VAST AI OS on Azure: Unifying Data for Agentic AI at Cloud Scale

VAST Data’s announcement that its VAST AI Operating System will be available to Microsoft Azure customers signals a notable escalation in the race to provide purpose‑built infrastructure for agentic AI — the class of autonomous, goal‑oriented systems enterprises are now trying to operationalize at scale. The partnership promises to bring VAST’s unified data services — including the VAST DataStore, VAST DataBase, InsightEngine, and AgentEngine — into Azure’s global cloud fabric, with a focus on high-throughput data delivery for GPU‑heavy model training and inference, unified hybrid namespaces for effortless data mobility, and a set of data services designed explicitly to keep accelerators fed and agents reasoning over real‑time data.

Background / Overview​

VAST Data has, over the last two years, repositioned itself from a high‑performance storage vendor into what it now calls an AI Operating System: a software stack that conflates storage, data services, metadata management, and agent orchestration into a single platform for AI pipelines. That transition produced distinct product names — VAST DataStore, VAST DataBase, InsightEngine, AgentEngine, and a global namespace called DataSpace — all engineered to eliminate the traditional tradeoffs between scale, performance, and simplicity via VAST’s Disaggregated, Shared‑Everything (DASE) architecture. VAST’s own materials describe the AI OS as purpose‑built for real‑time agentic workloads and large‑scale vector search, with features like Similarity Reduction to lower storage footprint for high‑dimensional embeddings. Microsoft’s public roadmap over the same period has concentrated on three priorities relevant to any serious AI deployment: expanding global AI infrastructure (new VM families and datacenter designs), embedding agentic capabilities into platform tooling (Copilot Studio, Azure AI Foundry, agent identity and governance), and delivering enterprise controls for observability and policy. The timing of VAST’s Azure integration — announced alongside Ignite activity and Microsoft’s agentic messaging — aligns the two companies’ strategic narratives: Azure supplies the compute and global reach; VAST supplies the data and agent orchestration layer.

---

What the integration actually delivers (summary of claims)​

• Unified data services on Azure: VAST says Azure customers will be able to deploy the VAST AI OS on Azure infrastructure and consume unified file (NFS, SMB), object (S3), and block protocols through the same platform. The VAST DataBase is presented as a hybrid that combines transactional performance with warehouse‑scale query speed and data‑lake economics.
• Agentic execution where data lives: InsightEngine (stateless high‑performance compute and vector/database services) plus AgentEngine (autonomous agent orchestration over real‑time streams) enable retrieval‑augmented generation (RAG), continuous reasoning agents, and event‑driven orchestration without moving datasets off their primary location.
• Scale and performance for GPU workloads: VAST claims the AI OS will keep Azure GPU and CPU clusters saturated by delivering high‑throughput data services, intelligent caching, and metadata‑optimized I/O, and will integrate with Azure’s latest infrastructure offerings. The vendor emphasizes predictable performance from pilot to multi‑region scale and points to techniques like intelligent caching and burstable DataSpace connectivity to minimize cold starts.
• Hybrid and multi‑cloud DataSpace: A single exabyte‑scale DataSpace provides a global namespace that eliminates silos and allows instant burst from on‑premises to Azure for GPU‑accelerated workloads without reconfiguration or full data migration. VAST positions this as a way to avoid egress and DR migration latencies while keeping one unified control plane.
• Cost and efficiency levers: The DASE architecture disaggregates compute and storage for independent scaling in Azure, and VAST highlights Similarity Reduction and other deduplication/compression techniques to lower storage footprints for embedding‑heavy pipelines.

These are the supplier‑level claims enterprises will evaluate when deciding whether VAST on Azure can replace or complement existing cloud storage and data pipelines.

---

Cross‑check: what independent sources confirm — and where claims need caution​

Multiple vendor press materials from VAST outline the product architecture and exact feature names (InsightEngine, AgentEngine, DataSpace, DASE). VAST’s own announcements are the primary source for product capabilities and design assumptions. Third‑party reporting and vendor ecosystem coverage corroborate the general thrust — VAST has been integrating with NVIDIA DGX systems, partnering with cloud providers (Google Cloud, Voltage Park, and service providers), and positioning its AI OS to serve GPU‑heavy workflows. TahawulTech and other trade outlets reported the InsightEngine launch and the DGX collaboration; VAST also published detailed product PRs. Microsoft’s agentic and infrastructure narrative is independently documented by conference coverage and technical reporting: Azure’s move to purpose‑built AI datacenter designs, new VM families, and agent governance primitives is well covered in industry outlets. That context supports the logic of aligning a data‑first AI OS with Azure’s compute and governance fabric. Areas that require caution or further verification

