UCI

The Hidden Costs of HCI

by

The hidden costs of HCI often prevent IT professionals, who are looking to exit VMware, from seriously considering the architecture as a viable alternative. Hyperconverged Infrastructure (HCI) vendors capitalize on this scenario, positioning their solutions as streamlined platforms that seamlessly unify virtualization, compute, storage, and networking. However, this initial promise of simplified infrastructure management frequently masks significant hidden costs and complexities.

The hidden costs of HCI

Initially intended to unify infrastructure components, traditional HCI has failed to deliver true integration. Compute, storage, and networking resources remain operationally separate, requiring distinct layers in the form of virtual machines (VMs) communicating with the hypervisor. Commonly deployed solutions utilize separate VMs for storage management (e.g., Nutanix’s CVM or VMware’s vSAN), distinct networking stacks (Nutanix Flow, VMware NSX), and individual management VMs (Nutanix Prism, VMware vCenter). True operational simplification remains elusive; what began as convergence is merely the virtualization of legacy three-tier architectures.

How VergeOS Solves the Convergence Problem

VergeOS achieves true convergence through its ultraconverged design. By integrating storage, networking, virtualization, and data services directly into a unified operating environment, VergeOS eliminates silos and redundant communication layers. This cohesive design simplifies operations, reducing complexity, administrative overhead, and resource inefficiency.

Dive deeper with our on-demand webinar: “Comparing HCI as VMware Alternatives.”

The Efficiency Problem

The hidden costs of HCI include its inability to deliver meaningful infrastructure efficiency. Despite sharing hardware, HCI components remain distinct entities, each consuming substantial resources. Dedicated storage VMs, management VMs, separate networking stacks, and additional abstraction layers cumulatively drain compute cycles and memory. Application VMs running within these infrastructures consequently suffer degraded performance and higher latency, forcing organizations to compensate with additional hardware investment rather than benefiting from the initially promised efficiency gains.

For instance, a typical I/O operation in an HCI environment begins at the hypervisor level, proceeds through a storage controller (virtualized as a separate VM), traverses network infrastructure, and finally reaches physical storage media. Each extra step consumes CPU resources, adds latency, and reduces performance efficiency. As workloads scale, the cumulative impact of these inefficiencies affects application responsiveness and resource utilization.

Some HCI vendors utilize data locality to mitigate some of these issues; however, this technology further complicates operations and negatively impacts performance during node or drive failure.

The hidden costs of HCI

How VergeOS Solves the Efficiency Problem

VergeOS integrates all services, including storage and networking, directly into its operating system, eliminating performance overhead associated with separate management virtual machines or additional software layers. Its lightweight architecture ensures maximum resource efficiency, optimizing performance and dramatically reducing hardware requirements and infrastructure costs.

The High Cost of HCI Inefficiency

The hidden costs of HCI inefficiencies necessitate significant investment in higher-performance hardware to compensate for architectural shortcomings. IT must procure more powerful servers, increased core counts, expanded memory, and faster networking. Furthermore, licensing models that charge per CPU core or capacity exacerbate costs, forcing organizations into substantial capital expenditures. These license models compel customers to purchase less optimal hardware to contain software licensing costs.

How VergeOS Reduces the Cost of Inefficiency

With a streamlined architecture, VergeOS maximizes hardware resource utilization. Its efficient code base and integrated design enable organizations to achieve optimal performance using commodity or existing hardware, reducing initial capital expenditures and ongoing operational expenses. VergeIO licenses VergeOS per-server without penalties for using high-core-count or high-capacity servers.

The High Cost of HCI Data Availability

HCI solutions employ synchronous mirroring—continuous real-time data duplication across nodes—to protect against hardware failures. Vendors commonly refer to redundancy levels as Replication Factor (RF) or Fault Tolerance Level (“failures to tolerate” or FTT). Nutanix refers to protection from one node failure as Replication Factor 2 (RF2), meaning two copies of data are maintained. VMware terms this configuration Failures to Tolerate of 1 (FTT=1).

To protect from two simultaneous node failures or multiple drive failures across nodes, Nutanix uses Replication Factor 3 (RF3)—three data copies—while VMware uses FTT=2. This triple redundancy greatly increases storage capacity and resource requirements. RF3 requires at least five nodes, becoming prohibitively expensive for smaller deployments. In larger environments, limiting resiliency to two node failures is insufficient, as risk increases with node count.

These requirements force prioritizing specific workloads for enhanced protection (RF3), relegating others to standard availability (RF2). Limited redundancy beyond RF3 leads organizations to increase the cluster count per site, resulting in cluster sprawl, which in turn causes additional administrative complexity, higher costs, and uneven availability guarantees.

To maintain performance during node failures, Nutanix and VMware require reserving a portion of resources on each server equal to the capacity of one full node. In a four-server environment, 25% of each server’s resources are reserved for failover, which substantially reduces the available capacity during regular production operations.

How VergeOS Delivers Cost-Effective Data Availability

VergeOS leverages ioGuardian, a deduplicated third-copy data protection method. This efficiently safeguards against multiple simultaneous hardware failures without excessive storage overhead or node count requirements of traditional RF3 implementations. ioGuardian provides robust availability at an economical cost, without requiring workload prioritization, delivering superior resilience at a lower price and complexity.

No reservation of server resources is required. If a node fails, VergeIO’s ioOptimize technology intelligently and automatically reallocates affected VMs to other nodes based on each VM’s resource demands and available server capacities.

