VMware

by

VMware is coming under ever-increasing scrutiny for its ransomware shortcomings, and now customers are considering a VMware exit for ransomware resiliency instead of just to reduce licensing costs. The heightened concerns come from increasingly sophisticated cyber threats, and recent VMware vulnerabilities have been part of the problem.

In conversations with numerous VMware users infected by a ransomware attack, they often recount tales of belated attack discoveries, followed by intensive recovery efforts that take weeks, if not months, to restore their systems entirely. VergeIO has identified key ransomware shortcomings in the VMware environment, and offers a viable means to address them effectively by exiting to VergeOS.

So, how can IT professionals break this cycle?

The Infrastructure-Wide Approach to Ransomware Resiliency

Click to Watch a Ransomware Recovery in Action

Ransomware resiliency revolves around more than backup software and hardware. If you have to count on backups to recover from a ransomware attack, you are in for a very long and painful process. Counting on a separate, third party backup process as VMware does, is why customers are considering a VMware exit for better ransomware resiliency, in addition to trying to reduce licensing costs.

A more comprehensive approach to ransomware resiliency is required, focusing on:

  1. Limiting Attack Surface: This means not all virtual machines (VMs) are exposed, creating barriers between them. The Virtual Data Center (VDC) technology by VergeOS mimics this concept, bundling VMs, storage, and network configurations within a group of applications, creating a “walled garden” to contain potential threats. By default, it is nearly impossible for a malware trigger file to move between VDCs.
  2. Prioritizing Frequent Data Protection: Regular backups won’t suffice. Ransomware can encrypt data faster than most backup schedules can accommodate. This ability to deliver rapid, frequent data protection is where VergeOS stands out with its IOclone-based snapshot technology. It ensures frequent, space-efficient, and impact-free data protection. VergeOS snapshots are independent copies rather than legacy snapshots that are a cascading tree of dependence. With VergeOS, customers can execute snapshots frequently with no disruption to performance.
  3. Immutable Data Storage: Traditional backups can still be compromised. VergeOS ensures that IOclone-based snapshots are immutable and safe from ransomware intrusions unless deliberately changed to read-write by an authenticated Administrator. Malware may launch within a single virtual data center, but it can’t spread beyond it, and it can’t infect immutable protected copies, which can easily be only a few minutes old.
  4. Timely Patch Application: VMware Administrators often need help to apply patching timely, potentially exposing vulnerabilities longer than organizations would like. VergeOS uses its VDC and snapshot technology to allow quick patch tests, ensuring smooth deployments without disruptions. IT Administrators can clone the entire VDC into a “Lab” VDC and test the patch impact against the entire data center without disruption to production.
  5. Swift Ransomware Detection: Recognizing a breach early is crucial. VergeOS’ IOfortify technology swiftly detects potential threats, often within minutes, allowing for prompt action and containment. The recovery effort increases in complexity exponentially with each minute the attack goes undetected.
  6. Efficient Attack Victim Identification: Once contained, it’s vital to pinpoint affected VMs. VergeOS’ telemetry information, coupled with IOfortify timestamps, accurately indicates compromised systems for quick recovery. It enables you to focus on the few infected VMs instead of needing to scan every VM in the environment.
  7. Zero-Data Movement Recovery: VergeOS enables a near-instant recovery process, allowing IT Administrators to restore operations promptly without lengthy data transfer processes. There is no data movement. Bring up the most recent snapshot, scan for a potential trigger file, remove it if present, and launch the clone into production. There is no data movement.
  8. Detailed Forensics: Instead of hastily erasing infected datasets, VergeOS enables you to quarantine and retain them, offering valuable insights into the attack mechanisms and aiding with future prevention strategies.
  9. Robust Operating Environment: VergeOS stands out with its hardened operating environment, ensuring that its core remains unexploited, and in case of any breach, a quick restoration is possible.

Our newest white paper, Creating an Infrastructure-Wide Ransomware Resiliency Strategy, will enable you to create a strategy to help you recover from an attack within minutes and with no data loss —Download Now. Justify a VMware exit for ransomware resiliency in addition to reducing licensing costs.

Rethinking Infrastructure Choices with VergeIO

VMware exit for ransomware resiliency

VergeIO’s focus isn’t a mere reaction to the ransomware challenges IT faces; it’s a well-thought-out strategy integrated into the core code base from day one. It ensures a fortified operating environment. When seeking a VMware alternative, cost savings are essential but not exclusive. If, during the VMware Exit, you can improve your ransomware resiliency, it makes the decision both compelling and logical.

Converting your VMware environment is painless and risk-free. Schedule a technical whiteboard session; our experts will walk you through the process.

