Nutanix AHV Virtualization Reviews

Our primary use case is virtualization and Citrix Workload (VDI and SBC). 

Less clicks, more time, and more holidays. ;)

The main benefits are that it is easy to use, automation, VM-centric view, is low cost, secure, and provides high performance. 

There is no USB mapping at the moment. 

I have been using this solution since 2013. So, it's been over ten years now. 

I would rate the stability a ten out of ten.

I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. We have around a hundred end customers and thousands of users. 

The customer service and support are the best. 

Positive

We use VMware vSAN also but we prefer Nutanix solution. We work on both solutions but we try to quit VMware vSAN for Nutanix solution.

The initial setup was easy and straightforward for me. It took a couple of minutes. 

We are the system integrators. So, we also provide maintenance for the solution. We have a team of up to ten engineers for many customers.  

We have seen ROI in terms of stability, performance, cost-saving and time-saving. 

The solution's licensing cost is nearly the same as the other solution. I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, with one being expensive and ten being cheap.

We did not evaluate any other solution as Nutanix is simply the best.

I highly recommend using Nutanix to other users. Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

From a hypervisor perspective, AHV appears promising. However, some enhanced features, like fault tolerance compared to VMware and template management, seem to lack user-friendliness. While performing tasks in AHV is possible, the process can be cumbersome. Users often find themselves navigating through multiple interfaces and resorting to command-line actions. Although AHV functions adequately as a hypervisor, improving its user interface and streamlining features like template management would greatly enhance the user experience.

The significant advantage lies in its storage policies. With AHV, we can create multiple containers and apply distinct policies to each underlying storage container. Additionally, AHV employs a concept of core tier and core tier data, ensuring that frequently accessed data is readily available, even in hybrid environments. Unlike other systems like AHV Excel, AHV doesn't separate cache and capacity drives, leading to faster data read speeds. This streamlined approach contrasts with solutions like Dell EMC.

Nutanix has Prism, which offers numerous capabilities. Unlike VMware, we don't require additional monitoring tools. We often rely on VMware for monitoring, logging, capacity planning, and analysis. However, all these features are available within Prism. Additionally, one-click upgrades for all components are available within Nutanix AHV. Similar features are also available in Dell EMC VxRail.

The lack of public documentation makes it difficult to implement available solutions efficiently. While generic information is accessible, specific problem-solving documentation is lacking. For instance, millions of KB articles are readily available with Dell or VMware, facilitating swift issue resolution even before consulting official support channels. However, finding straightforward answers for Nutanix-related issues proves challenging. Therefore, increasing KB publishing and public documentation would greatly benefit users, particularly by focusing on specific problems rather than general product information. Like VMware's community, Nutanix could enhance its community platform to provide readily available answers. While Nutanix might have the potential for such initiatives, they are not as prominently exposed as their counterparts.

When a customer considering Nutanix as a VMware alternative wishes to migrate to Nutanix but finds that it does not support external storage, this presents a significant roadblock for customers contemplating moving away from their current infrastructure, especially if they heavily rely on external storage. However, it would have significantly improved if Nutanix had addressed this issue. AHV is indeed a viable option. Additionally, if Nutanix enhances its SDN capabilities, particularly in areas such as VPN connectivity and load balancing features, it could become an even more attractive alternative to VMware for those looking to transition from a VMware-based data center to a Nutanix-based one.

I have been using Nutanix AHV Virtualization as a partner.

For one of our customers, let me provide a live example. The customer was using NFS as an external file storage solution. However, by embracing the native functionality of AHV file services, they could remove the external file servers from their environment. They utilized the native feature set of Nutanix, mainly the AHV file services managed remotely. In another scenario, a different customer initially used external storage with their Windows clusters after migrating workloads from VMware vSphere. However, when it comes to AHV, it offers its own volumes or block storage feature.

Consequently, they no longer relied on external storage but utilized the internally provided storage. Especially noteworthy is the ease of migration facilitated by Nutanix Prism. Unlike many other hypervisors, with Nutanix, there's no need for additional migration tools or costs. This aspect presents significant cost savings when transitioning to Nutanix from different platforms. These examples underscore the value proposition of Nutanix AHV, particularly in terms of cost savings and leveraging its native capabilities, which eliminate the need for additional external costs.