The High Cost of HCI Data Protection

The Practice of Snapshotting

Snapshotting commonly provides additional recovery points beyond the capabilities of backup software. However, snapshot-intensive environments impose severe performance penalties, resulting in increased storage I/O and network resource demands. Frequent snapshots or long-term snapshot retention require complex metadata management, demanding more powerful servers, additional memory, and faster storage media. This results in escalated hardware and licensing costs, especially in per-core or per-capacity licensing models common to HCI.

Snapshot chains or numerous simultaneous snapshots greatly increase complexity, hindering disaster recovery processes. Restoring across heterogeneous hardware or hypervisor environments becomes challenging, restricting operational flexibility.

How VergeOS Simplifies Data Protection

VergeOS utilizes ioClone technology, integrated with its global inline deduplication, to create space-efficient, independent snapshots with minimal metadata overhead. ioClone’s architecture supports near-continuous snapshot execution and indefinite retention without performance degradation, enabling rapid and efficient data protection without the need for costly hardware upgrades or complex snapshot management. The combination of ioGuardian and ioClone also reduces the organization’s dependency on backup, lowering the costs of backup software licensing and backup hardware infrastructure.

The High Cost of HCI Inflexibility

The hidden costs of HCI architectures imposing strict hardware compatibility and homogeneity requirements are significant. Expanding storage or compute resources mandates identical hardware, limiting flexibility and increasing long-term infrastructure costs. Adding nodes of different brands, generations, or capabilities creates additional clusters, which fragment management and reduce efficiency.

How VergeOS Enhances Infrastructure Flexibility

VergeOS supports heterogeneous hardware environments, enabling organizations to integrate diverse hardware configurations into unified, scalable clusters seamlessly. This flexibility reduces costs, simplifies expansion, and maximizes investment longevity, enabling adaptive infrastructure growth without imposed constraints on homogeneity.

overcome the hidden costs of HCI inflexibility

An Example of The Hidden Costs of HCI vs. VergeOS

Consider a three-node infrastructure using traditional Hyperconverged Infrastructure (HCI), where the organization’s goal is to maintain continuous data availability even after two simultaneous node failures. Traditional HCI solutions, such as Nutanix or VMware vSAN, require at least five nodes configured with Replication Factor 3 (RF3), or a Fault Tolerance Level of 2 (FTT=2), ensuring continuous availability despite two node failures. In addition, these solutions require maintaining sufficient free storage capacity at all times to accommodate a complete rebuild in the event of node failures, thereby reserving capacity equivalent to an entire node, which further reduces usable storage space.

Because the customer wants to leverage their existing hardware—a heterogeneous mix of Dell and HPE servers—traditional HCI platforms present immediate compatibility and cost challenges. Traditional HCI requires uniform hardware for seamless operation, which adds complexity and cost.

Cost Analysis for Traditional HCI

Achieving protection from two simultaneous node failures requires:

  • Minimum Node Count: 5 nodes (uniform hardware required).
  • Replication Method: RF3 or FTT=2 (three synchronous copies of all data).
  • Usable Capacity: Reduced to approximately 33% due to triple mirroring overhead.
  • Reserved Free Capacity: Additional storage space equal to one node’s full storage capacity, always kept available to allow immediate rebuilds after failures.

In this scenario, the customer faces:

  • The necessity of purchasing additional uniform hardware due to vendor compatibility guidelines.
  • Higher software licensing costs, typically calculated per CPU core.
  • Significant reserved resources on each node (compute and storage) are allocated exclusively for node failure scenarios.

This dramatically increases capital and operational expenses, requiring significant investment in new hardware and licenses, thereby negating the anticipated HCI savings.

Cost Analysis with VergeOS

In the same scenario, VergeOS offers substantial advantages:

  • Minimum Node Count: 3 nodes (uses existing Dell and HPE hardware).
  • Replication Method: Integrated distributed mirroring combined with VergeOS’s independent, deduplicated third data copy via ioGuardian, which can be installed on any available standby server.
  • Usable Capacity: Approximately 50% (due to two-way mirroring), augmented by ioGuardian’s deduplication efficiency.
  • Reserved Free Capacity: Minimal additional storage capacity needed due to ioGuardian’s efficient data protection strategy, reducing rebuild space requirements compared to traditional RF3 architectures.

With VergeOS, you benefit from:

  • No need for uniform hardware, allowing immediate use of existing Dell and HPE servers.
  • Reduced licensing and hardware costs, as no additional nodes or extensive resource reservations are required.
  • Enhanced data availability beyond traditional two-node failure protection without extensive reserved storage, reducing overhead and complexity.

Summary of Cost Benefits

Traditional HCI requires two additional nodes (totaling five) and mandates uniform hardware, increasing both capital and operational expenses, compounded by large reserved capacity requirements for rebuilding data. VergeOS provides superior resilience, operational continuity, and cost efficiency by leveraging existing heterogeneous hardware and substantially reducing the need for reserved rebuild capacity.

Conclusion

While hyperconverged infrastructure initially promises simplicity, efficiency, and cost savings, underlying architectural limitations quickly surface as substantial hidden costs. Challenges such as insufficient convergence, operational inefficiencies, costly availability and protection schemes, and restrictive infrastructure flexibility erode promised benefits. Organizations should carefully assess these hidden costs when evaluating HCI solutions, prioritizing converged, integrated infrastructures like VergeOS that fundamentally address these critical challenges, enabling efficient, cost-effective, and future-ready IT environments.

