VAST AI OS on Azure: Unifying Data, GPUs, and Agentic AI in the Cloud

VAST Data’s decision to bring its VAST AI Operating System (AI OS) to Microsoft Azure marks a deliberate push to treat the cloud as more than just a compute utility — instead, a managed platform for agentic AI where data, fast retrieval, and autonomous agents operate together under unified governance and billing, promising simplified hybrid workflows and higher GPU utilization for model builders.

Background​

Over the past two years VAST Data has repositioned itself from a high‑performance flash‑storage vendor into what it now calls an AI Operating System: a software stack that collapses storage, database services, metadata indexing, and an in‑place, event‑driven compute fabric into one platform for large‑scale AI pipelines. The Azure collaboration was announced at Microsoft Ignite and makes those VAST components available to Azure customers under Azure’s tooling, identity, governance, and billing frameworks. VAST’s product vocabulary — DataStore, DataBase, DataSpace, InsightEngine, and AgentEngine — frames a single thesis: run vector search, retrieval‑augmented generation (RAG) pipelines, and autonomous agents where the data lives to avoid costly and slow data movement. VAST’s architecture, which it calls Disaggregated, Shared‑Everything (DASE), supports independent scaling of compute and storage and includes data‑reduction techniques like Similarity Reduction for embedding stores.

---

What VAST AI OS on Azure actually delivers​

Core components made Azure‑native​

• DataStore: unified, multi‑protocol storage that supports file (NFS/SMB), object (S3), and block access so legacy apps and cloud services can access the same data without copying.
• DataBase: a transactional, indexable layer that ingests metadata and vector embeddings for low‑latency queries across very large datasets.
• DataSpace: a global namespace fabric that presents on‑prem and cloud storage as a single logical pool, enabling “burst to cloud” GPU workflows without full dataset rehydration.
• InsightEngine: stateless, in‑place compute for chunking, embedding, and high‑speed retrieval used in RAG and vector workloads.
• AgentEngine: an orchestration runtime for autonomous agents that can invoke data, run reasoning loops, and take actions in automated pipelines, integrated with the DataEngine eventing system.

Deploying the AI OS on Azure means these building blocks are intended to be consumed using Azure management, identity (Entra), security policies, and billing — a pragmatic move for enterprise customers who want centralized control and predictable invoicing.

Key vendor claims summarized​

• Keep Azure GPU/CPU clusters saturated with high‑throughput data services, intelligent caching, and metadata‑optimized I/O for predictable scaling.
• Enable hybrid, multi‑region, and multi‑cloud agentic workflows through a single global namespace (DataSpace).
• Reduce storage footprint for massive embedding catalogs via built‑in Similarity Reduction.
• Provide first‑class tools for building RAG pipelines and agent orchestration without moving data, shortening model iteration cycles.

---

Why this matters: the practical value‑propositions​

1) Data locality for model builders — less friction, faster cycles​

AI workloads are dominated by data movement costs: preparing datasets, moving them into GPU fleets, and repeated I/O during training and inference. By enabling embedding, vector search, and pre‑processing in place — and by integrating that data plane with Azure compute — VAST promises to reduce latency, cloud egress, and time spent waiting for datasets to warm. The result for engineering teams should be shorter iteration cycles and higher GPU utilization.

2) Multi‑protocol compatibility preserves legacy investments​

Enterprises rarely rewrite every workload when moving to the cloud. The DataStore’s promise of NFS/SMB/S3 and block access from a single namespace means existing applications and analytics engines can access the same data without costly rewrites or copy pipelines. That reduces migration friction and helps maintain mixed workloads on the same fabric.

3) Hybrid bursts and governance continuity​

The Azure deployment emphasizes being an Azure‑native offering — you operate VAST with Azure governance, audit, and billing. For regulated workloads that must maintain residency or strict controls on movement, the ability to burst compute into Azure without changing governance policies is strategically powerful. It’s also attractive for customers who want to centralize billing and support under their Azure agreements.

---

Critical analysis: strengths, limitations, and the procurement checklist​

Strengths — where VAST + Azure is compelling​

• Integrated stack for agentic AI: VAST moves beyond storage to orchestrated, event‑driven compute (DataEngine/AgentEngine), which is a natural fit for RAG and multi‑agent systems that need continuous access to fresh data.
• Realistic hybrid posture: The DataSpace concept addresses data gravity by enabling burst patterns rather than forcing migration. That’s a pragmatic answer for data‑heavy domains like genomics, video, and LiDAR.
• Enterprise management model: Running as an Azure‑native offering eases adoption for Microsoft enterprise customers by mapping to existing identity, policy, and support models.

Caveats and technical risks — what needs verification​

• Unverified Azure SKU references: The announcement references a “Laos VM Series” and “Azure Boost” accelerated networking. Those specific product names are not present in Microsoft’s public VM family documentation and may be vendor shorthand or internal code names rather than published SKUs. Architects must obtain SKU‑level compatibility matrices from Microsoft and VAST. Treat these terms as unverified until clarified.
• Performance variability: Claims such as “keeping GPU clusters saturated” depend heavily on workload shape, dataset skew, concurrency, and network topology. Vendor benchmarks are directional; reproducible third‑party tests and representative pilot benchmarks are required for realistic sizing and TCO modeling.
• Operational complexity from metadata scale: Global namespaces and vector indexes add metadata growth and indexing costs that are often under‑estimated. Expect a non‑trivial operations and observability investment to manage index rebuilds, consistency, and metadata store growth at exabyte scale.
• Agent governance and security surface: Agentic systems that can act on data increase attack surface and regulatory exposure. Agent identities must be mapped to Azure Entra principals, audit trails must integrate with Sentinel and Purview, and runtime policy enforcement must be demonstrable before production rollout.

---

Technical verification: what to confirm before committing​

1. Confirm deployment model and contract mechanics. Is VAST AI OS offered via the Azure Marketplace as a managed service, an Azure‑hosted managed offering, or a customer‑managed image? Understand licensing, consumption metrics (per‑GB, per‑query, per‑CNode), and support SLAs.
2. Insist on an Azure SKU compatibility matrix. Request a validated list of VM SKUs (exact names), GPU models, NIC capabilities (RDMA/InfiniBand, Accelerated Networking), and any DPU/DPU‑offload requirements. Do not accept marketing names in lieu of SKU numbers.
3. Obtain reproducible benchmarks and run a pilot. Benchmarks should include model load times, embedding ingestion speed, vector search latency under sustained concurrency, and GPU utilization uplift on representative datasets. Compare vendor snapshots with in‑your‑environment runs.
4. Validate governance and audit integrations. Map AgentEngine agents to Entra identities, verify audit logs and chain‑of‑action retention in Purview/Sentinel, and test policy enforcement such as kill switches and quarantines.
5. Model TCO with metadata overhead. Include index rebuild costs, metadata database growth, cross‑region replication, and any expected egress or Inter‑Cloud transfer fees to produce realistic long‑term costing.

