Open-source alternative to Nutanix Files

Nutanix Files is licensed per usable TiB within Nutanix Unified Storage, so renewals grow with capacity. This page maps its SMB and NFS shares to CephFS, Samba and Nextcloud, and shows what sizing, permissions and migration involve.

On this page

Open-source alternative to Nutanix Files: the short answer

If your renewal or per-TiB licensing change for Nutanix Unified Storage forces a decision on SMB and NFS shares, the short answer is that CephFS exported through Samba and NFS-Ganesha covers raw file shares, while Nextcloud fits when users also need sync clients, sharing links and a collaboration layer. Most estates need one of these paths, and some need both: the share layer for application servers, Windows profiles and existing mapped drives, and Nextcloud for end users who work across laptops, phones and external partners. The Nutanix Files feature set is not matched one to one by this combination. Features such as Nutanix's own file server management, its built-in data protection workflows, and any feature-level integrations with Nutanix Prism must be confirmed against your current deployment before you commit to a design.

Licensing is the reason to start now. Nutanix states that Unified Storage, which covers Files, Objects and Volumes, is licensed per usable TiB. In mixed mode it needs NCI or NCP licenses plus NUS licenses, while in dedicated storage-only mode it needs NUS licenses only, according to the Nutanix software options page. Confirm with your Nutanix account team which mode your clusters run in and how many usable TiB each share pool consumes, because that number, not the number of users, drives the recurring cost you would be replacing. Ask for the current NUS terms in writing and compare them with the one-time and recurring costs of the open-source stack described in the cost section. Plan the migration around the renewal date, and keep the existing share running until users and permissions have been verified on the new platform.

Which Nutanix Files capabilities map to open-source options

This table maps each Nutanix Files capability to the open-source building blocks that can cover it, with a status of full, partial or confirm-with-vendor. Read partial and confirm rows as work your team or implementation partner must scope and test before cutover, not as settled parity. The main takeaway is that raw CephFS shares cover the protocol and storage layer, while quotas, auditing, self-service restore and antivirus usually need additional tooling.

Nutanix Files capabilityOpen-source optionStatusNotes for the reader
SMB sharesCephFS exported through SambaPartialSamba is a separate component you configure and patch. Confirm SMB version support and share-level features against your clients before committing.
NFS exportsCephFS exported through NFS-GaneshaPartialWorks for Linux clients, but confirm export options, locking behavior and failover with your application owners.
Active Directory integrationSamba domain member configurationPartialJoin the share gateway to AD and map identities. Confirm nested groups, ACL inheritance and Kerberos behavior in a test domain.
Per-share and per-user quotasCephFS directory quotasPartialCephFS quotas apply to directories. Per-user quota reporting and enforcement need separate verification with your Samba and filesystem setup.
SnapshotsCephFS snapshotsPartialSnapshots exist at the filesystem level. Confirm how they surface to SMB clients as previous versions and who may restore them.
ReplicationCeph multisite or backup toolingConfirm with vendorCephFS replication across sites is not a single feature to assume. Confirm the design with Ceph documentation and your recovery objectives.
Antivirus scanningClamAV through Nextcloud All-in-One or a file gateway scannerPartialClamAV is bundled with Nextcloud All-in-One, but scanning raw SMB shares needs a separate integration. Confirm coverage for your share paths.
Access auditingSamba audit logging and Nextcloud activity logsPartialLogs are split across components. Confirm which events are recorded and how they reach your SIEM.
Self-service restoreNextcloud file versions and trash, or snapshot access via SambaPartialNextcloud gives end users restore for files it manages. Confirm the experience for files stored on raw shares.
Object tiersCeph RGW (S3 API)PartialRGW serves object data, not SMB or NFS paths. Plan data movement and application changes as a separate workstream.

How CephFS on Ceph serves SMB and NFS shares

CephFS is the POSIX file layer on Ceph RADOS, and Ceph itself does not speak SMB or NFS. Clients that mount a CephFS file system use the native Ceph kernel or FUSE client. Windows clients and most NFS clients cannot use that path directly, so the design needs gateway services in front of CephFS. Samba exports CephFS to Windows and macOS clients over SMB, and NFS-Ganesha exports it over NFS. Both run as separate services on hosts you manage, and both are your responsibility to version, patch, clusterize and test. Before you commit to a design, confirm the exact Samba and NFS-Ganesha versions, the Ceph release they were tested against, and which SMB and NFS protocol features your clients need, such as SMB multichannel, file locking behavior or NFSv4 delegations. Those details depend on your own environment and should be verified with the upstream projects.