Read about how ransomware infiltrated MGM’s infrastructure on 9/15/2023 encrypting more than 100 ESXi servers.

Watch as we protect, detect, and recover a VM that is being attacked by ransomware.

Filed Under: Ransomware Tagged With: , ,

by

mitigating VMware migration risks

Many VMware customers are concerned about ever-increasing licensing costs, and are actively considering VMware alternatives. However, mitigating VMware migration risks is an even more significant concern. There are four steps that IT planners can take to ensure a seamless and risk-free migration to a new infrastructure platform:

  1. Upfront Assessment
  2. Virtual Proof of Concept
  3. On-Premises Evaluation
  4. Gradual Cut Over

Upfront Assessment of a VMware Alternative

Before diving deep into any IT project, you want to ensure the result will be significantly better than the current state. When considering a VMware alternative, reducing and simplifying licensing costs is one of the obvious areas to examine. Beyond licensing costs, IT should also evaluate long-term cost savings potential like:

Additionally, moving to an alternative platform should deliver more than cost savings. IT planners should consider the move to a new platform as an opportunity to improve capabilities like:

Finally, before moving to the next step, you should talk to some existing customers and see what they have to say about the potential alternative. Get their feedback on how easy the product is to use, how well it’s supported, and learn about their day-to-day experiences. Current customers can prove vendor claims.

Virtual Proof of Concept of a VMware Alternative

Once IT completes its initial assessment, most vendors try to rush to a proof of concept (POC). POCs are the cornerstone of mitigating VMware migration risks, but the problem is that a POC requires IT to find some hardware or make space for the vendor’s hardware. It also means that IT must find the time to go through the testing process and have a strategy for performing that test.

mitigating VMware migration risks

An alternative is a virtual proof of concept, where the vendor creates a virtual environment for you to test drive their solution. However, this virtual environment must give you full reign to perform whatever type of testing you want. You should be able to do more than “just drive the GUI.” You should be able to load up your virtual machines (VMs), test data protection capabilities, and start to think through on-premises test plans.

Your virtual instance should be 100% isolated from any other virtual POCs. Otherwise, you can’t deploy your applications and data without the risk of another organization gaining access to them. If the vendor can only deliver that isolation by dedicating specific hardware for the test, they will likely have to limit the time you can test. If the vendor can deliver that isolation, then they should be able to provide a very flexible testing timeframe.

On-Premises Evaluation of a VMware Alternative

If the potential VMware alternative still interests you after completing the virtual proof of concept, it is then time to move to an on-premises evaluation of the solution. Most vendors are happy to provide an on-premises evaluation. Still, the IT planner must pay attention to the vendor’s behavior as you move through this process.

There are red flags that will appear, even before you start testing. These red flags should give you some insight into how well the solution is going to perform for you in the coming years:

? Does the vendor require a multi-hour meeting to ensure all the technical requirements are met?
? Does the vendor insist on providing you with hardware even though they say they are "software-only"?
? Does the vendor want to come on-site to install the evaluation?
? Does the vendor push you to do a "try-and-buy" where you commit to buying the solution if critical requirements are met?
? Does the vendor insist you use the local technical resource for any technical questions that might arise?

An on-premises evaluation should be a strings-free relationship. You should be able to use existing hardware. It should only require a quick call, not a three-hour workshop, to ensure the hardware you plan to use is optimal for your testing. If the vendor claims to be software-only, then as long as you can provide hardware that meets their minimum requirements, you should be given the green light for your evaluation.

Usually, having a vendor come on-site to install an evaluation, or worse, providing you with a “turnkey” hardware package for the evaluation is a sign that the vendor is trying to hide how complex their solution is to get running. If it is hard to install, it will be hard to operate.

You are testing something new, and you will run into technical questions. You should go through regular technical support channels to get those questions answered. This process lets you see what kind of support you will get years after installation.

Gradual Cut-Over to the New Platform

Once you’ve completed the evaluation, you should map out a migration strategy before you commit to purchase. Mitigating VMware migration risks requires that the cut-over to the new platform is gradual. In most cases, you won’t flip a switch and, in a single pass, move all your VMs to the new platform. You typically migrate in “lumps,” one workload at a time. This more gradual process means the migration capabilities, if there are any, should be continuous. The new platform’s migration capabilities need to keep VMs from the VMware environment in sync so that the most recent copy of data is on the new platform when IT is ready to convert the next workload.

A near-continuous sync of VMware VMs to the new platform also means that it can provide enterprise-wide value from day one while you are gradually migrating to it. Suppose the migration function is near-continuous and intelligent enough only to move changed data blocks. In that case, it can act as a disaster recovery solution (DR) for the entire VMware environment. The result is from day one; it can save you money while you migrate at your pace. Without it, you are under too much pressure to show value from the new purchase quickly, making you more likely to rush VM migrations.