---

A practical 90‑day pilot plan (pragmatic, vendor‑agnostic)​

To convert marketing claims into measurable results, follow a staged plan:
0–30 days: Deployment & baseline

• Deploy VAST AI OS in one Azure region with the vendor‑recommended SKUs (validated in writing).
• Ingest a representative dataset (including small file worst‑cases and very large binary objects).
• Run baseline RAG and embedding workloads; capture GPU utilization, model load times, and end‑to‑end latency.

30–60 days: Governance & observability

• Map AgentEngine agents to Entra principals; enable conditional access and RBAC scopes.
• Integrate logs with Azure Sentinel and Purview; validate that audit trails record agent actions, data access, and tool invocations.
• Test agent lifecycle controls: kill switches, quarantines, and human‑in‑the‑loop approvals.

60–90 days: Scale, resilience & cost

• Scale across AZs or regions to test DataSpace bursting behavior and cross‑region replication costs.
• Run failure drills for metadata, node, and AZ failures to confirm RTO/RPO.
• Produce a measured TCO projection that incorporates observed dedupe/similarity ratios and GPU utilization uplift. If KPIs are met, negotiate staged commercial terms and SLAs.

This staged approach converts vendor promises into contractual obligations and measurable deliverables — essential when the platform touches billing, compliance, and mission‑critical AI workflows.

---

Strategic risks and vendor lock‑in considerations​

• Data plane consolidation risk: Adopting a single, provider‑specific AI OS can simplify operations but concentrates control and dependency. Enterprises should weigh the operational benefits against potential migration complexity later. Multi‑cloud deployments or exit plans should be validated up front.
• Agentic attack surface and regulatory exposure: Agents with autonomous enactment capabilities increase requirements for provenance, E‑Discovery, and human oversight. Regulatory teams should be engaged early to define acceptable agent behaviors and data access policies.
• Hidden TCO from metadata and small‑file overhead: Global namespaces and vector indexes can generate significant metadata growth, which is often the cost driver missed in initial estimates. Pilot the metadata growth model with representative ingest loads.

---

Where to be cautious about vendor language​

Several publications and vendor analysis notes flag that phrases like “Laos VM Series” and “Azure Boost Accelerated Networking” appear in the announcement but do not map neatly to publicly documented Azure VM families or networking products. Microsoft does publish Accelerated Networking capabilities and numerous VM families (ND, NC, HB, etc., but the precise phraseology used in the VAST PR could be internal or marketing shorthand. Do not accept those names in contracts — require exact SKU names and NIC/driver requirements.

---

Market context — why hyperscalers want data‑first partners​

Hyperscalers are stacking richer, opinionated infrastructure to win enterprise AI workloads (specialized VM families, custom silicon, and platform agent tooling). For Microsoft, partnering with a data OS vendor like VAST tightens Azure’s ability to offer a turnkey path for large model training, RAG deployments, and agentic systems without forcing customers to rebuild their data pipelines from scratch. For VAST, being Azure‑native broadens its reach and embeds its control plane into enterprise procurement and governance flows. This partnership therefore reflects a broader trend: cloud providers want fewer integration headaches for customers; vendors want hyperscaler scale and operational simplicity.

---

Final verdict for IT buyers​

VAST AI OS on Azure is a strategically interesting and technically plausible proposition for organizations that:

• run very large datasets (video, genomics, telemetry) that make data migration impractical;
• need high GPU utilization and fast RAG/agentic workflows; and
• are committed to Microsoft's governance, identity, and compliance tooling.

However, the offering should be treated as the start of a procurement and validation conversation, not a turnkey guarantee. Enterprises must demand SKU‑level clarity, pilot‑driven benchmarks using representative datasets, explicit governance mappings for AgentEngine, and transparent TCO models that include metadata growth and cross‑region costs. The vendor enterprise promise is credible — but only measurable through methodical testing and contractual SLAs.

---

VAST’s public materials and the Azure collaboration together outline a coherent technical direction: unify data access, run compute in place, and operationalize agents at scale. The practical impact will depend on technical validation, SKU fidelity, and enterprise governance controls. For any organization considering VAST on Azure, the immediate next steps are (1) request SKU compatibility matrices and a validated reference architecture, (2) run a focused 90‑day pilot with representative workloads and governance tests, and (3) insist that any commercial commitment include measurable performance and compliance SLAs tied to those pilot results. CONTENTS: VAST press materials, independent reporting, and vendor analysis inform this assessment; ambiguous infrastructure references in the announcement should be verified directly with Microsoft and VAST before procurement.

---

Source: SourceSecurity.com VAST AI OS: Transforming AI with Microsoft Azure

 

[ChatGPT]

VAST Data’s announcement that its VAST AI Operating System (VAST AI OS) will be available on Microsoft Azure marks a significant step in the industry’s shift from commodity storage to an integrated, AI‑native data layer designed specifically to feed and orchestrate agentic AI at cloud scale. The collaboration—revealed at Microsoft Ignite—promises unified, multi‑protocol data access, an exabyte‑scale global namespace (DataSpace), and in‑place compute fabrics (InsightEngine and AgentEngine) that aim to keep Azure GPU fleets saturated while enabling continuous, retrieval‑augmented and agentic AI workflows. This piece summarizes what was announced, verifies the core technical claims, highlights strengths, and flags practical, security, and procurement risks IT teams must validate before committing to production deployments.

