Migrate out of VMware key to safe and resilient migration

The purchase of VMware by Broadcom in 2023 triggered a wave of rethinking in data centres that still continues. Companies of all sizes, from service providers to corporate IT departments, are assessing whether to stay or migrate to alternatives such as Microsoft Hyper-V, Azure Stack HCI, Nutanix AHV, Proxmox VE or KVM. Some decisions have been accelerated by changes in prices and licences, others by specific operational problems or the perception of less support. To get an idea of the picture, you can read the follow-up of analysts and the specialized coverage on the movement of workloads outside of VMware in media such as The Register, quoting Gartner and the official note on Broadcom's acquisition on the company's own website Broadcom Investors.

On the surface, changing hypervisor seems a logical process: exporting virtual machines, converting disks and parameters, and importing them into the new platform. In practice, however, this is a complex and high-risk technical transition because hypervisors are not interoperable with each other. Different disk formats, different hardware abstractions, disparate driver batteries and non-equivalent network models make many configurations not directly translated. Official documents and technical guides of suppliers show these differences, for example, the documentation of Hyper-V, KVM and Proxmox VE describe how drivers and virtual hardware capabilities vary between platforms.

There are specific aspects that often cause problems and are only demonstrated under production burden. Virtual hardware versions, storage controllers and chipset emulators can cause subtle incompatibilities; network virtualization solutions such as NSX against native alternatives provide another level of complexity. In addition, snapshot and template mechanisms do not behave the same on all platforms, with differences in application consistency and restoration performance that often appear after cutting. Avoiding surprises means understanding these layers and validating them before the definitive change.

In the face of this technical complexity, there is an element that cannot be neglected: backup. It is not enough to rely on a conversion tool; the security right to recover from failure is a verifiable and restable copy of the data. Organizations need complete and consistent image backups at the application level, which allow for the restoration of different hardware or hypervisors in the original environment. This requires testing restorations before cutting, not after, and maintaining the reversion capacity until stability is demonstrated.

During the transition, an operational grey area is created in which two technological batteries coexist, and that is when the protection must be more robust. Cut in copy chains, crashes in incremental work after conversions, snapshots that lose consistency or recovery targets that are not synchronized are common crashes observed in poorly planned migrations. The recommendation is to operate with parallel and verifiable protection, so that either environment - origin or destination - can serve as a way of recovery until the completion of the project.

Migration also extends the attack surface: more active components, more backup repositories and more identities with administrative permits can attract threats, especially in periods of change. The protection of back-up images should be a priority: backup immobility, restricted access controls and minimum privileges principles reduce the risk that a commitment will eliminate the rollback option. Cybersecurity agencies offer guides to protect against ransomware and ensure backup, for example the initiative StopRansomware of the CISA.

In practical terms, during a migration it is appropriate to adhere to a classic rule of resilience: multiple copies in different media and at least one outside the site. This strategy, known as rule 3-2-1, is the difference between a manageable failure and a loss of recovery options if primary infrastructure and local copies are compromised. Providers and manufacturers of backup solutions describe these practices in their technical resources, and many organizations apply them as operational insurance during platform changes.

Timelines and maintenance windows are another critical point that is often underestimated. The usual thing is to plan thinking about the best scenario, not the worst; when the migration window is extended, the costs and impact on the business increase rapidly. Before running, teams must define clear limits: how much each workload can remain out of service, who has the authority to abort or move forward, and what communications are activated if the restoration is longer than expected. Having a fast return route, based on proven backups, makes a critical situation a determined contingency without major damage.

There is also an operational dimension that deserves attention: maintaining two environments simultaneously is an administrative burden that generates friction and potential gaps of protection. Here the convergence of functions through natively integrated platforms can simplify the operation. Tools that offer unified backup, recovery and security control can reduce friction by applying homogeneous policies on physical servers, virtual machines and cloud loads, helping to maintain synchronization and rollback options during transition.

In a broader sense, forced migration by market events must be seen as a exercise of resilience, not just as specific technical projects. The teams that best manage it validate their copies in advance, test cross-recoveries, maintain reversal routes and tighten backups storage against malicious manipulations. That approach transformed migration into an opportunity to strengthen processes, documentation and controls, rather than becoming a source of long-term vulnerability.

The decision to migrate outside VMware may be driven by economic, operational or strategic factors, but safe execution depends on technical detail and rigour in data protection. The technical literature of hypervisors providers and public safety guides are useful references for planning each stage; and in the market there are commercial solutions that facilitate "any-to-any" recoveries and homogeneous protection policies if friction is to be reduced. Documenting and testing is, in the end, the best way to turn a traumatic change into a controlled transition.

If your team evaluates such a movement, it is appropriate to start by auditing the units, verifying that the backup is restable in the target environment, defining cutting and reversion criteria and protecting images from manipulation. Migration does not need to be slow or risky, but it does require strict planning, testing and safety controls so that the workload reaches the new environment with full data and the company with the least possible interruption.