If the new platform achieves the efficiency mentioned in the initial assessment, IT should be able to carve off two or three physical servers to act as the initial foundation. Those initial servers should be able to receive all the migrated VMs and the continuous updates to them. Then, as you move VMs into production on the new platform, resources will free up in the VMware environment, enabling you to add a few more servers to the new platform.

A De-Risked VMware Migration

Selecting a vendor that is patient enough to walk through the above process de-risks the migration away from VMware. Each of these steps is essentially a checkpoint in the process, and you don’t move to the next step until you are confident in the results of the prior step.

Using existing hardware and providing value while you migrate are critical. If, during the evaluation process, you discover something you don’t like about the solution, you are not saddled with a bunch of hardware that you must de-install and return. And the ability to add value while you gradually migrate, in our example acting as a DR solution, puts less pressure on you to migrate too quickly.

The VergeIO Team is happy to guide you through this process, which is why we have such high customer satisfaction. The first step is to perform the upfront assessment—schedule yours now with one of our technical experts.

Filed Under: VMwareExit Tagged With: ,

by

IT has to factor the cost of the VMware Tax into its infrastructure planning. Where does this tax come from? It is the extra expense in hardware needed, to compensate for the overhead of VMware’s inefficient virtualization code. Adding additional components like vSAN for storage, or NSX for networking only makes the tax more severe. These components will adversely impact applications and users if IT doesn’t work around the overhead. These workarounds cost money, increase complexity and create a more brittle infrastructure that struggles to adapt to the organization’s future needs.

There are three primary effects of the VMware Tax:

  • A lower-than-possible VM Density.
  • The continued need for stand-alone bare-metal workloads.
  • A proliferation of the three-tier architecture.

To compensate, organizations are forced to:

  • Buy more or more powerful physical servers than what should be necessary.
  • Buy high-performance dedicated all-flash arrays.
  • Face a never-ending future of premature server and storage refreshes.

The Cost of the VMware Tax is one of the hidden costs of VMware. Learn about the rest of them in our on-demand webinar, “The 4 Hidden Costs of VMware.”

The Cost of VMware Tax on Server Planning

The first cost of the VMware Tax is that meeting the organization’s demands requires using either fewer virtual machines (VMs) per server and more physical servers or more powerful physical servers to support more VMs per server. As we discuss in our article, “HCI isn’t Infrastructure,” using more servers highlights the scaling issues common in Hyperconverged Infrastructure (HCI) and leads most customers to purchase more powerful servers to reduce cluster node count.

Using more powerful servers with more CPUs, cores, and RAM increases those servers’ costs. This approach also increases VMware licensing costs since the company charges by the physical CPU installed in its nodes, and the expectation is that after the Broadcom acquisition is complete, the company will switch to a per-core licensing strategy and is expected to raise costs even further.

Overcoming the VMware Tax with Powerful Servers

Overcoming the cost of the VMware Tax by using more powerful servers exposes the lack of flexibility when scaling, the typical VMware architecture has. More powerful servers will likely be used longer before organizational growth requires IT to add another server to the cluster. When it comes time to add additional servers to the cluster, two or three years later, that exact server type may no longer be available, or a better option may be available using a different CPU vendor. Managing nodes of different types within a VMware environment is convoluted, leading many customers to establish an entirely separate cluster, further increasing costs and complexity.

There is also the challenge of, after three or four years, the hypervisor or storage vendor may upgrade its software to the point that it no longer supports the original servers. At that point, IT is faced with refreshing its entire server infrastructure to maintain compatibility with the updated software.

The Cost of the VMware Tax on Scale

Hyperconverged Infrastructure (HCI) solutions expect a “balanced scale,” where the organization adds equal amounts of computing, storage, and networking. This requirement exposes another cost of the VMware Tax. No organization always needs to scale these three components at the same time. Especially when purchasing more powerful servers, the organization will likely need more storage performance or capacity before requiring additional computing resources.

Again, legacy HCI designs like those from VMware (vSAN, vSphere, NSX) or Nutanix expect almost identical nodes to be added to the cluster. To meet capacity demand, customers are adding servers similar to their original installation, and they end up paying for and wasting a massive amount of CPU and memory that come with those servers. Although a few vendors have evolved to allow more storage-centric nodes, these are complex band-aids with many compromises and increasing complexity. Most customers choose not to use them.

The enforcement of balanced scaling forces most customers considering HCI solutions to disqualify them later. As a result, the VMware Tax indirectly proliferates the more complex and expensive three-tier architecture.