Register for our HCI Data Availability Analysis

Comparing VMware Alternative Storage

by

Comparing VMware Alternative Storage

As part of a VMware exit, comparing the VMware alternative storage capabilities is as important as selecting an alternative hypervisor for the organization’s future infrastructure software. Organizations typically examine Nutanix’s Controller Virtual Machine (CVM) architecture against VergeIO’s integrated VergeFS storage within VergeOS. Although both approaches virtualize SAN functionality onto the same servers, creating a virtual SAN (vSAN), the two designs differ. These differences impact resource utilization, operational complexity, stability, and costs.

Understanding vSAN Resource Efficiency

Nutanix employs a storage-as-a-VM architecture using a dedicated CVM running on each node. This CVM consumes substantial resources—between 16GB and 32GB of RAM or more, alongside multiple virtual CPUs (up to 22 vCPUs per node). This significant resource footprint reduces available capacity for production workloads, driving higher infrastructure costs and decreasing resource efficiency, particularly in smaller environments.

VergeIO integrates storage directly into VergeOS via its VergeFS file system, eliminating the need for dedicated controller VMs. This integration ensures more node resources remain available for production workloads, improving resource efficiency without requiring additional hardware investments.

Sizing and Stability of vSAN Alternatives

Sizing complexities are inherent in Nutanix’s CVM-based model. Determining the ideal CVM size is critical yet challenging. Undersized CVMs lead to bottlenecks or instability, while oversized CVMs consume unnecessary resources. Nutanix users sometimes experience stability issues such as random CVM reboots, leading to a reactive response rather than root-cause analysis from support teams.

VergeIO’s integrated storage approach within the OS kernel eliminates these sizing complexities, providing predictable and stable performance without the risk of bottlenecks or instability. This inherent stability reduces operational overhead, making VergeIO a reliable VMware alternative with minimal administrative intervention.

Understanding vSAN: Performance

Comparing VMware Alternative Storage

When under load or insufficiently resourced, Nutanix’s CVMs negatively impact VM performance on the same node, leading to broader performance degradation across the cluster. VergeIO’s integrated approach ensures stable and consistent resource utilization, avoiding disruptions and translating directly into improved cluster reliability and responsiveness.

VergeIO consistently publishes detailed performance benchmarks, demonstrating VergeOS’s real-world capabilities. Nutanix, in contrast, has provided minimal transparency regarding vSAN performance. While no benchmark perfectly represents every customer scenario, VergeIO’s results offer valuable insights.

Recent VergeOS performance benchmarks show impressive outcomes, including over 1.5 million read IOPS, 23 GB/s throughput on a 25 GB/s network, and realistic 64k block sizes at less than one penny per IOPS. Independent testing by StorageReview demonstrated VergeOS handling 1,000 virtual desktops booting in 71 seconds. These benchmarks substantiate VergeIO’s superior performance and transparency claims compared to Nutanix.

Management and Troubleshooting a VMware Alternative

Nutanix’s separate CVM introduces additional management complexity, requiring administrators to monitor, maintain, and troubleshoot an extra software layer. Issues such as CVM reboots or resource contention complicate troubleshooting, increasing operational burdens.

By removing the separate CVM layer, VergeOS simplifies operations. Administrators gain straightforward monitoring, simplified diagnostics, and faster issue resolution, all integrated transparently within VergeOS.

Understanding vSAN Controller Resiliency

A key consideration when comparing the VMware alternative storage capabilities is how the solution handles resiliency. Nutanix promotes its distributed “leader” CVM architecture, allowing any node to assume cluster leadership. However, this approach offers limited practical advantage, as additional leader nodes beyond simultaneous node failure tolerance are redundant. Nutanix clusters configured with RF3 can survive two simultaneous node failures, reducing the practical value of additional leaders.

VergeIO’s ioGuardian provides redundancy and resilience beyond traditional N+2 redundancy. While conventional three-way mirroring (N+2) continuously replicates data across three nodes, ioGuardian enhances protection by maintaining an independent, deduplicated third copy, stored separately from the primary mirrored dataset. This highly available backup replaces traditional backups and becomes integral to your continuous availability strategy.

IoGuardian seamlessly and transparently serves data back to the production environment in real time during multi-node or multi-drive failures, even exceeding two nodes. Affected virtual machines instantly retrieve the necessary data from the ioGuardian storage, eliminating downtime and ensuring uninterrupted operations without manual intervention or complex recovery workflows.

Combining immediate real-time data availability, reduced infrastructure overhead, and simplified management, ioGuardian substantially surpasses the protection and operational simplicity achievable with standard N+2 redundancy approaches.

How a vSAN Impacts TCO

Nutanix’s CVMs impact total cost of ownership (TCO) beyond licensing. They require substantial resources, necessitating larger hardware configurations, increasing capital expenditures, and increasing ongoing licensing expenses.

In contrast, VergeIO’s integrated VergeFS reduces the software footprint, simplifies licensing with straightforward per-server pricing, and optimizes existing or commodity hardware. This approach considerably lowers infrastructure costs, positioning VergeIO as a cost-effective VMware alternative storage solution.

Summary of VergeOS Advantages

Comparing VMware alternative storage capabilities reveals that VergeIO’s integration of VergeFS into VergeOS provides significant practical advantages over Nutanix’s CVM-based storage model. It maximizes resource efficiency, ensures consistent and reliable performance, simplifies management, and reduces infrastructure and licensing costs. These combined advantages position VergeIO as an attractive VMware alternative storage solution, ideal for organizations seeking efficiency, stability, simplicity, and cost-effectiveness.