Background / Overview​

VAST has repositioned itself from a performance storage vendor into a software-first “AI Operating System” that bundles storage, metadata, database, and compute orchestration into a single platform. The vendor’s product family—VAST DataStore, VAST DataBase, InsightEngine, AgentEngine, and the global DataSpace namespace—is designed to remove long‑standing tradeoffs between scale, performance, and simplicity via a Disaggregated, Shared‑Everything (DASE) architecture. The company’s own materials and multiple press releases detail the move toward an “AI data platform” optimized for real‑time agentic applications and vector‑heavy workloads. Microsoft’s Azure strategy in recent years has emphasized expanding purpose‑built AI infrastructure, adding governance and identity primitives for agentic systems, and offering GPU‑accelerated VM families and custom silicon to reduce latency and operational costs. Pairing Azure’s global compute, governance, and billing frameworks with VAST’s data services is presented as a natural fit to accelerate model training, inference, and autonomous agent orchestration across hybrid and multi‑cloud environments.

---

What Microsoft and VAST Said — The Core Claims​

• VAST AI OS will be offered to Azure customers and run on Azure infrastructure with native tooling and governance integration.
• The platform bundles unified storage (file, object, block), a transactional/semantic DataBase for vector workloads, and real‑time compute fabrics (InsightEngine and AgentEngine) that execute retrieval, RAG, and agent orchestration close to data.
• VAST claims the architecture supports an exabyte‑scale DataSpace that eliminates silos and enables bursting from on‑premises into Azure without migration or reconfiguration.
• VAST positions its DASE design and features such as Similarity Reduction to reduce embedding storage footprint and lower TCO for embedding‑heavy applications.
• Microsoft framed the collaboration as aligning with Azure’s GPU‑accelerated infrastructure, citing benefits for model builders and referencing Azure infrastructure advancements. VAST’s announcement specifically references the “Laos VM Series” and “Azure Boost,” phrases that appear in the vendor text.

These are the headline claims customers will evaluate; the rest of this article examines which claims are well supported, which require verification, and what enterprise IT teams should test.

---

Technical deep dive: how VAST’s components map to Azure workflows​

VAST DataStore and unified protocol access​

VAST DataStore is positioned as a single unified layer supporting NFS/SMB for legacy and file workloads, S3 for object paradigms, and block/NVMe‑over‑TCP for high‑performance use cases. This multi‑protocol access is a major practical benefit: it reduces application rewrites and simplifies migration paths for mixed workloads where some apps expect file semantics while ML pipelines prefer object or block access. For Azure customers this theoretically reduces integration friction when adding AI services to existing applications. What to verify

• Confirm protocol performance at scale on the exact Azure VM SKUs you plan to use (RDMA vs. TCP differences, driver/firmware requirements).
• Validate whether NVMe‑over‑TCP and RDMA paths (if used) are supported end‑to‑end on the chosen Azure networking and host families.

VAST DataBase, vector indexes and RAG pipelines​

VAST describes VAST DataBase as a “real‑time” semantic database built for exabyte‑scale embedding stores, indexing, and high‑throughput similarity search—core capabilities for retrieval‑augmented generation (RAG) and production vector search. The value proposition is to keep embedding retrieval and search logic close to the data, reducing the end‑to‑end latency for agentic reasoning and multi‑agent orchestration. What to verify

• Request reproducible benchmarks: embedding ingestion throughput, top‑k retrieval latency at production scale, and resource utilization curves when answering concurrent agent requests.
• Measure how similarity‑reduction/deduplication behaves on your dataset; published vendor averages are useful directionally, but workload variation is high.

InsightEngine and AgentEngine: in‑place compute and agent orchestration​

InsightEngine is VAST’s stateless compute fabric for vector search, data preparation, and RAG pipelines; AgentEngine is the orchestration layer that manages autonomous agents acting on real‑time streams. Running these services “where data lives” reduces data movement and can materially shorten pipeline latency. On Azure, VAST says these components will be deployable under Azure governance and billing controls. What to verify

• Confirm how AgentEngine maps to Azure identity systems: do agents become Azure Entra principals with RBAC scopes and conditional access policies?
• Validate telemetry and audit integration: can agent chain‑of‑actions, tool invocations, and data access be logged into Azure Sentinel and Microsoft Purview for e‑discovery and compliance?

DataSpace: the global namespace claim​

A central promise is DataSpace: an exabyte‑scale global namespace that presents on‑premises, edge, and cloud data as a single logical pool and enables instant burst to Azure without reconfiguration. This is highly attractive for regulated workloads where wholesale migration is impossible or costly. What to verify

• Ask for measured latency/throughput guarantees when mounting DataSpace across on‑prem and cloud regions.
• Test metadata store scaling and recovery behaviors; metadata growth is often an unexpected cost and operational pain point.

---

Performance, cost, and SKU clarity — what’s verified and what remains ambiguous​

VAST’s press material and product pages assert that the VAST AI OS will “keep Azure GPU and CPU clusters saturated” and benefits from “Azure infrastructure solutions including the Laos VM Series using Azure Boost Accelerated Networking.” The VAST press release includes these phrases, but independent documentation for an Azure “Laos VM Series” or an “Azure Boost” network feature could not be found in public Azure SKU listings at the time of this analysis. That mismatch suggests a likely vendor‑term or an internal code name in marketing copy and must be treated as unverified until Microsoft or VAST publishes SKU‑level compatibility matrices. Enterprises should insist on:

• Official Azure SKU names and validated reference architectures in writing.
• Reproducible performance benchmarks executed on the exact SKUs and regions intended for production.
• A clear deployment and billing model: managed service, Marketplace image, or customer‑managed software with separate licensing.

---

Security, governance, and the expanded attack surface​

Agentic AI changes the threat model. Agents that can read, write, or operate across systems increase risk significantly. The announcement repeatedly references integration with Azure governance and security tooling, but the specifics of runtime enforcement, short‑lived credentials, human‑in‑the‑loop gating, and chain‑of‑custody recording are the operational controls that determine whether such a system is safe for regulated data. Risks to address

• Identity and lifecycle management: ensure AgentEngine agents are first‑class Azure Entra principals with limited, auditable scopes and JIT credentialing to reduce persistent risk.
• Runtime policy enforcement: require demonstrable and auditable kill‑switches, quarantine flows, and policy enforcement that can be applied per agent, per dataset, and per action.
• Telemetry and provenance: validate long‑term retention of audit logs, chain‑of‑thought capture, and integration with e‑discovery systems for compliance.

Operational countermeasures should include short‑lived credentials, RBAC scoping, Azure Policy guardrails, and Sentinel‑driven detection scenarios for misbehaving agents.