VergeOS Enables High VM Density and Imbalanced Scale

VergeOS is a highly efficient data center operating system (DCOS) that enables high per-physical server VM populations. It does this by integrating the three standard data center tiers (networking, computing, and storage) into a single code base that is a fraction of the size in terms of lines of code without sacrificing features. This effort is the foundation of Ultraconverged Infrastructure (UCI) which moves beyond the flawed HCI model to deliver the full promise of a truly converged infrastructure.

A more compact code base means faster execution on the same hardware. Integrating the traditional data center tiers means that efficiency carries throughout the entire solution. Our typical customer can support 25 to 30% more VMs per physical server with VergeOS than their prior solution (Hyper-V, VMware, Nutanix) while running on the very same, existing hardware.

The lack of flexible scale increases The Cost of the VMware Tax

As the organization’s demands grow, VergeOS provides flexible and intelligent scaling. An optimized internal-node communication protocol ensures near-linear performance increments as IT adds nodes to the environment. VergeOS’ flexibility means that IT can add nodes of almost any type, including storage or compute-centric nodes. VergeIO has never forced the retirement of old servers to support a new version of VergeOS.

VMware Tax Encourages Bare Metal

Despite all the advantages and flexibility of virtualization, the cost of the VMware Tax means that many customers still view some applications as bare-metal only. The performance demands of these servers are just too strenuous for the virtual environment. They either starve other VMs on the same node of resources or can’t continually guarantee access to the performance these applications demand. They also tend to be certain hardware types, like GPUs, that specific applications need, which legacy solutions don’t adequately virtualize.

The result is IT must purchase and stand up dedicated silos of computing and storage for these applications, which increases costs and complexity. Additionally, these bare-metal environments don’t benefit from core virtualization capabilities like seamless VM migration.

VergeOS Delivers Near Bare Metal Performance

VergeOS’ compute efficiency also helps formerly bare-metal-only workloads to be able to realize the benefits of virtualization. Historically, many bare-metal workloads remained bare-metal because of the storage I/O demands. VergeOS integration of storage, coupled with the performance of its file system, delivers near-bare-metal performance for these workloads. The VergeOS storage component, VergeFS, ensures all reads are local to the virtual machine. Finally, VergeOS supports nodes of various CPU classes within the same instance. Our customers can and do mix Intel, AMD, and GPU-based nodes, even of different generations. They repeatedly tell us that they were able to virtualize formerly bare-metal workloads without any degradation of performance.

Conclusion

With its inefficiencies and subsequent costs, the VMware Tax represents a significant concern for IT infrastructure planning. Its impact on VM density and the push toward bare-metal workloads signifies the increased expenses and complexities organizations face. As the technology landscape continues evolving, solutions like VergeOS emerge as viable alternatives, offering enhanced VM densities and near bare-metal performance.

VMware VM to VergeOS Chalktalk

By merging the conventional data center tiers and focusing on efficient operation, VergeOS addresses the challenges posed by VMware’s model and presents a forward-thinking solution that adapts to an organization’s dynamic needs. As organizations strive for agility, cost-effectiveness, and scalability, transitioning to platforms prioritizing these attributes will be paramount. VergeOS makes that transition seamless thanks to our IOmigrate capability.

Filed Under: VMwareExit Tagged With: ,

by

The performance impact of retention means that VMware snapshots have a high cost, which further means that IT professionals must compensate by investing more than they should into storage and backup infrastructure. Below are the best practices of VMware’s snapshot functionality, according to VMware’s knowledge base article:

  1. Don’t Use Snapshots As Backups
  2. While the maximum number of supported snapshots per virtual machine is 32, the best practice is not to use more than 2 or 3.
  3. Don’t retain a snapshot for more than 72 hours.
  4. Ensure that snapshots are deleted when using third-party backup software
  5. Never increase the virtual machine disk size while there are active snapshots.

The weaknesses of VMware’s Snapshots are just one of the hidden costs of using VMware in the data center. To learn all four, watch our on-demand webinar, “The 4 Hidden Costs of VMware“.

VMware Snapshots Are Not Backups

VMware states the reason VMware snapshots should not be considered backups of virtual machines (VMs) is “The snapshot file is only a change log of the original virtual disk. It creates a placeholder disk, virtual_machine-00000x-delta.vmdk, to store data changes since the snapshot was created. If the base disks are deleted, the snapshot files are insufficient to restore a virtual machine.”

The need to track changes in a separate file means that every time new data is written to a VM’s primary volume, it leads to significant overhead and dependency on the original volume. The overhead limits customers’ ability to use VMware’s snapshot technology for backup because only two or three snapshots can be active at any point in time. The dependency is the final nail in the coffin. If the primary fails, then all of your snapshots become useless.