To further explore VMware alternative data availability and see these considerations in action, join our upcoming VergeIO webinar. Our experts will provide an in-depth comparison of hyperconverged and ultraconverged architectures, highlighting performance benchmarks, operational simplicity, and cost-efficiency. Register now to ensure your infrastructure decisions align with your organization’s strategic priorities.

Our latest white paper, “HCI Data Availability Analysis,” delves into the crucial issue of maintaining availability in Hyperconverged and Ultraconverged architectures by comparing how Nutanix and VergeIO ensure data access during hardware failures.

A High-Performance vSAN

by

IT professionals who’ve attempted to architect a high-performance vSAN often hit a brick wall. No matter how many nodes and how much network bandwidth they build into their design, they face poor utilization and high latency. As a result, hyperconverged infrastructure (HCI) is pigeonholed into specific use cases, like virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI), and fails to be deployed broadly across the enterprise. This siloing of HCI defeats its primary purpose: consolidating and simplifying data center operations. A high vSAN performance is essential for organizations to realize the promise of HCI.

a High-Performance vSAN

The challenge is further compounded because high-performance storage I/O is no longer limited to specialized use cases. It has become a requirement for modern workloads. What was once considered high performance is now the baseline, pushing organizations to scale storage I/O performance to meet evolving application demands. Yet, HCI struggles to deliver, forcing businesses to rely on expensive dedicated storage arrays even for workloads that require mainstream performance. A dedicated storage array is 10X the price of the equivalent capacity in a vSAN, if the vSAN can deliver the required performance. Ultraconverged Infrastructure (UCI) bridges this gap, delivering the promised simplicity of HCI while addressing its limitations.

Why HCI Can’t Deliver a High-Performance vSAN

HCI promises to simplify IT infrastructure by combining virtualization, storage, and networking into a single solution. However, beneath the surface, it relies on separate software components hidden behind a graphical user interface. This fragmented design introduces inefficiencies, with storage operating as a virtual machine (VM) within the hypervisor. As a result, storage competes for resources with other VMs, leading to higher latency, lower efficiency, and underutilization of available bandwidth.

HCI comes with strict hardware requirements, further limiting its flexibility. Strict hardware requirements lead to higher upfront hardware costs and make scaling the infrastructure more complex because nodes have to match or be close in configuration to the previous set of nodes. Over time, it becomes difficult to find modern server hardware that matches four- or five-year-old servers. The result is that customers must refresh the entire cluster in one big forklift upgrade—despite HCI initially promising “no more forklift upgrades.”

How UCI Solves the High-Performance vSAN Problem

Ultraconverged Infrastructure (UCI) addresses the inherent inefficiencies of HCI by integrating storage, virtualization, and networking into a unified architecture. Unlike HCI, which depends on separate components, UCI leverages a single, optimized codebase that eliminates resource contention and improves performance.

a High-Performance vSAN

VergeOS, the leading UCI platform, delivers consistent, scalable performance without requiring proprietary hardware or additional storage arrays. During our upcoming webinar, we will demonstrate this high-performance live so you can see it yourself. VergeOS provides complete hardware flexibility, enabling organizations to mix nodes with different processing and storage capacities. This flexibility allows businesses to scale incrementally, avoiding the costly and disruptive forklift upgrades associated with HCI.

Proof that UCI Delivers

In tests done with Solidigm, VergeIO was able to prove the capabilities of its vSAN:

  • 1 Million+ IOPS at 30 GB/s Throughput: Using 64K block sizes, VergeOS demonstrated over one million random read IOPS with sub-millisecond latency, addressing the needs of performance-critical workloads.
  • 12 GB/s Write Throughput: VergeOS delivered 195,000 random write IOPS, maximizing the bandwidth of a 25Gbps network connection while maintaining low response times.
  • An eight-node cluster built using $1,500 servers achieved over a million IOPS at a cost per IOPS of just 0.67 cents, making high-performance storage accessible to organizations of all sizes.

The Importance of 64K Block Sizes

Testing with 64K block sizes provides a more accurate representation of real-world virtualized environments, where larger block sizes are commonly used for storage I/O. Traditional 4K block tests measure raw storage device performance, but they fail to capture the demands of virtualized workloads, which include virtual machines, databases, and large-file applications. By utilizing 64K blocks in testing, VergeOS showcases its ability to handle these real-world demands while maintaining exceptional performance metrics, making it an ideal solution for enterprise environments.

Conclusion: a High-Performance vSAN You Can Afford

Modern applications require infrastructure that scales both performance and affordability. While HCI struggles with the demands of today’s workloads, UCI fulfills the promise of a unified, high-performance platform. VergeOS combines optimized performance with flexibility, enabling organizations to handle any mainstream or high-performance workload without expensive, proprietary hardware.

With VergeOS, IT leaders can consolidate their infrastructure, reduce costs, and scale their performance to meet growing demands. To see VergeOS in action and learn more about these results, join our upcoming webinar for a live demonstration. It’s time to move beyond the limitations of HCI and unlock the full potential of UCI.

The Media and Node Flexibility of Ultraconverged

by

As IT professionals seek VMware alternatives, they often encounter hyperconverged infrastructure (HCI) solutions, but these systems can’t deliver the media and node flexibility of Ultraconverged Infrastructure (UCI). UCI solutions like VergeIO provide businesses with enhanced adaptability to support diverse storage media and node types. This approach better aligns with real-world demands and long-term infrastructure goals.

What is Ultraconverged Infrastructure?