When utilizing Nutanix AHV virtualization, especially when seeking optimization for our workloads and the best performance, it's essential to place IBM on the host properly. Typically, when AOCs are overloaded, and AHVOCs are less overloaded, but we aren't achieving the expected performance for the VM region, diagnosis is necessary. If the host lacks the resources to supply to the VM, AHV will automatically balance the workload across multiple nodes.

Nutanix offers two key advantages. Firstly, it provides native snapshot features, significantly reducing the need for additional backup solutions. These snapshots efficiently back up VMs to local storage, simplifying the backup process. Secondly, Nutanix excels in metro cluster capabilities, allowing seamless workload protection across two Nutanix sites. In the event of a failure at one site, VMs are automatically restarted on the secondary site, ensuring continuity of operations. Additionally, Nutanix boasts native DR capabilities, eliminating the need for additional expenditure. Whether customers are utilizing on-premises Nutanix clusters or extending their environment to Nutanix on AWS or Azure, they can easily establish DR setups by configuring initial connectivity via IP, VPN, or similar means to safeguard their workloads.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The solution provides us with a platform to integrate all the hardware products. We can integrate the tool with VMware. Integration is the most valuable feature of the product.

The support must be improved. Other technologies like Dell have their own service centers and different types of SLAs. Nutanix’s support team is not very efficient compared to others.

I resell the solution.

I rate the product’s stability a nine out of ten.

I rate the product’s scalability a nine out of ten.

The initial setup is easy and seamless. The deployment method depends on the customers’ requirements. We can deploy the solution both on the cloud and on-premise. The hardware is on-premise.

The solution’s pricing is relatively fair. It could be improved, though.

I will recommend the tool to others. It is hardware-agnostic and vendor-agnostic. We work with all technologies. The tool provides a platform to integrate all technologies together. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

The cluster is used for software tests, evaluations, or migration projects driven by Nutanix Calm. We needed a simpler approach with a higher grade of automation for testing purposes. As I already stated in my Nutanix Calm review, Nutanix Calm lets us do this. AHV was used so that we would not have any additional spend on a hypervisor. VM management does not require an additional management server like vCenter. Sizing the solution has always taken into account the need for Nutanix Controller-VMs (CVM) - the main part of AOS - to form the cluster and present storage to the hypervisor.

Nutanix AHV is the invisible hypervisor integrated into Nutanix AOS. Like with any other Nutanix solution, they do API-first. This way, it can be tightly integrated. Management is done through Nutanix Prism Web-Management. We deploy our machines using Nutanix Calm, so we get to have standardized VMs while tailored to the use case on hand.

Updates are done with the Lifecycle Manager (LCM) which too is integrated into Prism. It takes care of most cross-dependencies between Prism, Calm, AOS, AHV, and Firmware Updates.

AHV helps us because it is a no-brainer in regard to management.

There are no specific features we would consider special. It is the simple non-consideration we get with this product that's great. It just works. You can just do all the other things you are wrapped up with, so you can focus on anything but AHV. It is a hypervisor, not some exciting application server you have to tend to regularly. Therefore, the most valuable feature of AHV is "having time for other things".

As stated above, the lack of a need for something like vCenter has its perks, too. It is rather cool to have and underscores Nutanix's approach of "invisible infrastructure".

Since it is tightly integrated, you want to have it as a single installable thing. But that is against its nature. The tight integration with AOS makes it what it is. AHV is mostly on par with ESXi. Since it comes together with AOS you must compare it to ESXI with VSAN to get the complete picture. It can do vGPU just like ESXi, can move VMs just like ESXi, and snapshots won't make it "stun" the VM as it does on ESXi.

If you ever have a problem, hit up Nutanix Support. I've never had better support. Just do a Proof-of-Concept and have them wow you.

Just to be clear: If you have the need for special hardware like FibreChannel-Cards or such and there is no networked-way around it (such as you could work with USB Dongles via an HW-Dongle-Server of network), you have to use a separate hypervisor. That said, you could still present NFS from the Nutanix Cluster to VMware or use an iSCSI-Connection in-guest or in-host from the Nutanix Cluster.

We started using the solution back in 2019 with AHV. We still have our production system running with VMware.

We never had any issues regarding stability. There were a few vendor warnings (aka Nutanix field advisory) that mentioned possible stability issues in certain scenarios, depending on the customer's setup.

As with any solution, fixes are made and only an update away. Stability is always critical to a solution so you have to keep all components on a compatible level. To achieve that Nutanix introduced Life Cycle Manager (LCM) to help with this. LCM won't show any versions where critical issues are known to keep you from getting an issue just from updating. You always get a target version that is safe and compatible with your running components. 

