of research into Nutanix, spent around 77 hours, and presented a report. In government what happens is that anybody can go and buy a solution but keeping it maintained and sustained for a longer period is extremely challenging in government because people keep on changing because there are a lot of transfers. People keep on switching from one department to another department. They are not technically savvy. These are the two challenges. From a long term sustainability perspective I have to see whether will I be able to manage this entire infrastructure. Third was cost. I distributed my comparative study in three different areas and then sub areas in terms of technology, resources, training, scalability, and all that stuff. Finally, we found Nutanix is the best solution and that's how we went ahead with this solution.

Not applicable.

We did, and we switched because Nutanix is easier to manage and configure.

I switched because I got tired of paying support renewals for three different companies.

My most important criteria when selecting a vendor are ease of use and price.

I worked with Dell EMC VxRail, but this product is tied with VMware ESXi which requires expensive licenses. It is also a great solution if you have already those licenses. VxRail has a limit in scalability (64) in the 3.5 version.

We used VMware vSAN. I did not change solutions for anything in particular. It was a decision of the organization, based on a corporate strategy.

We have experience with similar products from different vendors. This one is similar to the Cisco HyperFlex, but with different hardware. The Nutanix product is cheaper, more popular in Indonesia, and is used by smaller organizations. The customer support for Nutanix is better in terms of responsiveness and problem-solving.

I previously used VMware, but we switched to Acropolis as it is more cost-effective.

Previously, we used VMware. But it's a completely different solution with a different platform.

I didn’t have a previous solution. I tested different solutions for my customers, such as Nutanix, VSAN, HPE VSA, etc, and evaluated them, but the solutions are for my customers. Also, I test all solutions in our infrastructure.