Unlike traditional HCI or three-tier architectures, UCI integrates storage and networking directly into the hypervisor, running as services rather than virtual machines (VMs). Traditional three-tier systems rely on separate networking, virtualization, and storage hardware components. At the same time, HCI typically bundles these functions but still operates them as independent layers, each running as independent VMs.

With UCI, these critical functions are embedded within the hypervisor, improving efficiency and higher performance. This architectural shift also delivers greater flexibility in choosing media and server (node) types, allowing IT teams to scale infrastructure resources precisely according to their specific workload demands. VergeIO’s implementation of UCI is VergeOS.

The Limitations of Traditional HCI in Mixing Media and Node Types

Traditional hyperconverged infrastructures have rigid configurations requiring identical nodes for computing and storage. Organizations must scale both resources equally, which may not meet their needs. Additionally, traditional HCI solutions can’t support multiple storage types in the same environment, like flash and HDDs. These limitations force businesses to overprovision resources and spend unnecessarily on high-performance storage not aligned with their workloads.

Ultraconverged Infrastructure (UCI) addresses these challenges by enabling independent scaling of compute and storage through a mixed-node approach. It supports various storage media types, allowing IT teams to use high-density QLC flash, high-endurance TLC flash, and HDDs for optimized performance. This flexibility lets organizations assign workloads to the best resources for cost efficiency and improved performance.

Comparing HCI and UCI

The following table summarizes key differences between HCI and UCI, emphasizing how UCI overcomes many of the limitations faced by traditional HCI:

FeatureHyperconverged Infrastructure (HCI)Ultraconverged Infrastructure (UCI)
Node FlexibilityRequires identical nodes with balanced compute and storage resourcesSupports mixed nodes (compute-heavy, storage-heavy, GPU-heavy), allowing independent scaling
Media FlexibilityAllows independent scaling, adding only storage or computing as neededSupports a wide range of media types (TLC, QLC, HDD) tailored to workload requirements
ScalabilityMust add identical nodes, scaling compute and storage equallyAllows independent scaling, adding only storage or compute as needed
Cost EfficiencyHigher costs due to forced resource overprovisioningReduced costs by scaling based on actual workload needs
Resource AllocationLimited flexibility, requires additional hardware to meet diverse workloadsFlexible resource allocation across different node types for varied workloads
PerformanceOften limited by storage and compute configuration; may not fully utilize advanced hardwareMaximizes performance by optimizing workload placement and storage tiering
Data PlacementTypically lacks fine-grained control, with limited storage tieringSupports advanced data placement and storage tiering, utilizing high-density QLC, TLC, and HDD
Use CasesSuitable for basic virtualization needs, with uniform resource requirementsSupports diverse workloads (VDI, ML, AI, data lakes, backup) by adjusting to specific needs
High Availability and RecoveryBasic high availability, often requires more servers to maintain stabilityEnhanced high availability with efficient recovery, requiring fewer servers
ROI and Resource UtilizationLower ROI due to higher hardware costs and limited resource optimizationHigh ROI, optimized resource use through flexible node and media support
Hardware RefreshAll servers must be refreshed at onceServers can be refreshed gradually, one at a time, as needs change

Leveraging Mixed Storage Media: TLC, QLC, and HDDs

The Media and Node Flexibility of Ultraconverged

A key strength of UCI is its ability to support a variety of storage media, including TLC (Triple-Level Cell) flash, QLC (Quad-Level Cell) flash, and traditional HDDs. Each storage type offers unique benefits, and UCI enables IT teams to assign workloads to the most appropriate media, optimizing cost and performance without compromise.

  • TLC NVMe Flash: High-performance, high-endurance TLC flash is ideal for applications requiring frequent access to data, such as real-time analytics or transactional databases. UCI platforms allocate TLC flash where speed is critical.
  • QLC NVMe Flash: Cost-effective and high-density, QLC flash can store large datasets with minimal expense. QLC media, like Solidigm’s new 60TB+ QLC drives, is optimal for workloads with significant storage needs but lower performance requirements.
  • HDDs: HDDs remain a cost-effective choice for archival storage and backup, as they offer high capacity without the expense of flash storage. UCI allows organizations to assign archival or backup data to HDDs, reducing costs and freeing up flash resources for more demanding tasks.

In a recent evaluation, StorageReview verified VergeOS’s multi-media support, showcasing its flexibility to handle diverse storage types within a single environment. Readers can watch our on-demand webinar, in which VergeIO, StorageReview, and Solidigm discuss the test results and how these media options enhance the platform’s performance. Click here to register for the on-demand session.

Scaling Storage and Compute Independently with Mixed Node Types

UCI supports mixed node types, enabling independent scaling of compute and storage resources. Traditional HCI solutions require identical nodes for expansion, which is inefficient for businesses with unequal compute and storage demands. For example, data-intensive applications may need more storage without extra compute, whereas HPC tasks might require more compute with less storage.

The Media and Node Flexibility of Ultraconverged

In UCI, storage-heavy nodes or compute-heavy nodes can be added independently within the same instance, enabling organizations to scale up only what they need. This flexibility offers significant advantages for specific workloads:

  • Data Lakes and Analytics: Storage-heavy nodes provide the capacity required for large data lakes, while compute-heavy nodes and GPU-heavy nodes can seamlessly access the storage, creating a powerful path to analytics, machine learning (ML), and AI workloads—all supported by the media and node flexibility of Ultraconverged Infrastructure (UCI).
  • Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI): Compute-heavy nodes can handle the CPU resources needed for VDI. In contrast, fewer storage-heavy nodes are used for backend storage, ensuring cost-effective scaling without excess.
  • Backup and Archival: Storage-heavy nodes offer the necessary space for long-term backup and archival data without requiring additional compute resources. When paired with GPU-heavy nodes, this configuration provides a high-capacity, cost-efficient foundation supporting AI-driven data analysis or data mining when needed.