The Ceph Object Gateway (RGW) is a different service. It provides S3-compatible and Swift-compatible object APIs on top of the same RADOS cluster, and it does not serve file shares. Keep it in the design only if you also need object storage, which is covered on the sibling object storage page. Do not plan on RGW to replace SMB or NFS access to user home directories or departmental folders. Its feature set, including multisite, authentication options and the AWS-compatible IAM and STS APIs, should be checked against the RGW documentation for the release you deploy.

The practical decision is which gateway layer you will operate and who will support it. Samba handles Active Directory integration, share permissions and Windows ACL behavior, so ask your storage team to test a representative set of users, groups and nested permissions before cutover. NFS-Ganesha is the usual choice for Linux and UNIX clients. Plan for gateway redundancy, since a single gateway host becomes a single point of failure for every share it serves, and test failover with real client workloads. Ask any implementation partner for the written test plan and the list of gateway versions they will certify in your environment.

Which open-source file option fits which workload

Raw CephFS shares fit departmental file storage and application data that must be mounted by servers or accessed through standard SMB and NFS clients. CephFS is the POSIX-compatible file system of Ceph, and Samba and NFS-Ganesha can export it to Windows, macOS and Linux clients, which is the closest match to a traditional NAS share. The trade-off is that users get a mapped drive and nothing more: no web interface, no link sharing, no built-in sync client and no document collaboration.

  • Fit: Engineering project folders, finance drops, and application or batch data that jobs mount directly.
  • Permissions: Map ACLs and group membership to CephFS path permissions and share-level settings in Samba. Test every share against a copy of real access rules before cutover.
  • Operations: The team runs the Ceph cluster, Samba and NFS-Ganesha, Kerberos or LDAP integration, and monitoring for metadata servers.
  • Sizing: Plan metadata on enterprise-class SSDs and size memory for peak use, as the Ceph hardware guidance advises.
  • Protocol access: Confirm which SMB and NFS versions, and which Active Directory integration method, your clients require.

Ask your storage team to confirm which clients and applications mount these shares today before deciding this is the right tab.

How to size and replicate a CephFS share tier

A CephFS tier behind Nutanix Files replacement is only as dependable as the hardware under it. The cards below cover the layout, network, memory and testing decisions that the Ceph hardware recommendations raise, and they should be checked against your own file workload before any purchase.

One dedicated drive per OSD

Each Object Storage Daemon should own its own drive, so a failed disk takes down one OSD rather than several. Share hosts that mix OSDs with other workloads on the same spindles will show uneven latency under file load. Ask your hardware vendor to confirm drive counts per node against the failure domain you plan to protect, and record that layout in the design document before ordering.

WAL and DB on shared SSDs

For HDD-based OSDs, the Ceph hardware recommendations advise moving the write-ahead log and RocksDB metadata onto shared SSDs. This matters for small-file workloads typical of user home directories, where metadata operations dominate. Confirm the SSD-to-HDD ratio with the Ceph documentation and benchmark it, because a single shared SSD failing can affect every OSD it serves.

Enterprise SSDs for metadata

CephFS metadata servers and the metadata pool hold the namespace that every SMB and NFS client depends on. The hardware guidance points to enterprise-class SSDs for this pool, with power-loss protection and sustained write endurance. Consumer drives may pass initial testing and then degrade under production metadata churn, so ask for the drive model and its endurance rating in writing.

Bonded links across two switches

The hardware recommendations advise bonding network links and spreading them across two switches. A single switch failure then removes one path rather than the whole storage network, which protects replication traffic as well as client access. Check that the bond mode, MTU and VLAN settings match on every node, and test a switch failover before the share tier carries production users.

Memory sized for peak use

Ceph guidance says to size memory for peak load rather than quiet periods, because recovery and rebalancing after a failure can consume far more RAM than normal operation. Metadata servers also cache the namespace in memory. Ask the vendor to model memory for a rebuild scenario, not only steady state, and confirm headroom per OSD before fixing the node memory configuration.

Benchmark before buying

The hardware recommendations state that no two clusters are alike and advise benchmarking before purchase. Build a short test that mirrors your real mix of small files, large project data and concurrent SMB or NFS clients, then measure it on candidate hardware. Replication size and erasure coding profiles must also be confirmed for the target workload, since they change usable capacity, write cost and rebuild time, and the choice should be validated with Ceph documentation and your own tests.