The Impact of VMware Snapshots Not Being Backups

Most customers would still choose a separate backup software solution even if VMware could provide unlimited snapshots without performance impact. The fact that VMware snapshots are so hindered forces customers to invest more heavily in a backup solution. The weakness of VMware’s data protection capabilities has led to the creation of companies like Veeam and fueled its growth.

Backup solutions are the only products that can extract any usefulness from VMware Snapshots. They can execute one VMware snapshot, mount it to their backup application, and back it up. Then when the backup completes, the software can delete the snapshot it took so it doesn’t impact overall performance. That same knowledge base article advises IT to make sure their backup software selection can delete the snapshots it takes. (Item 4 above)

The Cost of VMware Snapshots Not Being Backups

VMware’s deficient snapshot capability is not unique. Although not as severe, many dedicated storage systems have similar limitations on how frequently you can execute a snapshot and how long you can retain those snapshots. All of the legacy snapshot technologies are plagued with this problem. Each successive snapshot depends on the snapshot before it, and all snapshots depend on the original volume. If that original volume is removed, all the snapshots are invalidated.

One of the most important priorities for IT is to protect the digital assets that the organization creates and uses to make decisions. Since that priority is paramount, IT must work around the weakness in snapshot technology and invest in a separate process, backup, and recovery, to mitigate the risk.

The investment in the backup and recovery process is not insignificant. There is the cost of the backup software and the need for and cost of a separate storage system. There is also the cost of time to transfer that data from production storage to the secondary storage device. The transfer time means significant gaps in which data is unprotected, something ransomware uses to its advantage. Finally, there is also the time involved in transferring data back into production if something goes wrong with primary storage. There is a place for separate backup and recovery, but it should not be the primary means to protect and recover production data.

IT professionals largely ignore the cost impact of these limitations because they assume that there is no alternative.

The Clone Alternative to VMware Snapshots

As discussed in our previous article, “Snapshots or Clones for Data Protection”, a Clone, i.e., a complete copy of a virtual machine or volume, except for one limitation, is a much better means to protect data:

  1. Clones are independent
  2. Clones don’t impact performance
  3. Clones can be retained indefinitely

A limitation of clones is that they are exact copies of the original, which means there is a transfer time problem and a capacity consumption issue. This limitation goes away, though, if, at an infrastructure level, global inline deduplication is integrated into the core code. Global inline deduplication enables the creation of copies of any virtual machine, or even the entire environment. The clones can be made near instantly, and they, initially, don’t consume any capacity.

The problem is that most deduplication technology is an afterthought, especially within hypervisor software. VMware introduced deduplication into vSAN years after the initial release, and Nutanix waited even longer. Adding deduplication as a bolt-on years after the initial introduction means that the algorithm adds processing overhead to the environment, dramatically impacting performance and decreasing virtual machine density.

To some extent, IT can work around the overhead of deduplication by buying more powerful servers and adding more RAM to those servers, all of which add significant costs to the infrastructure. Alternatively, IT can purchase a dedicated storage array. Still, as we explain in our article, “The High Cost of Dedicated Storage,”, that approach also increases the cost of the infrastructure.

IOclone: Eliminating Costs While Increasing Resiliency

VergeIO integrates deduplication into VergeOS, and it isn’t a bolt-on. Global Inline Deduplication has been at the core of VergeOS since day one. As a result, it operates very efficiently and with no performance impact compared to legacy solutions. This means creating a clone using VergeOS’ IOclone capability; it happens instantly with virtually no initial impact on capacity. Also, these clones are not dependent on the original copy. They are standalone and don’t impact performance, nor do they have retention limitations.

VMware snapshots have a high cost

VergeOS’ Global Inline Deduplication is also WAN aware, so IT can replicate production data and clones to remote DR sites or other data centers using minimal bandwidth and time. Moving data to a second VergeOS instance meets the “one copy off-site” requirement common in most data protection strategies.

Thanks to VergeOS’ foundational implementation of global inline deduplication, IOclone merges the best of both snapshots and clones to deliver unprecedented data protection and resilience. It is also why we refer to them as snapshots within our GUI. It is another example of the benefits of solving problems holistically at the infrastructure level instead of myopically at the data level. Watch our on-demand webinar, “Creating a Holistic Ransomware Response,” to see another example of solving problems at an infrastructure level.

While some VergeIO customers have eliminated backup as a separate process, you still may want to continue with your backup and recovery strategy, which VergeOS supports. Even if you do, the sophistication and expenses of that process are significantly reduced. While VMware snapshots have a high cost, IOclone does not. It is part of the reason customers who select VergeOS as their VMware alternative realize a reduction in the total cost of ownership by as much as 80% in addition to 30% or larger upfront licensing savings.