This combination of mixed nodes enables organizations to flexibly support a wide range of workloads, from storage-intensive tasks to GPU-powered analytics and AI applications, all while optimizing resource use and reducing overprovisioning.

ioOptimize: Maximizing Efficiency in Mixed-Node and Mixed-Media Environments

In VergeIO’s UCI implementation, VergeFS boosts efficiency by allowing data to be placed across various media and optimizing computing and storage use. IT can allocate performance-critical data to TLC flash and assign archival data to QLC flash or HDDs. Additionally, IT can direct high-performance workloads to compute-heavy nodes, freeing storage-heavy nodes for data-intensive applications. This management prevents resource bottlenecks and maximizes ROI throughout the infrastructure.

The Advantages of UCI’s Flexibility in Media and Node Types

Combining mixed storage media and mixed node types allows UCI to deliver several essential benefits for modern data centers:

  1. Cost Efficiency: Organizations can optimize storage costs by matching storage media to workload requirements without compromising performance. High-density QLC and HDDs help reduce expenses, while high-performance TLC flash is allocated to applications that truly need it.
  2. Scalability: Mixed node types allow organizations to scale only the resources they need, adding storage or compute independently for greater scalability and control over infrastructure growth.
  3. Enhanced Flexibility: The media and node flexibility of Ultraconverged Infrastructure (UCI) allows businesses to fine-tune infrastructure according to specific workload requirements, reducing waste and maximizing resource utilization.
  4. Future-Proofing: UCI supports a broad range of storage and compute configurations, allowing businesses to adopt new storage technologies and accommodate changing needs over time, ensuring the infrastructure remains resilient and adaptable.

Conclusion: Ultraconverged Infrastructure for True Flexibility and Efficiency

Flexibility is essential in today’s complex IT landscape. Ultraconverged Infrastructure (UCI) provides media and node flexibility unmatched by traditional HCI, supporting high-performance TLC flash, high-capacity QLC flash, and cost-effective HDDs. UCI allows businesses to mix compute-heavy and storage-heavy nodes, scaling resources to meet real-world demands and reduce costs.

Solutions like ioOptimize enhance UCI’s effectiveness by optimally placing data and maximizing resource efficiency across mixed-node environments. By adopting UCI, businesses attain a future-ready infrastructure that scales flexibly, aligns with workload needs, and minimizes overprovisioning—ideal for organizations transitioning from VMware to a more adaptable, cost-effective platform.

Integrate HCI into a Three-Tier Architecture

by

IT professionals often reject hyperconverged infrastructure (HCI) because they want to integrate HCI into their traditional three-tier architecture, and most HCI solutions can’t meet this requirement. HCI vendors also only focus on three tiers of the typical data center: networking, virtualization, and storage. However, a fourth tier is far too often overlooked: data availability and protection.

VergeOS’ Ultraconverged Infrastructure (UCI) can integrate into a customer’s traditional three-tier architecture. In this article, we will cover how VergeOS enables a more gradual onramp to UCI instead of a complete overhaul on day one and allows you to use components from each of your existing tiers.

UCI, an HCI Solution You Actually Want

Integrate HCI into a Three-Tier Architecture

The concept of HCI has merit. Take the data center tiers running on dedicated, vendor-provided hardware and reenable them as software, converging that software onto a single commodity server, liberating the organization from vendor lock-in and markups. The problem faced when IT attempts to integrate HCI into a traditional three-tier architecture is that HCI doesn’t truly converge anything. HCI stacks these tiers as software packages on top of each other, essentially recreating the same technology stack within a single server. It also forces them to exclude external SANs and existing servers.

UCI changes this by collapsing these stacks into a single, cohesive operating environment that is significantly more efficient. This elegant code base reduces overhead by as much as 30% while improving performance. The result is a VMware Alternative that is more portable, performs better, and provides improved data resilience.

UCI, an HCI Solution That Supports Fibre Channel SANs

One of the largest investments in the data center is the storage tier. If you have hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in a fibre-channel (FC) storage area network (SAN), you will want to integrate HCI into your traditional three-tier architecture so that you can continue to benefit from your significant investment. The problem is that most HCI solutions don’t support them. Because VergeIO owns all the code within VergeOS at a very deep level, we have taken the necessary steps to support fibre-channel-attached storage.

Click to Register

When using VergeIO and a FC SAN, you’ll need a physically local drive in each server to load VergeOS and store metadata, but the VM data can reside on the FC array. You’ll create a LUN as a virtual drive for each node that contributes to storage for the VergeOS instance. The VergeOS will manage and aggregate virtual drives into a pool that the VMs can use for data storage. VergeOS will also provide an additional layer of protection from hardware failure and add a deduplication capability. If your array already has deduplication, you can turn it off or leave it on; we’ve been unable to measure any noticeable performance impact.

In the future, when it is time to add additional capacity to the environment, you have options. First, you can continue to add capacity to your existing FC array, or you can take advantage of the 10X cost savings of using internal server class NVMe SSDs and/or HDDs. Also, as new storage technologies come to market, there is a much higher likelihood of them being supported sooner under VergeOS than waiting for the storage vendor to retrofit their designs to support them.