Running CephFS next to a remaining Nutanix estate

You do not have to leave AHV to move file shares. A common pattern is to keep AHV, or another hypervisor, for compute while CephFS serves SMB and NFS from a separate Ceph cluster deployed with cephadm. The licensing question comes first. Nutanix Unified Storage is licensed per usable TiB, and the mode you run determines what you still pay for. In mixed mode, NUS licenses sit on top of NCI or NCP licenses. In storage-only mode, only NUS licenses apply. Dropping Nutanix Files while keeping NCI changes which of these applies to your estate, and the effect on your NUS entitlement and your NCI renewal is not something to infer from the product pages. Ask Nutanix in writing which mode your cluster is licensed under today, whether removing Files reduces the TiB basis, and whether any licensed capacity can be released mid-term.

Identity and DNS are where overlap periods usually break. Users should see the same share names throughout the migration, so plan the DNS records before any data moves: lower the TTL on the existing Files names well ahead of the cutover window, and switch the names to the CephFS export only when the pilot share has passed its checks. Keep Active Directory as the single source of identity, and confirm with your SMB gateway vendor how it joins the domain and maps permissions, because Ceph's own documentation covers the Dashboard's SAML 2.0 and OAuth2 sign-in for administrators, not file-share authorization. For traffic between clients and the Ceph cluster during the overlap, enable the msgr2 secure mode on the network that carries it, since it encrypts post-authentication traffic on port 3300.

Treat the overlap as a rollback window, not a single switch. Pick a Ceph release with a support horizon beyond your planned retirement of Nutanix Files: Tentacle 20.2.x is the active line, and its estimated end of life is June 1, 2027, according to the Ceph release schedule, so confirm the current dates on that page before you commit. Move one share at a time, verify ownership and ACLs against a list kept from Files, and keep the Nutanix share readable until the business owner signs off. Retire the Files service only after the rollback window closes and your change log records each share's new path, owner and DNS entry.

Moving shares, data and permissions off Nutanix Files

This sequence moves SMB and NFS shares from Nutanix Files onto a Ceph-backed file service with their data, access rules and user experience intact, and keeps the original source available until the cutover is proven. Permissions mapping is where most of the effort sits, so it gets its own checkpoint before any user touches the new shares.

  1. Inventory shares, ACLs and client dependencies

    The storage or infrastructure team exports a complete list of every share, its protocol (SMB, NFS or both), its quota, its snapshot and replication settings, and its access control entries from the Nutanix Files management console. They also record which applications, scheduled jobs, scanners and users mount each share, because those dependencies decide the cutover order. The step is done when every share has a row in a migration register with an owner, a protocol, a permission export and a named business contact.

  2. Size the target capacity and layout

    Using the used-capacity figures and growth expectations from the inventory, the team sizes usable Ceph capacity with enough headroom for replication or erasure coding overhead and for recovery after a node failure. The Ceph hardware recommendations call for a dedicated drive per OSD, WAL and DB on shared SSDs for HDD-based OSDs, enterprise-class SSDs for metadata and bonded network links across two switches, and they advise sizing memory for peak use and benchmarking before buying. The output is a signed sizing note that the storage owner and the platform owner both accept, and that names the Ceph release (Tentacle or Squid, per the active releases page).

  3. Build the Ceph cluster and file gateways

    The platform team bootstraps the Ceph cluster with cephadm, adds hosts and services, and deploys CephFS with the SMB and NFS gateways that the target design requires. If the estate runs Kubernetes, they confirm with the Rook project whether Rook is the better deployment path. Authentication is wired to the directory the business already uses, and the Ceph Dashboard is configured for single sign-on if administrators need it. The step closes when a test share mounts over SMB and NFS from a sample client, and the cluster reports healthy with the expected redundancy level.

  4. Map permissions and share settings

    This is the most labor-intensive step. The team translates each NTFS-style ACL entry, inheritance flag, share-level permission and SMB setting (such as access-based enumeration, opportunistic locking or durable handles) into the equivalent Samba configuration and POSIX or extended ACL rules on CephFS. Each share gets a mapping table that lists the source principal, the target principal and any setting with no direct equivalent, so the owner can accept or redesign it. The step is done when every share's mapping table is signed off by its data owner and the list of unsupported behaviors is documented with a workaround.

  5. Sync data while the source stays live

    The migration team copies each share with a file-level sync tool that preserves timestamps, ownership and ACL metadata where the tool supports them, and repeats incremental passes so changes made on the Nutanix side are picked up. Open files, locks and very large directories are reviewed in advance, and a checksum or file-count comparison runs for a sample of each share. The step is complete when the final incremental pass shows no differences that the data owner has not explained, and the copy logs are archived with the migration register.

