In 2023, Broadcom bought VMware for a staggering $69 billion, shaking things up in the virtualization space. One big shift is the switch from perpetual licenses to a subscription model. This has raised costs for some enterprises, prompting them to look at alternatives for virtualization.
For companies considering a move, they need to think about backup and recovery for any new hypervisors while also safeguarding their existing VMware workloads.
Many CIOs are unhappy with VMware’s rising costs tied to this new subscription model. They also scrapped the free version of VMware vSphere ESXi, which many small businesses relied on. So what are the alternatives? Companies can explore options like Nutanix, Microsoft Hyper-V, Oracle Linux Virtualization, or even open-source solutions like Red Hat OpenShift, KVM, and Proxmox.
Despite the whispers of migrations, a mass exodus hasn’t materialized yet. According to a survey by backup provider Nakivo, about a third of its customers expressed interest in Proxmox, while fewer are looking at Nutanix and Hyper-V. It seems a lot of VMware users are choosing to stick with the platform, often because some new licensing terms might actually benefit certain workloads. Patrick Smith from Pure Storage notes that while some organizations move quickly to alternative platforms, those tend to be smaller or more flexible.
Larger enterprises may hesitate to switch because migrating hypervisors is a tricky process fraught with risk. Plus, the alternatives don’t provide all the features and functionalities VMware does—at least not as neatly.
When it comes to backing up and recovering data during a migration, the current protection systems an enterprise has in place will play a huge role. Tony Lock from Freeform Dynamics highlights that most organizations can stick with their existing data protection tools whether they stay with VMware or switch to another platform.
Many major backup and disaster recovery providers already support alternatives to VMware, especially Hyper-V, which fits well with Microsoft infrastructures. Companies like Veeam, Rubrik, and Nakivo are ramping up their support for open-source options like Proxmox. This means firms can likely keep their current backup provider even if they explore mixed virtualization strategies. If the backup solutions fall short, switching to a more flexible toolset is an option.
However, even with existing compatibility, IT teams should brace for some configuration and testing before deploying new systems. Failing to do so could lead to increased risks and unexpected costs later.
Bruce Kornfeld from StorMagic points out that backup becomes a sticking point when moving away from VMware. VMware’s established presence means tools like ESXi and vSAN have broad support from software vendors, but that isn’t always the case for other hypervisors. The backup industry often provides “agentless” integration specifically for VMware, which many users expect but isn’t widely available for alternatives. For those transitioning, an agent-based approach might need to be reconsidered as a backup strategy—something that has traditionally been standard practice.
Companies also need to assess the time and resources required for testing their backup and disaster recovery arrangements post-migration. This is a chance to reevaluate their current systems, which might not be as robust as they think. Tony Lock notes that dissatisfaction with data protection processes is common. Organizations need to ask themselves if they can handle modifications to both backup and virtualization systems simultaneously, and whether they feel confident managing the risks involved.
Engaging in careful evaluations of potential suppliers and possibly seeking third-party engineering support can prove beneficial and cost-effective in the long run.