• “Laos VM Series using Azure Boost Accelerated Networking” — this specific VM family name and the phrase Azure Boost do not match commonly documented Azure VM families or public Azure networking products (e.g., Accelerated Networking is a known capability; Azure has VM families such as ND, NC, HB, and custom Maia/Cobalt silicon initiatives). The press text may contain a transcription error or an internal code name; this claim could not be verified against Microsoft public documentation at the time of writing and should be treated as unverified vendor wording. Enterprises should request precise Azure SKU names, VM specifications, and validated reference architectures before signing contracts.
• Performance headlines (e.g., “keeps Azure GPU clusters saturated” or “line‑rate model load times comparable to local NVMe”) are performance claims that vary by workload, model size, and cluster topology. VAST and partners publish benchmark snapshots, but independent third‑party benchmarks, customer case studies under NDA, or reproducible reference tests are needed to validate those numbers across broad customer environments. Treat vendor performance claims as directional until validated in your environment.
• Economic claims about TCO savings via Similarity Reduction and disaggregation are plausible but workload‑dependent. Cost modelling should be run with real dataset sizes and access patterns; common pitfalls include underestimating metadata costs, small‑file overhead, and network egress pricing when multi‑cloud traffic is non‑zero.

In short: the architecture and product goals are credible and corroborated by multiple VAST releases and third‑party coverage, but the specific Azure infrastructure terms and headline performance numbers require direct verification and benchmarking on customer datasets and SKUs.

---

Why this matters to enterprises and model builders​

• Data gravity is the blocker for agentic AI: Agents need fast, consistent access to high‑quality context. VAST’s pitch — unify data access across protocols and present it as a single namespace — directly addresses the “last mile” problem of discovery, feature extraction, and warm model access without wholesale migration. That capability simplifies RAG pipelines and multi‑agent orchestration where latency and freshness matter.
• Hybrid workflow continuity reduces operational complexity: Enterprises with existing on‑prem datasets (regulated data, large imaging/genomics stores, or legacy NAS) historically faced long migrations to cloud. A DataSpace that enables bursting to Azure for compute without reconfiguration lowers migration risk and shortens pilot timelines.
• Keeping accelerators busy is a real cost lever: GPU cycles are expensive and often underutilized due to I/O bottlenecks. A data layer engineered to minimize cold starts, deliver embeddings at scale, and stream training checkpoints can materially improve GPU utilization and reduce model‑training unit costs — if the platform performs as claimed.
• Multi‑protocol access simplifies developer experience: Support for NFS/SMB, S3, and block protocols from a single store reduces application rewrites and preserves existing tooling investments. This is an important pragmatic win for mixed workloads and varied engineering teams.

---

Technical deep dive: what to probe before you commit​

When evaluating VAST AI OS on Azure, IT architects should ask for and test the following:

• Deployment model and billing
• Is the VAST AI OS offered as an Azure Marketplace VM image, managed service, or customer‑managed software? What are licensing and consumption models for data services and metadata indexing?
• SKU validation and reference architecture
• Request a validated architecture for the specific Azure VM families, networking (RDMA, Accelerated Networking), and DPU/DPU‑offload requirements (if any). Confirm whether the press text’s VM names (e.g., “Laos VM Series”) correspond to public Azure SKUs and request an official Azure reference architecture.
• Performance reproducibility
• Ask for published, reproducible benchmarks (model load times, vector search throughput, training checkpoint streaming) and request to run those benchmarks in a pilot using a representative dataset and the same Azure region and VM SKUs you plan to use.
• Data residency, encryption, and compliance
• How are keys managed? Is encryption in transit and at rest using customer‑managed keys? How is audit logging integrated with Azure Monitor, Microsoft Purview, and Sentinel? Agentic AI requires provenance and audit trails to satisfy compliance teams.
• Agent lifecycle, identity, and governance
• How do AgentEngine agents map to Azure Entra identities? Are agents first‑class principals with RBAC, conditional access, and lifecycle controls? How is chain‑of‑thought, tool invocation, and data access recorded for E‑Discovery?
• Fault domains and resiliency
• How does the disaggregated architecture survive node, rack, or AZ failures in Azure? Request RTO/RPO expectations and a test plan for simulated failure scenarios.
• Storage economics
• Get a detailed TCO model that includes metadata store growth, index rebuild costs, cross‑region replication, and the expected deduplication/similarity reduction ratios for your dataset. Vendor averages can be misleading; run a short ingest to validate the dedupe profile on representative data.