  6. Test with pilot users and sample workloads

    A small group of pilot users from each department opens, edits, saves and locks files on the new shares, and the team runs the scheduled jobs and application mounts from the inventory against the target. They check permission denials as well as grants, because a missing deny rule is a common finding. Any problem goes into a defect list that is closed before the next stage. The step is done when each pilot user and each dependent application has signed off on the test cases, and the defect list has no open high-severity items.

  7. Cut over DNS names and share paths

    During an agreed change window, the team stops writes on the source, runs a final incremental sync, updates the DNS records or share paths that clients and applications use, and switches the mounts in login scripts and configuration files. They confirm the new names resolve and that the expected users reach the new shares. The step is done when the change record shows the final sync result, the DNS change is verified from several client networks, and the service desk has the rollback procedure.

  8. Hold the source read-only for rollback

    The Nutanix Files shares are set to read-only and kept for a rollback window that the business sets in advance, so the team can restore access quickly if a serious defect appears. Backups of the Ceph shares are verified during this period, and the source is retired only after the owners confirm the data and permissions, the backup restore has been tested and the license end date has been recorded. The step is complete when the decommissioning record lists the retained data location, the retirement date and the person who approved it.

What does it cost and take to replace Nutanix Files?

What are the cost components of replacing Nutanix Files with self-hosted Ceph?

The main cost components are hardware, software, operations and people. Hardware covers storage nodes with a dedicated drive per OSD, enterprise-class SSDs for metadata, and bonded network links across two switches, as Ceph's hardware recommendations describe. Ceph itself is LGPL-licensed with no paid edition from the project, so the software line is typically zero, but support contracts from a commercial Ceph vendor or distributor are separate purchases. Gateway components that expose SMB or NFS add operations work. Staff time covers building, patching, monitoring and capacity planning. Ask any quote to separate these lines so you can compare them with your current Nutanix Files and Unified Storage terms, which are licensed per usable TiB.

Which parts of the cost are one-time and which recur?

One-time costs are the initial hardware purchase, network build, data migration, share and permission mapping, testing and cutover. Recurring costs are hardware refresh, power and rack space, support contracts if you buy them, staff time for patching and upgrades, backup storage and monitoring. Ceph releases are supported for a fixed window: Tentacle (20.2.x) has an estimated end of life of June 1, 2027, and Squid (19.2.x) has an estimated end of life of October 31, 2026, according to the Ceph releases page. Plan at least one upgrade cycle into every budget, because each release line ends on a published date and the upgrade becomes recurring work.

What makes the effort of replacing Nutanix Files grow?

Effort rises with the number of shares, the complexity of access control lists, the number of files open during cutover and the total data volume. Many small shares with nested group permissions take longer to map than a few large shares with simple rules. Open files and active sync clients need a planned freeze window. Data volume drives copy time and the sizing of replication and backup. Permissions that depend on Active Directory need careful testing of SID mapping, and that work is independent of the storage platform. Ask the implementation partner to inventory shares, ACLs, quotas, snapshot schedules and user counts before agreeing a scope.

Can our team replace Nutanix Files without an outside partner?

A team with Linux, storage and Active Directory skills can attempt it, but the risk is in the parts that are rarely practiced: sizing for peak use rather than average load, benchmarking before buying hardware, and designing failure domains. Ceph's hardware guidance says no two clusters are alike and advises benchmarking before purchase, so a pilot with your own workload is a sensible first step. Many teams combine internal ownership of day-to-day operations with a fixed-scope external engagement for design, hardening, backup testing and handover. DeployOpen plans, implements, hardens, backs up, documents and supports self-hosted platforms in your own infrastructure, typically under a written scope agreed before work starts.

How long does it take to replace Nutanix Files?

No timeline is fixed by the supplied sources, so the honest answer depends on your share count, data volume, hardware lead times and cutover window. Ask for a written scope that lists phases such as discovery, pilot, data copy, permission validation, cutover and handover, with a duration for each and the dependencies that could move it. Also ask what the timeline assumes about your hardware delivery and your Active Directory readiness. Align the schedule with your Nutanix Files renewal date so you do not pay for an extended overlap unless you choose to.

What should we ask for in a quote for a Ceph file replacement?