To make it your own choice between safety and new features they have STS and LTS as known from other software. STS (Short Term Service) versions are updated very frequently and you can (and to some degree have to) update every few weeks and get the newest features. If you are not so keen on updating that frequently, you just stick to LTS. 

Alas, AHV is updated independently from AOS. So whether you are on LTS or STS with AOS you can just upgrade to a compatible AHV version with LCM, just make sure you have only AHV selected.

If you had (like me) an ESXi cluster paired with various components from NetApp, you really appreciate the Nutanix LCM that comes with it. I have seen more purple-screen-of-death than I'd like to admit. However, I've had nothing like that with AHV. 

All the Nutanix field advisories from the vendor are there to help you keep it running. Nutanix Support helps clear out any questions whatsoever.

Scalability is the true nature of a true HCI solution. You can scale as you like. If you just need storage, you would put storage nodes that are blocked for running VMs on. 

The support team is superb. Activating remote support on ticket creation gives them a head start at working on your issue. Ticket pickup-time is great and the support staff is polite and knowledgeable.

Positive

We just had some VM templates on ESXi but that did not cut it. Not by far. Handcrafting test VMs was just too cumbersome.

As easy as it gets. The servers came pre-installed. You just update to the desired version to start with.

We set everything up with a consultant from our local Nutanix Partner. His expertise was formidable.

Given an average of 2-5 days until a VM is ready before AHV and the free offering of the AHV hypervisor, that is difficult to calculate.

I'd advise users to get a proof-of-concept (POC) to evaluate the solution. Considering other HCI solutions, which AHV is a part of. The pricing is competitive with ESXi+vSAN.

Setup is done in a matter of hours. The longest part is racking it in the data center.

We had roughly 10 years of experience with ESX(i), so we knew what alternatives were out there.

We use the solution to make virtual machines. 

The tool's most valuable feature is the snapshot feature. It is very useful and convenient. 

Nutanix AHV Virtualization is easy to integrate with other systems. 

I must change the memory cards in at least two to three weeks. 

I have been working with the product for seven years. 

Nutanix AHV Virtualization is stable. I rate the product's stability an eight out of ten. 

Nutanix AHV Virtualization is scalable. I rate the solution's scalability an eight out of ten. 

I am satisfied with the partner company. 

Positive

I also use VMware, which is strong. However, Nutanix AHV Virtualization's UI is convenient. It is easy to create and delete VMs. 

Nutanix AHV Virtualization's impact on our company is good. It helps to save 30 percent of time. 

Nutanix AHV Virtualization is expensive. I rate it a six out of ten. 

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten. 

In terms of features, Acropolis is a good virtualization manager and that it is on-premise. I use almost every technology they provide.

Nutanix AHV, like every hypervisor, still has room for integration with the cloud. Nutanix is a very, very good product in regards to integration with the Amazon services, but it can be improved, especially in my country, Turkey. In this area, both Amazon Web Services and other solutions have different prices and different currencies. Nutanix actually promised to build clouds once they made the new generation moving the clients or the servers on-premises, and that's not working as advertised right now. So I believe that it can still be improved. Every service depends on this because the flexibility is what makes this product good in the first place.

I use Vaults with three hypervisors in my projects. One is the Acropolis from Nutanix, SCC from VMware, and of course Microsoft Hyper-V. This user interface is easy to understand. The dashboard is mostly okay and gives relevant information for the users. It has a good user interface but it's not flexible. It's more flexible than VMware and Hyper-V which don't even compare. The mechanics and the user interface are good. I like how it looks, but it can be improved. For example, if they had a comment line option directly from the Web UI, I could use PowerShell add ons. That would make the UI more flexible for me. Overall, it is the best of the three options right out there right now. ,

Again, I would also like to see a comment line option for integration with other products. Nutanix already has a comment line integration with the publisher. I also run some mini-systems and I don't have the same kind of comment line options for Unix systems. If I'm working on another shell, for example, Bash or SSH, we need a solution for that aspect. Console command is many times a faster way to do it because with UI you have to wait, but with your comment line, you can script it and can automate it more easily. So I believe they need a Linux version of the comment line.

I have been using Nutanix AHV for more than three years.

In terms of stability, Nutanix is actually very stable.

These days I don't worry about anything working or not.