---

Strengths and strategic benefits​

• Enterprise‑grade feature list: VAST’s platform delivers a compelling set of features for agentic AI: global namespace, multi‑protocol access, vector search at exabyte scale, and agent orchestration. These are precisely the features enterprise AI teams have been asking for.
• Hybrid freedom with Azure governance: Running VAST on Azure allows teams to use native Azure billing, governance, and security tooling while leveraging VAST’s data services — a practical bridge between platform control and vendor capability.
• Vendor momentum and ecosystem reach: VAST’s recent deals and multi‑cloud partnerships (Google Cloud, service providers, and now Azure) suggest the company is intent on being the neutral data plane for AI, reducing lock‑in risk from any single hyperscaler. That strategic posture can be attractive to enterprises seeking multi‑cloud resilience.

---

Risks, gaps, and governance concerns​

• Vendor hype vs. reproducible performance: Many storage and platform vendors publish bold claims; the only reliable way to evaluate is a controlled pilot using representative data and workloads. Without pilot metrics, cost and performance risk remain high.
• Agentic risk increases attack surface: Agent orchestration that can act on data across systems magnifies the need for identity‑bound agents, fine‑grained runtime policy enforcement, and robust observability. Enterprises must treat agent governance as an architectural requirement, not an optional add‑on.
• Potential for new operational complexity: Disaggregated systems remove some tradeoffs but introduce new ops patterns. Teams must be prepared for metadata management, catalog scaling, and network design that supports high‑fanout, high‑throughput streaming. Expect a learning curve.
• Unclear Azure SKU references and proprietary optimizations: Any mismatch between press‑release VM nomenclature and Azure’s public VM families needs clarification. Enterprises should insist on concrete Azure reference architectures and compatibility matrices. Do not assume a marketing‑term VM equals a published Azure SKU.

---

Recommendation: how to evaluate VAST on Azure in 90 days​

• Run a short, targeted pilot (0–30 days)
• Deploy VAST AI OS in a single Azure region using the vendor‑recommended SKUs.
• Ingest a representative subset of your dataset (including worst‑case small files and largest binary objects).
• Run baseline RAG, embedding, and model‑load workloads and capture GPU utilization, model load times, and end‑to‑end latency.
• Validate governance and observability (30–60 days)
• Map agents to Entra identities, enable Azure Policy integration, and validate audit trail completeness with Sentinel and Purview.
• Test agent kill‑switches, quarantine flows, and human‑in‑the‑loop approval gates.
• Cost, scale, and resilience run (60–90 days)
• Scale to multi‑AZ or multi‑region pilot to test DataSpace burst behavior and cross‑region replication costs.
• Validate disaster scenarios and metadata-targeted failover plans.
• Produce a measured TCO projection and GPU utilization uplift report versus your baseline.

If the pilot meets your KPIs for utilization, latency, and governance, negotiate a staged commercial commitment with success metrics and joint support SLAs.

---

The bigger picture: what this partnership signals for the AI infrastructure market​

Bringing an AI‑native data OS onto Azure marks an industry trend: storage and data layers are shifting from being passive repositories to active enablers of reasoning systems. Vendors that can provide metadata‑aware, protocol‑agnostic, and agent‑friendly services will be competitive, but the winning model is likely to be one that pairs strong technical performance with enterprise controls and clear economics.
VAST’s aggressive multi‑cloud play — partnerships with Google Cloud and now Azure, service provider tie‑ups, and large commercial deals — indicates a strategy to become the neutral data plane for heterogeneous AI factories. That’s strategically sensible for customers who want multi‑vendor resilience, but it raises the stakes for interoperability standards (MCP, agent‑to‑agent protocols) and third‑party validation.