Filed Under: VMwareExit Tagged With: ,

by

At Verge.IO, we speak with two or three VMware customers daily, and they are all surprised when we expose VMware’s licensing paywall. Sure, they know the obvious upfront costs of VMware. Still, when they see the potential of VergeOS’s complete and fully integrated operating environment, they begin to understand that it is not just the cost of the license fee; it is also the cost associated with all the other modules or hardware you must buy because of the “modularity” of VMware’s offering.

VMware's Licensing Paywall

In our upcoming webinar, “The 4 Hidden Costs of VMware,” we dive deep into ways that, from a technical standpoint, VMware’s technology uses a paywall that effectively keeps your organization from being competitive. In this article, we will focus specifically on how VMware’s modular licensing model costs you money.

The Expensive Nature of the Three-Tier Architecture

The data center has three tiers; networking, computing, and storage. The legacy three-tier architecture consists of the following:

  1. A network built from proprietary network hardware from companies like Cisco.
  2. A server tier virtualized by something like VMware vSphere or Microsoft Hyper-V.
  3. A storage tier built from proprietary hardware from companies like Pure Storage or Dell/EMC.

The problem with this approach is it is costly and complex to manage. It typically requires experts for each tier, raising operational costs. It also requires continuous fine-tuning to ensure each workload gets the correct performance level.

Failed HCI Created a VMware Paywall

A few years ago, VMware had the idea of expanding what it did to the server tier, and virtualizing the other two tiers. They brought to market vSAN, purchased what would become NSX, and ushered in the Hyperconverged Infrastructure (HCI) era. The promise was that life would be so much simpler for overburdened IT professionals.

Fast forward to today, and most organizations continue to run a traditional three-tier architecture, and IT pros are still beleaguered with IT tasks. What went wrong with HCI nirvana?

The first problem is that from a technology standpoint, the software-defined versions of networking and storage that VMware and others have brought to market pale in comparison to the specialized versions. There is also a challenge because each of these three software components is a separate code base, each representing double-digit millions of lines of code. Jamming them into a single server and attempting to scale out with multiple servers creates performance and scale issues. These technical issues require you to increase your hardware investment or stay with the legacy three-tier architecture. We explore them in our webinar.

VMware's Licensing Paywall


The second problem is from a business standpoint. VMware charges a lot for these licenses, so the tried and true hardware approach remains more appealing. Then there are also the challenges of all of the different versions of VMware, each with its own set of limitations.

vSphere Essentials is a VMware Paywall

VMware Essentials and Essentials Plus are designed to provide small to medium-sized data centers with a cost-effective way to acquire VMWare. Essentials is limited to no more than three physical nodes and they are licensed to no more than six total processors. The typical configuration is a two or three-node cluster with two processors in each server. A processor with more than 32 cores consumes two of the processor licenses.

These solutions are priced aggressively but have the most expensive paywall to get through in order to get the features you need. Essentials features are as bare as you can get and, for the most part, provide only the virtualization layer. Essentials Plus adds the basics of what you hope to get by virtualizing servers like vMotion, Cross Switch vMotion, High Availability, and vSphere Replication. The upcharge to Essentials is significant, more than 10X the price!

Another example of VMware’s licensing paywall is that neither Essentials nor Essentials Plus includes vSAN. To get vSAN, customers need to purchase VMware HCI Kit Essentials, which is 3X the cost of Essentials Plus. The result is that most customers we speak to, use VMware Essentials Plus with a dedicated SAN, skyrocketing the infrastructure cost. As we discussed in our last article, “The High Cost of Dedicated Storage,” the delta of adding server class flash drives to a server instead of buying a dedicated array is significant. It is also important to note that neither of the two Essentials editions support Storage vMotion.

Remember networking? None of the three flavors of Essentials does much with networking beyond a virtual switch. If you want to use commodity switches instead of more expensive proprietary switches, VMware will offer you NSX. It also has more advanced capabilities like routing, firewalling, and virtual private networking. All of these capabilities can dramatically reduce data center costs, but the cost of NSX more than doubles the cost of the implementations.

VMware Essentials is a perfect example of why understanding the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is critical. VMware’s licensing paywall makes the TCO of your infrastructure increase with each upgrade. While the entry price may be very attractive, the total cost is not. The cost of forcing small to medium-sized businesses to use the proprietary network and storage hardware to avoid additional software licensing is significant. Each component is potentially 25X or more the cost of the Essentials software.

It doesn’t have to be this way! Both storage and networking components have long since been commoditized, with very reliable off-the-shelf alternatives available at a fraction of the cost. Yes, the software driving this hardware must be at least on par with the proprietary solutions. Again in our webinar, we will dive deep into that comparison.