---

Practical deployment and a 90‑day validation playbook​

The announcement is the beginning of a procurement conversation. Treat the vendor messaging as directional and convert it into measurable commitments using this phased approach:

• Days 0–30: Pilot deployment
• Deploy VAST AI OS in one Azure region using vendor‑recommended SKUs (validated in writing).
• Ingest representative datasets including worst‑case small files, large binaries, and RAG sources.
• Run baseline RAG and embedding workloads; capture GPU utilization, model load times, and E2E latency.
• Days 30–60: Governance and observability
• Map AgentEngine agents to Azure Entra identities with RBAC and conditional access.
• Integrate telemetry with Sentinel and Purview; verify audit completeness for agent actions.
• Test agent kill‑switches and human‑in‑the‑loop approval gates.
• Days 60–90: Scale, cost modeling and resilience testing
• Scale across AZs/regions to exercise DataSpace burst behavior and cross‑region costs.
• Run simulated failure and metadata‑store outage tests to verify RTO/RPO.
• Produce a measured TCO that includes similarity‑reduction effects, metadata growth, and GPU utilization uplift versus baseline.

Require contractual SLAs, reproducible benchmark clauses, and the right to run third‑party verification as part of procurement.

---

Strengths and strategic benefits​

• Feature completeness for agentic workloads: The combined set—global namespace, multi‑protocol access, exabyte vector search, and agent orchestration—addresses many of the practical blockers in production agentic AI. This stack reduces the number of moving parts companies must assemble themselves.
• Hybrid freedom with Azure governance: Running VAST on Azure promises customers Azure’s identity, billing, and compliance tooling while adding VAST’s AI‑native services—reducing integration friction for Microsoft‑centric enterprises.
• Potential GPU cost efficiencies: If data services genuinely reduce cold starts and sustain higher GPU utilization, the cost per training/inference hour could drop materially—an essential lever for large model builders. This claim is plausible and supported by VAST’s performance messaging and partner deployments with DGX and GPU cloud providers, but it must be proven per workload.

---

Risks, vendor claims to treat with caution, and governance gaps​

• Marketing vs reality: Bold claims about “keeping Azure GPU clusters saturated” and proprietary VM names should be validated with reproducible, independent benchmarks. Treat these as procurement starting points, not guarantees.
• Expanded attack surface: Agent orchestration that can act across systems amplifies security risk. Runtime enforcement, identity lifecycle, and observability must be demonstrated under adversarial tests.
• Operational complexity and metadata costs: Disaggregation and a global namespace reduce some tradeoffs but introduce new ops patterns—metadata scaling, catalog maintenance, and network architecture for high‑fanout streaming. These are often under‑estimated cost and staffing items.
• Billing and deployment ambiguity: Clarify whether VAST on Azure will be offered as a managed Azure service, a Marketplace image, or as customer‑managed software with separate licensing; this affects support, billing consolidation, and upgrade windows.

---

Market implications for WindowsForum readers and enterprise IT​

This collaboration signals that hyperscalers and specialized data‑platform vendors are converging around an AI‑first architecture where the data layer is active, not passive. For Windows‑centric enterprise IT teams, the appeal is practical: fewer rewrites, native governance controls, and the ability to accelerate AI initiatives with less infrastructure assembly. The catch: the promise of simplified operations only materializes if SKU compatibility, reproducible performance, governance integration, and transparent TCO are proven in pilots and contractual SLAs.

---

Procurement checklist (practical items to insist on)​

• Written compatibility matrix listing exact Azure VM SKUs, networking modes (RDMA/Accelerated Networking), and driver/firmware requirements.
• Reproducible benchmark suite and permission to run it in your Azure tenancy, using representative datasets.
• Clear deployment model and billing terms (managed vs. customer‑managed) documented in the agreement.
• Security and governance integration statements: how AgentEngine maps to Azure Entra, which logs go to Sentinel/Purview, and what human‑in‑the‑loop controls exist.
• TCO model that includes metadata store growth, similarity reduction measurement on a pilot dataset, cross‑region egress/replication costs, and GPU utilization uplift.

---

Conclusion​

The VAST AI OS on Azure is a credible and compelling systems‑level play that aligns a data‑centric operating layer with a hyperscaler’s compute, governance, and global footprint. For organizations building agentic AI—continuous RAG pipelines, real‑time agents acting on streaming data, or large‑scale model training—the combined offering promises real benefits: unified protocols, in‑place compute, exabyte namespaces, and the potential for better GPU utilization. That promise is already supported by VAST’s product history (InsightEngine and DataBase) and by multiple partner deployments with GPU cloud providers and hardware vendors. At the same time, vendor messaging includes unverifiable phrases and marketing names (for example, “Laos VM Series” and “Azure Boost”) that must be clarified, and the era of agentic AI raises non‑trivial security and governance requirements that demand realistic testing and enforceable SLAs. The pragmatic path to production is clear: run targeted pilots, demand reproducible benchmarks on your SKUs and datasets, validate governance and telemetry integrations, and insist on contractual commitments that translate vendor claims into measurable outcomes. Enterprises that follow this discipline will be able to leverage VAST + Azure as a powerful foundation for agentic AI—those that skip it risk surprises in performance, cost, and security.

---

---

Source: Security Informed https://www.securityinformed.com/ne...-co-14053-ga-co-1716447585-ga.1763632282.html

 

[ChatGPT]

VAST Data’s announcement that its AI Operating System will run natively on Microsoft Azure marks a significant inflection point in how enterprises will architect large-scale, agentic AI systems in the cloud, promising unified data services, exabyte-scale namespaces, and integrated runtimes for autonomous agents — but it also raises important questions about SKU-level compatibility, governance, and real-world performance that organizations must validate before committing mission-critical workloads.

Background​

The collaboration, unveiled at Microsoft Ignite in mid-November 2025, makes the VAST AI OS available to Azure customers as an Azure-native offering that can be deployed, governed, and billed through the Azure control plane. The deal brings VAST’s signature software stack — including DataSpace, DataStore, VAST DataBase, InsightEngine, and AgentEngine — into Azure’s global footprint, with the goal of enabling consistent data and AI pipelines across on-premises, hybrid, and multi-cloud environments.
VAST positions the AI OS as a single software layer for storing, indexing, cataloging, and serving data for modern AI workflows while also delivering agent runtimes that can reason over live datasets. Microsoft frames the partnership as a step toward operationalizing “agentic AI” — systems composed of multiple cooperating agents that plan, reason, and act on data at scale — by pairing VAST’s data-first architecture with Azure’s compute, networking, and enterprise governance.
This is the latest in a string of cloud and HPC partnerships VAST has announced in 2025 and 2024, as organizations increasingly seek data substrates that reduce friction between storage and AI compute. The offering promises benefits for model builders, MLOps teams, and platform architects — provided those teams validate performance, security, and cost expectations in their own environments.

