Don’t replicate the inefficiencies of three-tier storage architectures in software when you can build a simpler, unified system
There’s a reason hyperconverged infrastructure (HCI) is failing to displace all-flash arrays (AFAs) in the enterprise storage market. AFAs excel at precision, with dedicated processors handling storage tasks exclusively.
Traditional three-tier architectures allocate compute by function, using storage processors for data operations, host processors for virtual machines, and network appliances for routing and firewalls. This separation delivers predictable performance. Each tier runs independently without competing for resources.
The architecture works, but at a price. HCI was supposed to address the cost issue while offering hardware flexibility. For architectural reasons, we will examine why it fails to deliver on this promise and what a viable solution might look like.
The VMware catalyst
The search for VMware alternatives is forcing organizations to reconsider their entire infrastructure stack. Broadcom’s acquisition altered licensing models and support structures, but many VMware alternatives are hyperconverged systems positioning themselves as complete replacements. Gartner’s Market Guide for Full-Stack Hyperconverged Infrastructure Software predicts that the non-VMware full-stack HCI install base will grow from 30% to 60% by 2029, following Broadcom’s acquisition of VMware. That hinges on HCI offering similar performance and data resilience at a lower cost.
As IT teams reassess HCI as a VMware alternative, they face a fundamental question: can an HCI architecture replace the performance and reliability of a dedicated AFA while reducing the cost of infrastructure as originally promised? The extent of Broadcom’s post-acquisition changes makes this an urgent question. Organizations need answers now, not after lengthy proof-of-concept deployments.
The promise of hyperconvergence
Conceptually, HCI appears sound: Virtualize storage, compute, and networking on standard x86 servers. AFA vendors are software companies that run on pre-built industry-standard hardware. HCI should enable organizations to deploy faster and scale seamlessly while reducing vendor dependencies. For organizations seeking to escape VMware licensing costs, HCI platforms offer an attractive bundle: hypervisor, storage, and management all in one package.
The question remains: do these platforms deliver on their promise of hardware flexibility, and can they replace AFAs in terms of performance and data resilience?
The implementation problem
HCI vendors prioritize speed to market over optimizing customer infrastructure. They build development teams around separate components: storage developers, networking developers, hypervisor developers, and management developers. Each team focuses on its domain. Integration happens through management interfaces.
This modular approach has created a communication overhead. Storage modules talk to compute modules. Networking modules coordinate with both. Management layers translate between components. Data moves through multiple software layers within each node, then crosses the network to reach other nodes.
HCI simplifies deployments and operations, but the simplicity users see hides a tremendous amount of complexity. It shifts the complexity burden from hardware integration to software coordination, increasing overhead and necessitating more powerful hardware and performance compromises.
For organizations replacing VMware environments, this hidden complexity becomes apparent when storage-intensive workloads that perform well on AFAs struggle on modular HCI platforms.
Throwing hardware at software problems
HCI vendors use the traditional response to performance bottlenecks: more processors, more memory, and more nodes. If storage virtualization consumes excessive CPU cycles, add more or faster CPUs. If inter-node communication creates latency, add more network bandwidth.
This approach consolidates three tiers into one, but replaces hardware silos with software silos. Multiple infrastructure software layers compete for the same processing resources. Storage deduplication runs alongside hypervisor operations. Network virtualization processes packets while storage handles I/O requests.
The result? HCI solutions require far more processing power than dedicated systems. Hardware compatibility lists shrink as vendors test specific configurations that can handle the processing load. Organizations discover that HCI infrastructure costs match those of three-tier systems while delivering inferior performance.
This reality challenges the VMware replacement narrative. Organizations may escape VMware licensing only to find that their storage performance is degraded, the infrastructure is less resilient, and their hardware costs remain unchanged.
The single codebase solution
The answer lies in integration, not consolidation. Instead of loosely coupling separate software packages, unified architectures merge all functions into a single code base. Storage, compute, networking, and management operate as a single system rather than as coordinated components. Instead of a hyperconverged infrastructure, they are an ultra-converged infrastructure (UCI)
This architectural change delivers measurable improvements. Unified platforms, such as VergeOS, provide five times better performance and three times better deduplication ratios with no performance impact compared to modular HCI implementations, making them ideal alternatives to AFas.
Single-codebase architectures eliminate inter-module communication overhead. Data flows through a single piece of software, with no layers or stacks. Processing resources focus on workloads rather than software coordination.
For organizations evaluating VMware alternatives, UCI platforms can surpass AFA performance while offering the operational simplicity that three-tier architectures lack. To learn more about replacing your AFA with UCI, VergeIO is sponsoring a webinar: How to Replace Your AFA.
Hardware freedom realized
Hardware requirements drop when software operates efficiently. Organizations can deploy almost any server hardware instead of consulting restrictive compatibility lists. Mixed hardware deployments become feasible when the software adapts to available resources rather than demanding specific configurations.
This flexibility matters for VMware migrations. Organizations can reuse existing server hardware instead of replacing entire infrastructure stacks. The economics improve when software efficiency reduces hardware requirements rather than increasing them.
Operational benefits
Unified codebases reduce learning curves for IT teams. Administrators master one system instead of multiple integrated components. Support becomes simpler when fewer lines of code handle more functions. Fewer software layers mean fewer potential failure points and easier troubleshooting.
HCI’s advantages over traditional infrastructure have benefited 94% of organizations globally. However, organizations need to distinguish between modular HCI implementations and unified architectures.
For teams migrating from VMware, the difference becomes critical. Modular HCI platforms may replace VMware’s hypervisor, but they introduce new complexity in the storage and networking layers. Unified platforms can simplify the entire stack.
The real question
The question isn’t whether HCI can replace AFAs. The question is whether organizations will choose modular implementations that recreate three-tier complexity in software, or unified architectures that deliver the simplicity and performance that hyperconvergence originally promised.
VMware’s disruption accelerates this decision. Organizations that recognize the difference between software consolidation and software integration will build more flexible, cost-effective infrastructures that perform better than what they replace.
The market is moving toward true unification. The VMware transition presents an ideal opportunity to implement architectures that address infrastructure challenges rather than merely shifting them from hardware to software layers.
Contributed by VergeIO.