Finally, there is the success penalty when your organization grows to the point that it needs more than three nodes or six processors in a cluster. The uplift from Essentials more than doubles, again, the price of your Essentials installation. Then you get to deal with a whole new level of modularity and feature compromise as VMware presents you with Standard Editions, Advanced Editions, Enterprise Editions, and Professional Editions, each with limitations and cost increases as you move to the next level.

vSphere Standard is a VMware Paywall

VMware’s licensing paywall doesn’t stop with Essentials. The story is the same for larger organizations already having vSphere Standard or vSphere Enterprise, except they are starting at a much higher price point. Pricing is still per CPU with limitations on the number of supported cores. As with Essentials adding vSAN or NSX doubles or triples the cost to license each CPU.

There are also upgrade options for “standard” users. For example, to get deduplication, you must upgrade from standard to advanced. You may be able to deduplicate data, but you inflate your price by almost 2X to get it. Do you want data-at-rest encryption? That is not in vSAN Advanced. You need to upgrade to Enterprise, almost doubling the price again!

Have you had enough?

VMware's Licensing Paywall

The Paywall-Free TCO of VergeOS

VergeOS integrates the networking, hypervisor, and storage into a single cohesive code base. It is one piece of software, not three separate modules whose only integration is that the logos match. From a technology perspective, the common code base means VergeOS can deliver better performance and greater machine density, even using your existing hardware. From a TCO perspective, it means you can get your sanity back.

VergeOS is priced per Node. You are free to put as many processors, cores, as much RAM, and storage as you want in that node. There is no additional charge. VergeOS comes with complete Layer 2 and Layer 3 network functionality, enabling you to use commodity off-the-shelf switches when you are ready, and eliminate purchasing purpose-built hardware like firewalls. To experience all the power of VergeOS’ networking capabilities, watch our latest LightBoard video, “The Advantages of VergeOS Networking.”

VergeOS also includes powerful and efficient storage functionality, including the industry’s most advanced global inline deduplication, data protection, disaster recovery, and ransomware resiliency. It leverages flash drives and hard disk drives inside the nodes to deliver the highest performance levels at a fraction of the cost of traditional storage systems.

Operational costs plummet with VergeOS. Our single code base means an IT Generalist can administer the entire environment. Our intelligent learning algorithm eliminates the need to fine-tune and manage redundancy settings. It provides complete self-optimization and self-healing.

As you transition more of your infrastructure to VergeOS, your TCO continues to improve. Our most frequent type of customer is a VMware convert, followed closely by Hyper-V customers. In most cases, they start with an upfront cost reduction of 35% to 50% and drive toward a TCO of well over 70%.

Conclusion

If you have had enough of VMware’s licensing paywall limiting how your organization can fully leverage innovations in technology to lower costs and drive innovation, then it is time to take a look at VergeOS. Reach out to us to schedule a short technical overview of the difference VergeOS can make.

Filed Under: Virtualization Tagged With: ,

by

Because Hyperconverged Infrastructure (HCI) and Software Defined Storage (SDS) have failed to live up to their promises, most IT leaders assume there is nothing they can do about the high cost of dedicated storage. A recent IDC study indicated that over 50% of IT planners ready for a storage refresh consider HCI, but they rule it out the majority of the time. As a result, three-tier architectures continue to be the default architecture for most data centers.

The Problem with Dedicated Storage Architectures

Dedicated storage architectures, either a storage area network (SAN) or a network-attached storage (NAS) system, are expensive to purchase, maintain and refresh. The primary problem is the software that drives the storage products. It is laden with features that are inefficiently implemented. As the product matures, additional features are often “tacked on,” making them even more inefficient.

The High Cost of Dedicated Storage

These inefficiencies mean that vendors must configure the storage hardware that comes with their storage software in such a way that it can mask all of its inefficiencies. This compensation dramatically increases the total solution’s cost significantly as the customer must pay for the additional computing power and memory. These inefficiencies also lead to the inexplicably short life span of storage infrastructure. It forces customers to go through a costly refresh cycle every four to five years and make costly upgrades or deploy additional storage silos as new workloads come online.

Software Defined Storage is Still a Dedicated Storage Architecture

Software Defined Storage (SDS) has the same problem as dedicated storage architectures. The software is often inefficient; you must still buy hardware and dedicate it to storage. Most SDS solutions make you buy new hardware to go with their software. They can not take advantage of your existing hardware investment.

Dedicated Storage Shouldn’t Exist

Beyond compensating for the inefficiencies of dedicated storage hardware and SDS, the reality is that the storage software that drives dedicated arrays and NAS systems, runs on the same server type that you would run a hypervisor or any other application on. That server has built-in networking, and in most cases, it has 24 or more bays for storage media. The same applies to most network hardware. They are servers running a specific application.

