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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Positive

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

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

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

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

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

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