UCI, an HCI Solution That Supports Blade Servers

VergeOS is unique in that it can run a variety of different servers within the same instance. You can mix different server manufacturers, processor generations, and even processor manufacturers (Intel and AMD). You can also mix different server configurations. Some servers can be storage-heavy, and others can be processor-heavy.

Integrate HCI into a Three-Tier Architecture

Blade servers are processor-heavy nodes because they can only support a limited amount of internal storage. This makes blade servers problematic for IT professionals looking to integrate HCI into a traditional three-tier architecture. It forces them to reconsider the server strategy, which blade server customers are reluctant to do.

To incorporate a blade server into the VergeIO instance, you need to have either one internal drive store to boot VergeOS, or VergeOS also supports PXE booting, so an internal drive is not required. From there, the blade server can access its data from the shared pool of storage that VergeOS creates from the other nodes, or in the aforementioned FC SAN. In fact, if the blade server is FC equipped, it can “contribute” storage to the overall instance by assigning it a LUN as described above. Hosting storage does require slightly more RAM, so it is best to review the exact configuration with our technical architects.

As is the case with storage, VergeOS brings added flexibility for server expansion or refreshes. When it comes time to upgrade or expand your server infrastructure, you can continue to add blade servers or use standard 1U, 2U, or larger commodity servers of your choice.

UCI, an HCI Solution That Supports External Networks

Integrate HCI into a Three-Tier Architecture

VergeOS has a robust set of layer 2 and layer 3 networking functionality, but its use is optional. If you’ve invested in one of the market leaders for networking functionality, VergeOS can easily interoperate with them. As with the above, as time goes on, you can decide to use some of the network functionality built into VergeOS, saving you the cost of additional dedicated appliances, or you can continue to use your current vendor. To learn more about VergeOS, watch our Networking Fundamentals video.

UCI, an HCI Solution That Supports Third-Party Backup

VergeOS’ Data Availability Services combined with ioGuardian capabilities lessen IT’s dependency on the backup infrastructure for most recovery efforts, and many customers decide that is all the protection they need. VergeOS provides an in-guest agent that can quiesce when applying consistent snapshots. Still, some customers want to use third-party backup solutions to meet these requirements:

Copy of Last Resort

VergeOS can export the VMs’ raw files via an NFS mount point that almost any backup product can browse to meet compliance or vendor-independent data copy requirements to a different storage system, even tape.

File Level Restoration

As we show in this video, several types of file-level restoration can be done by leveraging VergeOS snapshots. Customers who want a centralized file-level recovery can install an in-guest agent from their backup software application into the virtual machines that are likely to require single-file recoveries.

Again, most customers find they can meet 100% of their data protection and recovery needs using VergeIO. Still, its support of third-party backup products enables IT to continue to use these solutions if required, or until they gain full confidence in VergOS’ capabilities.

Conclusion

Schedule a Technical Deep Dive on VergeOS

VergeOS’ Ultraconverged Infrastructure (UCI) effectively addresses the challenges of integrating HCI into a traditional three-tier architecture by supporting diverse hardware, including blade servers and FC SANs, and offering robust networking capabilities and data protection. As a versatile VMware alternative, VergeOS truly converges data center tiers into an efficient environment, allowing organizations to leverage existing investments and adapt to future technologies. This combination of compatibility, enhanced performance, and cost savings makes VergeOS’ UCI a very practical choice for modernizing IT infrastructure.

Overcoming HCI Shortcomings

by

Many IT Professionals disqualify Hyperconverged Infrastructure (HCI) as a VMware Alternative because they feel that overcoming HCI shortcomings is more expensive than continuing to use legacy three-tier architectures. These shortcomings are in areas where HCI was initially intended to excel: price, performance, scalability, and simplicity.

Overcoming HCI shortcomings led the VergeIO team to start from a clean slate and create the industry’s first UltraConverged Infrastructure (UCI) solution, VergeOS. It provides a superior, cost-effective alternative to HCI and the traditional three-tier infrastructure. Watch our on-demand webinar, “Beyond HCI” for a comparison of VergeOS’ UCI to the VMware and Nutanix HCI solutions.

In this article, we will explore the critical shortcomings of HCI, which lead IT planners to continue to leverage dedicated infrastructure, and how UCI overcomes them.

Can HCI Deliver Better CPU Performance?

The short answer is no. HCI can’t outperform the traditional three-tier architecture, which has dedicated hardware powering each tier. The reason is that HCI uses shared hardware to power at least four separate software packages, to deliver:


1) A package that contains the core operating system and the hypervisor.
2) A package that contains the storage software.
3) A package that contains the network software.
4) A package that contains the management software.

Each of these packages consumes CPU resources, and HCI’s lack of integration between them means it discards the potential gains in efficiency that combining them into a single code base would deliver. IT must install these packages as separate entities, making installation more complex. Then, once they are all installed and running and IT is ready to create a VM for the organization instead of for infrastructure, they’ve already lost as much as 20% of the CPU resources. To compensate, HCI requires the purchase of more powerful (and expensive) servers.

Another challenge is that as your application executes within the VM, it is probably running through much of the above stack. It uses the CPU to process requests from users. It is using storage IO to read and write data. It is using network resources to receive that input and deliver results. Finally, the VM’s health is reported to a management console in order to report on its health. Each transaction that the application executes is mired down in overhead.