---

What VAST AI OS on Azure Promises​

A unified, AI-native data stack​

VAST’s AI OS is framed as a consolidated platform that removes common architectural tradeoffs between performance, scale, and simplicity. Key capabilities promoted for Azure customers include:

• DataSpace: an exabyte-scale global namespace intended to eliminate data silos and enable seamless bursting between on-prem and cloud without rearchitecting pipelines.
• DataStore: support for file (NFS, SMB), object (S3-compatible), and block protocols so legacy and cloud-native workloads can share the same underlying dataset.
• VAST DataBase: a metadata-optimized database claimed to handle transactional, analytical, and vector/embedding workloads on the same platform.
• InsightEngine: a stateless compute layer for vector search, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) pipelines, and real-time data preparation.
• AgentEngine: an orchestration runtime for autonomous agents that acts on live data and continuous streams.

The pattern VAST describes — tight coupling of data, metadata, and agent runtimes — is aimed at eliminating the “move data to compute” bottleneck. For teams running large models or RAG systems, the ability to perform vector search and inference close to the source dataset can reduce latency and operational complexity.

Performance and scale claims​

VAST highlights its DASE (Disaggregated, Shared‑Everything) architecture, which decouples compute and storage scaling, and a Similarity Reduction technique designed to shrink storage footprints for massive embedding/vector collections. The pitch promises:

• Predictable, high-throughput I/O to Azure GPU and CPU clusters.
• Intelligent caching and metadata-optimized I/O to keep GPUs and accelerators saturated.
• Independent scaling of storage and compute inside Azure to lower costs for long-lived datasets.

These claims align with the needs of multi‑petabyte to exabyte AI training and inference pipelines, but they hinge on validated performance across the exact VM SKUs and networking topologies used in production.

---

Technical Deep Dive: What’s Under the Hood​

DASE architecture explained​

The DASE design aims to offer parallel, shared-everything semantics while disaggregating the physical compute and storage resources. In practical terms this means:

• Storage nodes expose a global namespace across multiple sites.
• Compute clusters (including GPU nodes) mount and access that namespace without moving massive files.
• Metadata services drive intelligent staging, caching, and indexing so data-serving is optimized at the I/O and application layers.

For architects, the DASE model reduces the need for complex tiering policies and manual data movement, but it increases reliance on the metadata plane. Metadata performance, resiliency, and scaling become mission-critical.

DataSpace and global namespace​

DataSpace is VAST’s answer to multi-site data availability. It promises:

• A single logical namespace across on-prem and Azure.
• Immediate data accessibility to cloud GPUs without full data migration.
• Support for object and file protocols to accommodate diverse tooling.

The upside is clear: faster bursts to cloud compute and simpler hybrid operations. The caveat is that global namespaces impose additional metadata traffic and consistency models that must be tested for the organization’s workload patterns.

Similarity Reduction and embedding storage economics​

Large-scale embedding stores are expensive. VAST’s Similarity Reduction technique aims to reduce storage by deduplicating or compressing similar vector content. This has two direct impacts:

• Lower storage costs for high-volume embedding stores.
• Potentially reduced network bandwidth during bulk reads.

However, compression/deduplication tradeoffs vary by embedding density, dimensionality, and update patterns. Architects should benchmark similarity reduction on representative data; savings are not uniform across datasets.

InsightEngine and AgentEngine — vector and agent runtimes​

• InsightEngine provides low-latency vector search and RAG orchestration, optimized for stateless compute nodes that scale horizontally.
• AgentEngine hosts autonomous agents with capabilities for reasoning and chaining operations on live data, enabling continuous workflows rather than ad-hoc batch jobs.

These components are attractive to teams building agents that must access sensitive or changing datasets in place. Yet agent runtimes bring governance and security implications that must be carefully modeled.

---

Integration with Azure: Opportunities and Caveats​

Native Azure integration​

A primary selling point of the collaboration is that VAST AI OS will be available through Azure’s management plane: deployable, auditable, and billable within Azure subscriptions. That pattern simplifies enterprise adoption because it preserves existing identity, governance, and billing models. It also lets customers use Azure-native features like role-based access control, logging, and compliance tooling alongside VAST’s stack.

Azure compute/networking references: validate the SKUs​

VAST and Microsoft marketing materials mention Azure GPU and CPU clusters, the “Laos VM Series,” and “Azure Boost accelerated networking.” These phrases capture the intent — high-performance VMs and advanced networking — but some of the specific product names appear to be vendor phrasing rather than documented public SKU identifiers. Architects should insist on SKU-level compatibility matrices and end-to-end reference architectures from Microsoft and VAST before making procurement or architecture decisions.
Why this matters:

• Cloud performance depends on exact VM families, GPU models, and NIC capabilities (e.g., RDMA, NVLink, GPUDirect).
• Accelerated networking and RDMA availability vary by region and by VM SKU.
• Some cloud features require specific driver stacks, firmware levels, and Azure image configurations that must be validated.

Treat marketing names as hypotheses: require a validated list of supported VM SKUs and NIC features for Azure regions where the workload will run.

Hybrid bursting and data mobility​

The ability to “burst” from on-prem to Azure without data migration is arguably the most pragmatic capability for many enterprises. If DataSpace delivers on that promise, organizations can run steady-state workloads on local infrastructure and cloud-burst high-intensity training or inference jobs without complex ETL. But real-world bursting depends on:

• Sufficient network bandwidth and predictable latency between the on-prem cluster and Azure region.
• Compatibility of GPU drivers, CUDA/CUDNN versions, and model frameworks across sites.
• Clear, audited identity and access pathways for agent runtimes.

Test bursts at the scale of production jobs before assuming the same performance characteristics will hold.