Nutanix AHV is much easier than other systems. We can focus on the infrastructure and not the product so it gives us the flexibility to not worry about the scalability of the systems - we just need more modes to scale up. That makes it easier for system and engineers support.

I don't actually need any technical support. But I do hear feedback about it. For example, if a customer has an issue, such as some discs are broken, the support fixes it immediately. They don't even have to call the support center because they are monitoring the system. I don't do it directly, but I hear from and talk to customers.

I worked with VMware for more than ten years. The first versions of VMware to come out worked on Red Hat 6.3 servers and they were almost unusable sometimes.

Nutanix, in its first version, worked as it should.

The initial setup is nice, actually straightforward. The other systems are not easy. For VMware, for example, if you want to use full spec hyper-converged systems, including storage and the other options, it's very complex. Only the hypervisor option is easy with them. But the other options, including storage, are complicated. Nutanix and its products are very easy and pretty useful. And even migration is easy compared to all the other systems.

Some other firms were working with HP on their systems, but in the end, they migrated to Nutanix because of support issues.

On a scale from 1 to 10 I would rate it a 9 - I believe there is always room for improvement.

I've configured the solutions for two or three customers. It's my first time with Prism Central, Prism Element, and the CVM (Control Virtual Machine).

I haven't come across any limitations. Nutanix doesn't support externally attached storage through Fibre Channel.

However, Nutanix doesn't support Fibre Channel connectivity. This, in my opinion, is a weakness. For instance, it does not support Cyber Talent. To clarify, you cannot connect external Fibre Channel storage or NAS storage resources with Nutanix. However, VMware vSAN supports such solutions.

I have been using Nutanix AHV Virtualization for 2 to 3 years.

It is still working fine. However, when compared to VMware, I consider VMware to be more stable. I would rate the stability of Nutanix around 8.5 or 9 out of 10.

It is highly scalable, and I recommend it for larger companies. Adding nodes to expand clusters is straightforward. However, due to its cost, I don't recommend it for smaller companies as they might find it challenging to afford.

I'm highly satisfied with their support team.

My initial choice for high availability (HA) solutions is VMware ESXi. If someone asks for an alternative, my first recommendation is usually Dell EMC PowerFlex. In comparison to Nutanix AHV Virtualization, VMware ESXi has the advantage of supporting external storage, making it more flexible for integrating existing storage solutions. VMware ESXi is also perceived as more affordable than Nutanix AHV Virtualization.

They should make the product more competitive by working on their licensing model. Lowering the price would help make it more affordable.

I recommend using Nutanix AHV (Acropolis Hypervisor) for hyper-converged computing processes because of its simplicity in deployment and configuration. The platform also offers good support and is versatile, supporting various hypervisors such as VMware, Microsoft Hyper-V, and its native AHV. I would rate this product a 9.5 out of 10 overall.

There are a lot of use cases of Nutanix AHV Virtualization involving general IT workloads, I/O workloads, and big data workloads.

Most of the features provided by the solution are good, but in general, all of the product's features are identical. The performance and stability of the solution are good.

The integration capabilities of Nutanix AHV Virtualization is an area with certain shortcomings that need improvement.

Nutanix AHV Virtualization is still a new product in the market with which integrating many products, especially Citrix products, is not possible.

I have been using Nutanix AHV Virtualization for four to five years.

It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

My company caters to seven or eight customers who use Nutanix AHV Virtualization.

Whenever a customer reaches out to the technical support team with a problem, they understand the customer's use cases and suggest the most beneficial solution.

The initial setup of Nutanix AHV Virtualization is straightforward.

The solution can be deployed in two days maximum.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model. The solution can be deployed on the cloud as well to get to the varying use cases.

The deployment process consists of mounting the upgraded framework and installing Nutanix's package to get it ready to function. Once you complete the aforementioned procedure, you install Nutanix vCenter and create the cluster. The solution doesn't require any extra hypervisors that need to be deployed.

Just a few technical people are required to deploy and maintain the solution.

Nutanix AHV Virtualization comes with a built-in hypervisor, so you don't need to buy an extra license from Nutanix if you already have other Nutanix products. Nutanix AHV Virtualization is an affordable product. I rate the product's price an eight on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is costly. I don't think there are any extra costs in addition to the standard licensing fees of the solution.

I believe that Nutanix AHV Virtualization has good features, so the solution is in good shape in the market.

I recommend the solution to those who plan to use it. Nutanix AHV Virtualization mostly meets the requirements of its customers.

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.