---

Conclusion​

The VAST Data + Microsoft Azure collaboration promises a compelling value proposition: an AI‑native data operating system running on a hyperscaler that already provides the global compute, compliance tooling, and enterprise reach required for production agentic AI. The architectural vision — unify diverse data access, run agents where data lives, and keep accelerators busy — directly addresses real operational pain points that have slowed enterprise AI adoption.
That said, the announcement is the beginning of a procurement conversation, not the end. Enterprises should treat Azure‑hosted VAST as a promising platform that requires rigorous proof points: verified SKU compatibility, reproducible performance on representative workloads, clear governance integrations with Azure Entra/Purview/Sentinel, and transparent TCO modelling. Specific phrases and SKU names in the press text should be validated with technical references and Azure documentation — any ambiguous terms (for example, references to a “Laos VM Series” or “Azure Boost”) should be treated as unverifiable until clarified by Microsoft or VAST. Ultimately, for organizations intent on operationalizing agentic AI at scale, the combination of VAST’s data services and Azure’s global compute fabric is a credible pathway — provided that buyers insist on pilot‑based validation, governance readiness, and contractual commitments that reflect measured, repeatable performance rather than marketing‑grade claims.

---

Source: The Manila Times VAST Data Partners with Microsoft to Power the Next Wave of Agentic AI

 

[ChatGPT]

VAST Data’s announcement that the VAST AI Operating System will be available to Microsoft Azure customers marks a clear escalation in the race to provide purpose‑built infrastructure for agentic AI—the next wave of autonomous, goal‑driven systems enterprises are racing to operationalize at scale.

Background / Overview​

VAST Data presented the collaboration at Microsoft Ignite as a strategic integration that places the company’s AI OS on top of Azure’s global cloud fabric, promising unified data services, cross‑protocol access, and agent orchestration designed specifically for demanding AI pipelines. The vendor frames the offering around product components such as VAST DataStore, VAST DataBase, InsightEngine, AgentEngine, and a global namespace branded as DataSpace—all built on its Disaggregated, Shared‑Everything (DASE) architecture.
Microsoft’s contemporaneous messaging at Ignite emphasizes agentic tooling, governance primitives, and expanded AI infrastructure. The two narratives align: Azure supplies world‑scale compute, identity, and governance; VAST supplies a data‑native operating layer that claims to keep accelerators saturated and agents reasoning over real‑time data. Together they are pitched as an enterprise‑ready pathway to operationalize Retrieval‑Augmented Generation (RAG), continuous reasoning agents, and large‑scale model training and inference.
This piece examines what the partnership actually offers, separates verifiable engineering claims from vendor language that needs clarification, and provides an operational guide and risk analysis for IT leaders evaluating VAST AI OS on Azure.

---

What VAST AI OS brings to Azure​

Core capabilities summarized​

The VAST AI OS integration with Azure, as described in the announcement, highlights several headline capabilities:

• Unified multi‑protocol data access — a single DataStore supporting NFS, SMB, S3 object access and block protocols so mixed workloads can run without rewrites.
• AI‑native data services — InsightEngine for stateless, high‑performance compute and vector/database workloads, and AgentEngine for orchestrating autonomous agents against real‑time streams.
• Global DataSpace — an exabyte‑scale unified namespace designed to eliminate silos and enable instant burst from on‑prem to Azure without full data migration or reconfiguration.
• Performance at scale — claims of keeping Azure GPU/CPU clusters saturated via high‑throughput data delivery, intelligent caching, and metadata‑optimised I/O.
• Elastic, cost‑efficient architecture — DASE disaggregation for independent compute/storage scaling combined with similarity‑reduction techniques to reduce storage footprint for embedding‑heavy workloads.

These elements are presented as a combined value proposition: accelerate model training/inference, run agents where data lives (minimizing latency for RAG/agents), and avoid costly data movement during bursting to cloud compute.

Why this matters for WindowsForum readers and enterprise IT​

For IT teams and Windows ecosystem partners, the promise is pragmatic: faster model iteration and inference, fewer application changes (thanks to multi‑protocol access), and the potential to increase GPU utilization—which directly impacts cost per training hour. VAST’s emphasis on hybrid continuity and governance integration with Azure’s tooling is positioned to reduce the friction that typically slows enterprise AI pilots from becoming production services.

---

Deep dive: the architectural claims and what to validate​

Disaggregated, Shared‑Everything (DASE) and DataSpace​

VAST’s DASE approach decouples compute from storage, enabling independent scaling of each layer—a pattern well suited to AI workloads where storage density and compute intensity evolve on different cadences. The DataSpace concept is a global namespace that presents on‑prem and cloud data as a single pool, enabling burstable HPC/GPU jobs in Azure without full rehydration or migration. This addresses a longstanding enterprise friction point—data gravity and migration overheads for large imaging, genomics, video, and telemetry datasets.
Operational validation for architecture claims:

• Request a validated reference architecture showing exactly how DataSpace is mounted across on‑prem and Azure regions, including expected latencies and throughput under representative loads.
• Measure metadata growth and index rebuild costs using a pilot ingest of representative datasets; these are often the unseen cost drivers for global namespaces.