Buying multiple servers to do different things when in actuality, one server armed with efficient software could do it all, dramatically increases CAPEX and OPEX. The cost to manage and maintain this stack of at least three different servers is untenable. The result is a complex environment that requires storage, virtualization, and networking specialists, instead of a single IT generalist, which further raises costs. Converging these three separate software stacks is the impetus behind Hyperconverged Infrastructure (HCI).

Why HCI Didn’t End Dedicated Storage Architectures

2010 when HCI first came to market, it seemed like it was a sign of the end for dedicated storage architectures, but that never materialized. Over a decade after the first HCI solutions appeared, dedicated storage architectures are more prevalent than ever. Industry pundits like Chris Mellor label HCI a “niche market.” How could such an obvious choice for consolidating storage, virtualization, and networking, both hardware and software, not take over the market?

The first problem with HCI solutions is they didn’t converge anything. Yes, the storage and virtualization software, and in rare cases, the network software, run on the same server hardware. However, each software package has an entirely different code base and does not know that the other packages exist. There are no gains in management efficiencies as a result.

Each of the three (at least) code bases within HCI is also very inefficient because it was initially designed to run on dedicated hardware, not share hardware resources with other modules. Finally, in most cases, the storage and network software run as virtual machines within the hypervisor construct.

These realities result in HCI being deemed a good solution for medium-sized businesses. Still, as these infrastructures scale to address the demand of larger businesses and enterprises, inefficiency is stacked on top of inefficiency, making effective utilization of the available resources a significant problem. None of the HCI vendors went to work on the core HCI challenges:

  1. Storage and network operations must be equal citizens with virtualization, not run as VMs.
  2. An HCI cluster’s east-west traffic (node-to-node communications) is significant and must be specifically optimized.
  3. Optimizing operational efficiency and simplifying administration requires a unified code base, not three code bases from three different vendors that are glued together by a management interface.
The High Cost of Dedicated Storage

There is also an economic problem with HCI infrastructures. In theory, running the entire infrastructure stack on one tier instead of three tiers should be less expensive. However, HCI is almost always the same price as or more expensive than the three-tiered architectures it attempts to replace. These HCI designs require even more powerful servers with even more memory and there are still three separate licenses (storage, virtualization, and networking) that must be paid for and bundled into the solution. The final straw is that most HCI solutions require you to purchase new hardware, and often, conveniently, from the HCI vendor, further increasing the price.

The result is that HCI has no operational savings or economic advantages over the traditional three-tier model.

Ultraconverged Infrastructure Eliminates the High Cost of Dedicated Storage

VergeIO’s Ultraconverged Infrastructure (UCI) eliminates the high cost of dedicated storage by overcoming the shortcomings of SDS and HCI. VergeOS is written from scratch to combine virtualization, storage services, and layer 2 and layer 3 network functionality into a single unified code base. With VergeOS, storage, and networking are equal citizens to the hypervisor, not servants. The result is a solution that is a fraction of the code size as other solutions but provides superior features. VergeOS is typically 50% less expensive than the equivalent VMware licenses which usually include all the functionality of its add-on packages like vSAN, NSX, and vCloud Director.

VergeOS can run on just about any server hardware built within the last six years, and it will deliver better performance and longevity from that existing hardware. This hardware flexibility enables you to leverage your existing servers and enjoy additional cost savings instead of being forced into buying new servers and spending more money.

Regarding storage, VergeOS uses drives installed in the same servers running the virtualization and networking functions. Our efficiency ensures that all three functions run at top performance and do not require additional processing power or memory. The VergeOS license is not capacity based; it is priced per node so that IT can put as much capacity as possible in each node. Adding drives to an existing server instead of buying a dedicated storage system is an order of magnitude less expensive.

Global Inline Deduplication is built into the very core of VergeOS and has been from day one. It was not an afterthought added years later. The result is deduplication has no impact on performance. Since deduplication is integrated into the core of VergeOS, it drives many of our advanced features like IOclone, our answer to snapshots, IOprotect for disaster recovery, and IOfortify, our solution for rapid ransomware recovery. Again, all of these features are built into the core of the VergeOS software, not add-on modules.

Many potential customers are reaching out to us as a no-compromise alternative to VMware. Still, the compelling capabilities of VergeOS mean many others reach out to us as part of a NAS or SAN refresh project because the savings we can provide over the high cost of dedicated storage are even more significant than the savings we can provide versus VMware alone. Then add the operational savings of a truly converged infrastructure, and you’ll see why we have incredibly high customer satisfaction.

Filed Under: Storage Tagged With: ,