The inefficiency of the code base forces HCI vendors into a predictable pattern of making customers buy turnkey hardware and software solutions from them, or buy new hardware using a strict hardware compatibility matrix. The required hardware must also be overpowered to compensate for the inefficiency, increasing costs.

UCI Delivers Near Bare Metal Performance

Can HCI Deliver Better CPU Performance

The fundamental difference between UCI and HCI is that UCI goes the extra step and eliminates the four separate software modules listed above. Instead, it integrates them into a cohesive code base, increasing resource efficiency. VergeIO typically uses less than 3-5% of CPU resources. The efficiency of resources also improves each VM transaction since no layers of code are involved in each request.

VergeIO customers consistently report measurable improvement in performance-demanding VMs and increased VM density while using existing hardware. Many VergeIO customers even report virtualizing formerly bare metal workloads and seeing a performance improvement.

Can HCI Deliver Better Storage Performance?

Concerns over storage performance are the number one reason customers will disqualify HCI in favor of dedicated three-tier architectures. Storage performance and storage scalability are very legitimate concerns for HCI vendors. First, most HCI vendors don’t use their own storage software. Often, they use an open-source solution like ZFS or CEPH, which were not designed for the unique requirements of providing storage services to a virtualized infrastructure. The solution remains convoluted even if they have their storage code.

Because of the lack of integration, HCI vendors have stumbled through implementing advanced drive failure protection and storage efficiency algorithms like deduplication. Adding these capabilities post-facto adds another layer to an already complex combination of software. For this reason, most vendors force customers to choose between storage efficiency and advanced drive redundancy.

Can HCI Deliver Better Storage Performance

UCI Delivers Better Storage Performance

The storage performance delivered by a UCI solution like VergeOS can outperform an HCI solution and a dedicated storage array while significantly reducing the storage cost. VergeOS correctly balances storage efficiency and storage performance. Its deep integration into the core software enables features like drive failure protection and global inline deduplication to work without adversely impacting performance.

Can HCI Deliver Better Scale?

By its very nature, HCI is scale-out, so scale should be an advantage, but once again, it falls short. Most HCI solutions require three servers (nodes) to start. It forces many small data centers to use two servers and a SAN or NAS. Many of these customers would benefit from a simple two-node solution that includes all the storage and networking functionality within those nodes.

HCI also doesn’t meet the scaling demands of enterprises. Most HCI solutions can only scale to eight nodes per instance before network traffic becomes challenging. They also have to buy similar nodes with each upgrade. If their needs change, they have to start an entirely separate instance of the HCI environment. As a result, many customers opt for the legacy three-tier architecture because each tier can be scaled independently of the other.

UCI Delivers Better Scale

Overcoming HCI shortcomings requires an infrastructure that is flexible and can adapt to the changing demands of the organization.

As we explain in our article “The Full Value of Scale”, a UCI solution like VergeOS delivers a three-dimensional scale. It can start with as few as two nodes, making it ideal for small data centers and remote offices, but it can also scale to hundreds of nodes to meet the needs of the most demanding enterprise. Nodes within the VergeOS instance can be different from each other. Customers can use nodes that provide balanced compute and storage, or mainly compute, or mostly storage, have GPUs installed, or any combination of the above.

Why is HCI More Expensive than Legacy Three Tier?

HCI should have a significant price advantage over legacy three-tier infrastructure. By definition, it is supposed to use off-the-shelf commodity servers, storage, and network hardware. However, this is seldom the case. Under the guise of “making it easy to install and support,” these vendors either require you to buy a turnkey hardware and software solution from them, require you to buy a specific configuration from one of their “certified” hardware vendors, or have a rigorous hardware compatibility list.

The inefficiency of layering virtualization software, storage software, and networking software as three separate software packages also drives up the cost of HCI. Customers must buy much more powerful nodes to support the additional overhead.

UCI Delivers Better TCO and ROI

Overcoming HCI shortcomings requires an infrastructure that can deliver the promise of reduced cost and simplified operations.

VergeOS’ tight integration of the hypervisor, storage, and networking software means customers can actually use off-the-shelf storage from whichever vendor they choose. This flexibility means there is no need to pay a premium for a so-called turnkey solution. Additionally, because VergeOS is licensed by the physical server, not the contents of that server, as you scale your environment, you can use quad-socket servers with massive core counts and not get crushed in licensing costs.

As we discuss in our article “The High Cost of Dedicated Storage”, VergeOS also dramatically lowers the cost of storage. You can use off-the-shelf server-class flash and hard disk drives, eliminating the 5X to 10X markup levied by dedicated storage array vendors.

The savings even follow through to the network. With VergeOS, you can use off-the-shelf commodity switches. When ready, you can replace dedicated network appliances like firewalls with VergeOS’ built-in L2 and L3 networking capabilities.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Hyperconverged Infrastructure (HCI) makes a poor foundation for an alternative to VMware, particularly in CPU performance, storage efficiency, scalability, and cost. Despite HCI’s initial promises of simplifying operations and reducing costs, it typically fails to meet these objectives due to its inherent inefficiencies.

Yet the cost and complexities of three-tier architectures remain. This has led to the development of VergeIO’s UltraConverged Infrastructure (UCI), which addresses HCI’s shortcomings as well as the three-tier challenges. VergeOS integrates infrastructure software modules into a single, cohesive codebase, enhancing performance and scalability while reducing costs. As such, it presents itself as a more viable solution for customers seeking a VMware alternative as well as for those seeking a simpler, more scalable data center infrastructure.

Learn More

Want a Free Architecture Diagram?

See how VergeOS will fit into your datacenter

Close the CTA