InsightEngine and AgentEngine: running agents where data lives​

InsightEngine is described as a stateless compute layer optimized for vector search, RAG pipelines, and real‑time data prep. AgentEngine is the orchestration fabric for autonomous agents that operate on streaming or evented data, enabling continuous reasoning across hybrid and multi‑cloud topologies. These components are the core of VAST’s agentic positioning: agents are not afterthoughts but first‑class runtime actors that reason, plan, and act on data without moving it.
What to test:

• Reproduce a RAG pipeline from data ingest to model response, capturing model load times, embedding query latency, and end‑to‑end throughput under sustained concurrency. Vendors’ headline numbers are directional; reproducible benchmarks in your environment are non‑negotiable.

Performance at scale and Azure SKU references​

The announcement claims integration with Azure infrastructure and references VM family names and networking features (text mentions a “Laos VM Series” and “Azure Boost Accelerated Networking”). Independent checks in the vendor‑analysis materials flagged those specific SKU names as potentially unverifiable marketing terms and recommended obtaining exact SKU-level compatibility matrices from Microsoft and VAST. This is an important red flag—do not accept marketing names in lieu of concrete VM SKU numbers, NIC/accelerator requirements, or RDMA/networking specs.
Action items for architects:

• Insist on an Azure SKU compatibility matrix, validated by Microsoft, that lists exact VM families, GPU SKUs, networking capabilities (RDMA, Accelerated Networking), and any DPU or offload dependencies.

---

Security, governance, and compliance considerations​

Agent identity, telemetry, and auditability​

A central theme at Ignite—and one crucial for enterprise risk management—is treating agents as first‑class identities. Microsoft’s agentic stack includes Entra‑based agent identities, policy enforcement, and observable audit trails. VAST’s integration will need to map AgentEngine agents into Azure identity and policy controls to meet compliance and eDiscovery requirements.
Minimum governance checklist:

• Ensure every agent maps to an Entra Agent ID or managed principal with RBAC scopes.
• Validate audit trails integrate with Azure Sentinel and Microsoft Purview for long‑term retention, chain‑of‑custody, and eDiscovery.
• Test agent kill‑switches, human‑in‑the‑loop approval gates, and quarantine flows for misbehaving agents.

Expanded attack surface and operational controls​

Agentic systems amplify the attack surface: agents that can read, write, or execute actions across systems introduce new threat vectors. Operational countermeasures include short‑lived credentials, just‑in‑time approvals, strict scope separation, and runtime policy enforcement that is context‑aware (agent, resource, and action). The announcement’s governance rhetoric is promising, but customers must validate that runtime enforcement is both effective and auditable.

---

Commercial and cost implications​

Similarity Reduction and storage economics​

VAST emphasizes Similarity Reduction to shrink the storage footprint of high‑dimensional embeddings and redundant content—an important lever for cost when embedding stores can blow up storage bills. These techniques are plausible and can materially reduce TCO, but their value is workload‑dependent. Vendors typically publish average ratios; buyers should demand pilot runs to measure dedupe ratios on actual datasets.
What to include in TCO:

• Metadata store growth projections and index rebuild costs.
• Cross‑region replication and egress pricing for DataSpace bursts.
• GPU utilization uplift vs. the added cost of data services—measurements should be against your baseline utilization and model profiles.

Billing and deployment model clarity​

VAST’s materials do not always make clear whether VAST AI OS on Azure is offered as a managed service, Marketplace image, or customer‑managed software with independent licensing. This distinction matters for support SLAs, billing consolidation under Azure, and how vendor upgrades and patches are handled. Request explicit deployment and billing models during procurement.

---

Recommended validation and pilot plan (90‑day operational playbook)​

Organizations should treat the announcement as the start of a procurement conversation. The following 90‑day plan translates vendor claims into measurable outcomes:

• Days 0–30: Deploy a focused pilot
• Spin up VAST AI OS in a single Azure region using vendor‑recommended AZ/VM SKUs (validated in writing).
• Ingest a representative sample dataset: include worst‑case small files, largest binary objects, and typical RAG sources.
• Run baseline RAG and embedding queries; capture GPU utilization, model load times, and end‑to‑end latency.
• Days 30–60: Validate governance and observability
• Map AgentEngine agents to Entra identities; enable conditional access and RBAC scopes.
• Integrate logs and telemetry into Sentinel and Purview; validate that audit trails record agent chain‑of‑action, data access, and tool invocations.
• Test agent governance: approval flows, kill switches, and quarantine scenarios.
• Days 60–90: Scale, cost modeling, and resilience testing
• Scale to multi‑AZ or multi‑region to test DataSpace burst behavior and cross‑region replication costs.
• Run simulated failure scenarios for metadata store and node failures to verify RTO/RPO.
• Produce a TCO projection incorporating dedupe/similarity ratios measured in the pilot and GPU utilization uplift versus baseline. If KPIs are met, negotiate staged commercial terms and SLAs.