Ask for a quote that itemizes hardware specifications and quantities, network design, the Ceph release and cephadm or Rook deployment method, protocol gateways for SMB and NFS, authentication integration, backup and restore design, monitoring, and documentation. Request an inventory-based migration plan, a permissions validation approach, a rollback plan, and acceptance criteria for cutover. Also ask who handles upgrades, security patches and on-call support after handover, what happens when a Ceph release reaches end of life, and which items are one-time versus recurring. Confirm how the quote treats support you buy separately from the vendor or distributor.

When does a collaboration layer like Nextcloud fit better than raw file shares?

A collaboration layer fits better when users need sync clients, sharing links, versioning, external collaborators, mobile access or document co-editing, not only mounted network drives. Raw SMB and NFS shares suit application data, home directories and workloads that expect POSIX or Windows file semantics. Nextcloud can authenticate through LDAP and Active Directory, and it documents OpenID Connect and SAML backends. Its Enterprise subscription, sold in Standard, Premium and Ultimate tiers with a 100-user minimum, carries list prices per user per year on its pricing page, so compare that with the per-TiB Nutanix Files cost. Upgrades need care: Nextcloud does not allow skipping major releases, so administrators must move one major version at a time, back up before each upgrade and disable third-party apps until they are confirmed compatible.

When Nextcloud fits better than raw file shares

A raw file share serves SMB or NFS paths that users mount or map, and it leaves sharing, versioning and login to the operating system and the directory. A collaboration layer such as Nextcloud sits on top of storage and adds sync clients for desktops and phones, sharing links with expiry and password options, file versioning and restore, and in-browser editing through Nextcloud Office or an integrated Collabora or OnlyOffice setup. Choose the collaboration layer when the main users are remote or mobile staff who need files outside the corporate network, or when external partners need links rather than accounts. Keep plain CephFS shares when the consumers are applications, build systems or legacy servers that expect a mounted path and POSIX semantics.

Login is the decision point most teams underestimate. Nextcloud's LDAP app lets Active Directory or LDAP users sign in with their directory credentials, and Nextcloud also documents OpenID Connect and SAML backends, so access can follow the same joiner and leaver process as other systems. Confirm with your identity team which backend matches your directory, how group membership maps to Nextcloud groups and quotas, and whether Talk calls and the Office editor should be enabled for every group or only pilot users. Plan the Talk and Office components as separate services with their own sizing, since they change the load profile of the server.

Plan the upgrade cadence before go-live. Nextcloud publishes a new major version every four months and supports each one for one year with monthly maintenance releases, so your operations team will apply a major upgrade roughly three times a year if it stays current. Nextcloud does not allow skipping major releases, so each upgrade must step through one major version at a time, with a full backup taken beforehand and third-party apps disabled until they are confirmed compatible. Budget that routine work into the platform team's calendar, or ask a support partner to take it on. Commercial Nextcloud Enterprise tiers add longer maintenance windows and response times, and that choice should be made against your own support requirements in a written quote.

How DeployOpen scopes and delivers a file service replacement

DeployOpen plans, implements, hardens, documents and supports self-hosted open-source platforms inside your own infrastructure. For a Nutanix Files replacement, the work starts with a written scope covering shares, identity, sizing and cutover, then moves through a tested build to a documented handover.

How we scope

  • Inventory every SMB and NFS share, its size, owners, access groups and daily change rate
  • Define the written scope, deliverables and timeline for the CephFS build before work starts
  • Agree which identity source, replication model and backup targets are in and out of scope

How we build

  • Deploy the Ceph cluster and CephFS with cephadm or Rook, sized against measured workload benchmarks
  • Configure SMB and NFS exports, directory-based permissions and quotas, then test them with pilot users
  • Harden network links, messenger encryption and dashboard single sign-on, and run security tests on the file services

How we hand over

  • Deliver runbooks for share administration, quota changes, upgrades and failed-node recovery
  • Document the permission mapping, migration results and cutover rollback steps for your auditors
  • Provide evidence for your compliance assessment, while independent auditors issue any audit reports or certifications

How we support

  • Offer ongoing support, upgrades and continuous testing as a retainer after the handover
  • Plan Ceph release upgrades against the published maintenance windows for each active release
  • Run periodic restore tests and access reviews so the file service stays recoverable and current

Talk to our team.

Tell us what you're working on, whether it's a deployment, an audit, a security test or a cyber range. You'll speak with an engineer who can help you scope it.

  • 30-minute call: free, with no obligation.
  • NDA on request: we can sign before you share details.
  • Clear next steps: a scope and plan after the call.