---

Cost, Economics, and TCO Considerations​

VAST emphasizes cost-efficiency through disaggregation and similarity reduction. Those are material levers to reduce long‑term TCO for AI datasets, but they must be modeled against cloud pricing realities.
Points to evaluate:

• Storage vs. compute economics: Disaggregation lets organizations size compute only for peak windows, which can reduce spend if GPU time is tightly scheduled. Conversely, keeping large volumes online in the cloud may increase storage bills compared to tape or cold-tier on-prem options.
• Data egress and cross-region transfers: Global namespaces and multi-region access patterns may incur inter-region network costs that are non-trivial at petabyte scale.
• Licensing and marketplace billing: Running VAST AI OS as an Azure-native offering may consolidate billing but could also alter licensing models versus on-prem contracts. Clarify marketplace pricing, committed use discounts, and support entitlements.
• Similarity Reduction effectiveness: Savings depend on embedding characteristics and update frequency; run a pilot to extrapolate realistic savings.

A disciplined TCO exercise should include representative throughput tests, storage growth curves for metadata and indexes, and a model for agent compute cycles.

---

Security, Compliance, and Governance​

Introducing an agent runtime that can act on live datasets amplifies the security surface. The joint VAST-Microsoft offering must be validated across multiple governance dimensions:

• Identity and access: Map AgentEngine identities to Azure Entra principals or managed identities and ensure least-privilege policies for agents operating on sensitive data.
• Auditing and logging: Confirm that all agent actions, data reads/writes, and system changes are logged to a centralized, immutable audit store compatible with the organization’s SIEM.
• Data residency and compliance: Global namespaces can expose data across jurisdictions; ensure data localization controls exist and are granular enough to satisfy GDPR, HIPAA, or other regulatory requirements.
• Model and agent governance: Autonomous agents require policy frameworks for allowed actions, escalation procedures, and kill-switches to prevent runaway behavior. Integrate agent policy enforcement into existing compliance workflows.
• Supply-chain and firmware: If the solution relies on specific NIC drivers, DPU firmware, or custom silicon, require validated supply-chain attestations and firmware update processes.

Plan for third-party audits and threat modeling specifically aimed at agentic behaviors and metadata-driven attacks.

---

Strategic Implications for Microsoft, VAST, and the Cloud AI Market​

The partnership positions VAST as a strategic data-layer partner for Azure’s growing AI ecosystem and signals Microsoft’s intent to provide diverse infrastructure choices to AI builders. For enterprises, this means:

• More options for cloud-native AI infrastructure that treats data and metadata as first-class citizens.
• An acceleration of hybrid cloud architectures that emphasize “run where data lives.”
• Increased importance of vetted reference architectures — both cloud vendors and storage vendors will need to publish validated, SKU-level guidance.

For Microsoft, bringing VAST into Azure’s native portfolio strengthens its capability set for large-scale AI customers and aligns with Azure’s push toward heterogeneous compute (including custom silicon initiatives). For VAST, the Azure channel opens enterprise accounts that require deep governance and support integrations, raising the company’s enterprise profile.
However, the partnership also intensifies a vendor ecosystem where customers must coordinate multiple parties (cloud provider, data layer vendor, model vendor, and accelerator vendor) to achieve peak performance and predictable cost.

---

Practical Guidance: What Architects and CIOs Should Do Next​

• Validate supported Azure SKUs and regions.
• Request a SKU compatibility matrix from VAST and Microsoft covering GPUs, NICs, RDMA, and driver versions.
• Run a representative pilot.
• Test end-to-end RAG and training pipelines with production-size datasets to measure latency, throughput, and GPU utilization.
• Model TCO with real numbers.
• Include storage, network transfers, agent compute cycles, and marketplace licensing in the TCO model.
• Audit security and governance controls.
• Map AgentEngine roles to Azure Entra and ensure integration with existing audit trails and SIEM tools.
• Stress-test hybrid bursts.
• Validate network behavior and job orchestration when bursting from on-prem into Azure under load.
• Confirm support SLAs and operational responsibilities.
• Clarify who is responsible for firmware, driver, and DPU updates across the stack.
• Prepare metadata scaling plans.
• Model index growth and metadata operational costs as datasets and agent populations increase.

These steps will reduce the gap between vendor claims and expected outcomes.

---

Risks, Unknowns, and What to Watch For​

• Unverified SKU names and feature mapping: Phrases like “Laos VM Series” and “Azure Boost” appear in marketing materials; they should not be used as procurement-level identifiers without confirmation. Insist on concrete VM and NIC SKUs and validated reference architectures.
• Metadata growth and management: Global namespaces and vector indexes can create metadata bottlenecks that are often underestimated.
• Agent governance: Autonomous agents acting on enterprise data increase regulatory and security exposure; governance frameworks must be in place before production rollout.
• Performance variability: Vendor benchmarks rarely reflect the full complexity of production workloads; independent, reproducible benchmarking is non-negotiable.
• Cost leakage via networking: Cross-region and cross-site metadata and data access can produce unexpected egress and inter-region costs at scale.
• Operational maturity: The integration of agent runtimes, vector indexes, and metadata services adds operational complexity that requires skilled teams and observability tooling.

Flag any claims that are phrased as broad market statements or marketing names; they require concrete technical validation.

---

Why This Matters: The Bigger Picture for Hybrid AI​

The VAST–Microsoft collaboration embodies a broader industry shift: storage systems are no longer passive repositories but active participants in AI pipelines. By embedding vector search, metadata indexing, and agent runtimes close to the data plane, vendors seek to shrink the friction between data and compute, which is the principal bottleneck for many large-scale AI workflows.
If the technology delivers on its promises, enterprises will gain the ability to:

• Run large RAG systems and agentic workflows with lower latency and simpler pipelines.
• Move workloads fluidly between on-prem and cloud without extensive re-engineering.
• Reduce storage costs for embedding repositories through intelligent reduction techniques.

But delivering this reliably at global scale requires coordination across cloud SKUs, networking features, driver stacks, and governance frameworks — and that coordination is where the engineering and procurement work will be concentrated in 2026.

---

Conclusion​

The arrival of VAST Data’s AI Operating System as an Azure-native option is an important milestone for enterprises building large-scale, agentic AI systems. It promises a unified data fabric, integrated runtimes for vector search and autonomous agents, and architectures intended to unlock predictable performance for demanding AI workloads. The potential benefits—reduced data movement, improved GPU utilization, and cost efficiencies—are compelling.
At the same time, organizations must approach the announcement with healthy skepticism and pragmatic due diligence. Validate SKU-level compatibility, run realistic pilots, model TCO with representative workloads, and harden governance for agentic systems before production adoption. The partnership advances the state of cloud AI infrastructure, but the real work lies in converting vendor potential into repeatable, secure, and cost-effective outcomes for enterprise AI.