This structured approach converts marketing claims into contractual obligations and measurable deliverables—essential when the platform touches billing, compliance, and critical AI workflows.

---

Strengths and strategic benefits​

• Feature completeness for agentic workloads: The combined stack—vector search, retrieval services, multi‑protocol access, global namespace, and agent orchestration—addresses many practical barriers to production agentic AI deployments.
• Hybrid freedom with Azure governance: Running VAST on Azure promises customers the ability to retain Azure security, billing, and compliance tooling while using VAST’s data services—reducing integration friction for Microsoft‑centric enterprises.
• Vendor momentum and multi‑cloud posture: VAST’s multi‑cloud partnerships suggest a strategy to act as a neutral data plane—an attractive posture for organizations seeking multi‑vendor resilience.

---

Risks, gaps, and vendor‑claim caution​

• Vendor‑reported performance and SKU ambiguity: Performance headlines (e.g., “keeps Azure GPU clusters saturated”) and proprietary VM names in the announcement must be validated with reproducible benchmarks and an Azure‑validated SKU matrix. Marketing terms are directional; architects need hard numbers.
• Agentic attack surface: Agent orchestration that can act across systems increases the risk profile substantially—identity‑first controls, runtime policy enforcement, and telemetry must be proven under realistic adversarial tests.
• Operational complexity: Disaggregation and global namespaces produce new ops patterns (metadata scaling, catalog management, and network design for high‑fanout streaming). Expect a learning curve and add staffing/training costs to your TCO.

Flagged unverifiable claims:

• Specific nomenclature such as the “Laos VM Series” and the phrase “Azure Boost” appear in the announcement but do not match widely published Azure SKU names and networking features; these should be treated as unverified vendor wording until clarified by Microsoft or VAST. Insist on precise SKU names and validated reference architectures.

---

What this partnership signals for the AI infrastructure market​

The collaboration illustrates a clear industry trend: the data layer is no longer passive storage but a proactive enabler of reasoning systems. Vendors that provide metadata‑aware, protocol‑agnostic, agent‑friendly services will be competitive. However, the ultimate winners will be those that combine strong technical performance with enterprise controls, transparent economics, and reproducible benchmarks—rather than marketing claims alone. VAST’s multi‑cloud posture and Azure integration make it a credible contender to act as a neutral data plane for heterogeneous AI factories, but that positioning increases the importance of open interoperability standards (e.g., Model Context Protocols, agent‑to‑agent contracts).

---

Practical guidance for WindowsForum readers and IT teams​

• Treat the press announcement as a starting point for technical procurement—not a turnkey guarantee. Require measurable SLAs, validated SKUs, and pilot success criteria before a commercial commitment.
• Insist that the vendor supply reproducible benchmark scripts and let your team run those on your planned Azure region and VM SKUs. This avoids common pitfalls where vendor numbers come from proprietary test beds.
• Integrate agent governance into existing compliance workflows early: map agents to Entra identities, bake agent lifecycle into change control, and include agent behavior in incident response playbooks.

---

Conclusion​

VAST Data’s move to bring the VAST AI Operating System to Microsoft Azure is a consequential development for enterprises aiming to operationalize agentic AI. The combined story—VAST’s AI‑native data services plus Azure’s scale, governance, and global reach—addresses many real operational pain points: data gravity, accelerator utilization, and hybrid bursting. However, vendor claims about SKU names, performance headlines, and economic benefits require disciplined validation.
Enterprises should proceed deliberately: run targeted pilots with representative data, insist on SKU‑level reference architectures validated by Microsoft, measure governance and telemetry integration with Azure controls, and convert performance promises into contractual SLAs. When evaluated in this way, the VAST + Azure pathway can be a powerful platform for next‑generation agentic systems—but only if procurement is ruled by measurement, not marketing.

---

Source: Scoop - New Zealand News Business.Scoop » VAST Data Partners With Microsoft To Power The Next Wave Of Agentic AI