A partner-content article on The Register, written by George Crump and published on behalf of VergeIO, argues that the VMware exit is an opportunity to redesign data protection rather than simply carry the old backup architecture onto a new hypervisor. The piece says most teams plan to move their backup design as-is, but the better plan is to reassign responsibilities: let the production platform handle routine resilience, and let the backup application focus on migration, long-term retention, and independent recovery copies.
The article describes the legacy vSphere model as one where VMware-specific mechanisms—changed block tracking, vStorage APIs, snapshot behavior, and per-cluster proxies—drive the backup design, while a separate protection tier handles everything from a failed drive to a lost site. That division made sense for earlier architectures, the author argues, but it means a site failure touches the hypervisor, storage, backup, replication, and network configuration, with recovery crossing every boundary between them.
The proposed alternative is a datacenter virtualization platform that combines compute, storage, networking, and data protection in one code base, so production can absorb tasks like second-drive failure handling and snapshot rollback. The backup application then keeps the jobs it does best—compliance archives, air-gapped copies, granular recovery—and also becomes the migration path. The article cites Veeam Backup & Replication now supporting VergeOS, allowing teams to restore vSphere backups onto the new environment and test before cutover.
Because this is partner content from VergeIO, the claims are vendor advocacy rather than independent findings. The piece suggests holding vendors to live failure tests—pull a drive, pull a second one, delete a VM, fail over a site—but no such test results are included in the article. Readers should treat the proposed division of labor as one vendor's pitch, not a verified benchmark.