---

Source: innovation-village.com VAST Data Joins Microsoft to Power AI on Azure - Innovation Village | Technology, Product Reviews, Business

 

[ChatGPT]

VAST Data’s AI Operating System is now available as a native offering on Microsoft Azure, marking a major step toward bringing an “AI-native” data and agent runtime to the cloud and promising a single, high-performance data plane for agentic AI workloads that span on-premises, hybrid, and multi‑cloud environments.

Background​

VAST Data has spent the last several years positioning itself not just as a storage vendor but as a provider of an AI-first infrastructure layer it calls the VAST AI Operating System (AI OS). That platform bundles a unified storage layer, a metadata-rich DataBase, and new runtimes — most notably InsightEngine and AgentEngine — designed to accelerate retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), vector search, real‑time ingestion, and orchestrated agentic workflows. VAST’s AI OS promises to keep expensive GPU and CPU accelerators busy by delivering data with predictable low latency and high throughput while offering a global, exabyte-scale namespace that spans sites and clouds. The announcement that VAST AI OS will run natively on Microsoft Azure was made publicly at Microsoft Ignite and in VAST’s own press material; the two companies describe the collaboration as a way to give Azure customers access to VAST’s unified data services — DataStore, DataBase, DataSpace — without redesigning applications or moving data through cumbersome pipelines. The strategic framing is clear: enable production-grade, agentic AI on Azure with a consistent data layer, governance, and billing that match existing Azure operations.

---

What VAST on Azure actually brings​

Native cloud deployment, unified management​

The VAST AI OS will be offered as a native Azure service, meaning customers can deploy and operate it under Azure’s management, security, and billing umbrellas. For enterprises this promises:

• A single logical platform for files, objects, and block storage (NFS, SMB, S3, block), reducing the need for separate storage stacks.
• Integration with Azure identity, governance, and observability tooling so existing enterprise controls can be reused.
• Consolidation of AI data services (cataloging, search/indexing, and database-like transactional/query services) into one platform, reducing operational sprawl and simplifying compliance controls.

InsightEngine: AI-native data services​

InsightEngine is VAST’s stateless compute + database layer aimed at the heavy data tasks AI teams run today: high‑throughput vector search, embedding stores, RAG pipelines, and streaming data preparation. The key design point is running compute “close to the data” to reduce IO latency, use metadata-optimized I/O paths for metadata-heavy workloads, and provide intelligent caching to keep accelerators fed. On Azure, VAST says InsightEngine will be tuned to work with GPU-accelerated VMs and Azure’s networking enhancements to reduce end-to-end latency for inference and multi‑model RAG scenarios.

AgentEngine: orchestrating agentic AI at scale​

AgentEngine is the runtime for long-lived, autonomous agents that reason and act on live data streams. Its goal is to make agentic workflows first-class citizens: agents can invoke databases, call other agents, query vector indices, and act on streaming events without shuttling data between silos or rebuilding pipelines for cloud bursting. The architecture emphasizes fault-tolerant scheduling, queuing, and observability so that massively parallel agentic systems can be monitored and debugged in production. VAST positions this as the control plane for agentic AI across hybrid, multi‑cloud, and on-prem deployments.

---

Technical pillars and claimed benefits​

1) Unified DataSpace across hybrid environments​

At the core of VAST’s hybrid pitch is DataSpace, a global namespace that gives disparate clusters a single logical view over exabyte-scale data. For organizations that run on-premises VAST clusters today, this means they can “point” Azure-based compute at the same namespace without copying petabytes of data, relying on VAST’s background data placement and streaming to make data available where compute runs. This model is designed to simplify burst-to-cloud workflows and limit costly, time-consuming data movements.

2) Disaggregated, Shared‑Everything (DASE) architecture​

VAST’s DASE design separates stateless compute from shared storage: compute and storage scale independently. In Azure terms this lets customers independently size GPU/CPU VM fleets and persistent storage pools. The architecture also includes a feature VAST calls Similarity Reduction, which removes redundant data patterns (embeddings, model checkpoints, repeated dataset fragments) to reduce storage footprint — an efficiency aimed directly at large model training and multi-versioned dataset scenarios.

3) AI‑native database and multiprotocol DataStore​

VAST DataBase is pitched as a converged engine combining transactional performance, warehouse-class queries, and data-lake economics. Alongside DataStore’s multi-protocol support (file, object, block), the platform promises mixed-workload consolidation—legacy applications, analytics engines, and AI pipelines sharing the same dataset without separate stacks. For enterprises this reduces complexity and licensing sprawl.

4) Performance for model builders​

The public materials emphasize keeping GPUs and CPUs busy — a core problem for AI ops teams. VAST claims high-throughput data services, intelligent caching, and metadata-optimized I/O paths to limit stalls from model cold starts, small-file problems, and heavy metadata workloads. On Azure the company calls out working with GPU-accelerated VM families and network acceleration to support this. That said, the practical impact depends on VM SKU compatibility, NIC features (RDMA/GPUDirect), and network topology — all of which must be validated per deployment.

---

Where the claims hold up — strengths and real value​

• Unified data plane is a compelling operational win. For organizations battling siloed data across file, object, and block systems, a single namespace that preserves access semantics can dramatically reduce project ramp time, particularly for RAG and embedding pipelines that require consistent access to large corpora.
• Agentic AI as a first‑class runtime is forward looking. Many organizations are experimenting with agents today, and having a production-grade orchestration layer built into the data plane — with observability and policy controls — can lower the barrier from experimentation to operationalization.
• Independent scaling reduces TCO risk. Decoupling compute and storage lets teams avoid overprovisioning expensive GPU fleets to compensate for storage bottlenecks. When implemented correctly, DASE-style architectures can yield better utilization and more predictable costs.
• Similarity Reduction addresses a real storage pain for embeddings and model versions. Embeddings and repeated dataset snapshots can explode storage consumption; deduplication-like efficiencies tuned for similarity rather than exact duplicates are meaningful for long-lived model development cycles.
• Azure-native deployment simplifies governance and integration. Running under Azure billing, identity, and observability models makes the offering easier to adopt for enterprises already standardized on Microsoft clouds and tooling.

---

Caveats, technical risks, and what architects must validate​

SKU-level specifics and networking: don’t accept marketing names​

VAST’s announcement references the “Laos VM Series” and “Azure Boost Accelerated Networking.” These particular product names are not widely referenced in Microsoft’s public VM catalogs and may be marketing shorthand or internal names rather than published SKUs. Architects should insist on SKU-level compatibility guidance from both Microsoft and VAST before any commitment: exact VM families, GPU SKUs, NIC driver/firmware versions, RDMA/InfiniBand support, and GPUDirect compatibility must be documented for the regions chosen. Treat the named infrastructure items as vendor phrasing that requires concrete validation.

Performance claims are workload-dependent​

Claims about “keeping GPUs saturated” sound enticing, but they are highly dependent on dataset shapes, model sizes, concurrency, and network topology. Vendor-published performance numbers are valuable directional indicators, but they are not a substitute for reproducible, third‑party benchmarks run on representative data and at representative concurrency levels. Expect real-world pilot tests to reveal bottlenecks not visible in synthetic or vendor-curated tests.

Metadata and indexing scale costs​

A global namespace and exabyte-scale indexing imply significant metadata growth. Metadata stores, vector indexes, and small-file catalogs consume memory and IOPS; observers should budget for observability tooling, index rebuild costs, and the operational teams required to manage metadata at scale. The operational overhead is real and often underestimated during procurement.

Agent governance and expanded attack surface​

Agentic AI is more than models: agents that act autonomously increase the surface for misconfiguration, data leakage, and compliance risk. Any production agent runtime must integrate with enterprise identity systems, logging (e.g., centralized audit trails), automated policy enforcement, and incident response workflows. Architects and security teams must confirm how AgentEngine maps agent identities to Azure Entra principals, how it integrates with Sentinel-like security telemetry, and how runtime policies are enforced.

Cloud economics and hidden costs​

While DASE and Similarity Reduction can reduce headline storage costs, cloud economics are nuanced. Network egress, region-to-region replication, and per‑operation metadata pricing can add up. Financial modeling should include sustained concurrent I/O patterns, expected cache hit rates, and metadata operation volumes — not just raw TB/PB numbers. Vendors’ TCO claims should be validated with proof-of-concept runs that capture real I/O patterns.

---

Practical guidance: adoption checklist for IT and AI teams​

• Obtain a SKU compatibility matrix from Microsoft and VAST:
• Confirm exact Azure VM families, GPU SKUs, NIC drivers, and RDMA/GPUDirect support for your target regions.
• Run representative pilot workloads:
• Pilot should include at-scale RAG queries, multi‑user concurrent inference, large model checkpointing, and real-time ingestion.
• Validate networking and I/O topology:
• Map the expected data paths, verify caching behavior, and confirm latency/throughput with your VM/region selections.
• Quantify metadata and index overhead:
• Simulate expected embedding index growth and test index rebuild scenarios to measure operational impact.
• Integrate agent governance into enterprise policy:
• Connect AgentEngine to Azure Entra, Sentinel, and Purview; test auditability and policy enforcement.
• Model TCO with realistic usage:
• Include egress, per‑operation charges, metadata operations, and expected cache hit rates rather than relying on raw capacity numbers.
• Require runbook and failure-mode documentation:
• Obtain documented recovery behaviors for network partitions, index corruption, and cross-region failover.

---

Competitive context and market implications​

VAST’s move to offer AI OS as a native Azure service is consistent with a broader industry trend: converging data storage, vector search, and agent runtimes into a single managed layer that abstracts the friction of feeding accelerators. Cloud providers and third-party vendors alike are racing to provide integrated stacks that reduce time-to-value for generative AI and agentic workflows.
VAST’s differentiators are the DASE architecture, a strong enterprise feature set around multi-protocol support, and an explicit focus on agentic AI as a primary target. By making the AI OS available on multiple public clouds (announcements indicate other partnerships as well), VAST is positioning the DataSpace and AgentEngine as a multi-cloud data fabric — a direct play against point solutions that lock data into one cloud or require extensive re-platforming for cross-cloud inference. However, large cloud providers are also deepening their own integrated stacks. For customers, the choice will come down to proven performance in their specific workloads, the quality of operational guidance and support, and long-term cost modeling — not solely headline claims.

---

Real-world scenarios where VAST on Azure makes sense​

• Enterprises that already run VAST on-premises and want a seamless burst-to-cloud model without months of data migration work.
• Organizations building RAG-enabled products that require high-throughput vector store access with predictable latency.
• AI teams operating at multi-region scale where a single logical namespace and consistent access controls significantly reduce ops complexity.
• Research institutions and HPC centers needing a converged data layer tuned for both simulation data and large-model inferencing.

Conversely, smaller teams or greenfield cloud-native AI projects with limited data gravity may prefer simpler, fully managed point solutions until their data and scale justify a unified global namespace investment.

---

Final assessment​

The VAST AI OS landing on Azure is an important product milestone that brings a coherent, ambitious vision—an “operating system” for agentic AI—into one of the world’s largest clouds. The offering’s strengths are clear: unified multiprotocol access, an exabyte-capable DataSpace, agent runtime primitives, and architecture choices that prioritize independent scaling of compute and storage. For enterprises with heavy data gravity and a multi‑cloud strategy, the promise of less data movement, consolidated governance, and a consistent runtime for agents and RAG pipelines is persuasive. That said, several practical factors demand careful validation: exact Azure VM and networking SKUs; reproducible performance on representative workloads; metadata/indexing operational impacts at scale; and the security and governance posture for autonomous agents. Marketing names like the “Laos VM Series” and “Azure Boost” should be treated as vendor phrasing until a SKU‑level matrix is provided and validated. Architects must insist on pilot deployments and independent benchmarks before migrating production workloads. For AI teams and infrastructure owners, the VAST + Microsoft collaboration significantly expands choices for building agentic systems in the cloud, but the path to production will still be governed by the same discipline that separates hype from reality: careful SKU verification, realistic pilot tests, and a clear operational rubric for scale, observability, and governance.

---

VAST Data’s Azure-native AI OS is now an option worth evaluating seriously — particularly for organizations wrestling with large, heterogeneous datasets, global collaboration needs, or ambitious agentic AI roadmaps. The conversation should start with a concrete, workload-driven pilot and a joint technical validation with VAST and Microsoft to translate the promise into repeatable, measurable production outcomes.

---

Source: StorageReview.com VAST Data Announces AI Operating System for Microsoft Azure for Agentic AI