HPE Alletra's DASE Strategy: Learning From VAST Without the IP Risk

HPE is adopting VAST's disaggregated architecture concept for Alletra MP but implementing it two ways: partnering with VAST for file storage, developing independently for block storage. The strategy avoids litigation but creates different operational risks.

· 6 min read

In 2025, HPE accelerated its Alletra storage portfolio by adopting disaggregated shared-everything (DASE) architecture principles pioneered by VAST Data. However, HPE’s implementation diverges strategically from VAST’s approach in ways that reveal both competitive positioning and operational risk.

HPE’s strategy: copy the architecture, not the lawsuit.

VAST’s DASE Architecture

VAST introduced Disaggregated Shared Everything (DASE) in its storage platform: complete separation between storage hardware and control software, with unified metadata and state management across all nodes.

VAST’s implementation:

This creates vendor lock-in but operational integration. Every component works with every other component because VAST built them all.

HPE’s Two-Track Approach

HPE faced a choice: build disaggregated storage software from scratch (expensive, late to market), partner with VAST (quick to market but IP exposure), or use VAST selectively.

HPE chose a three-part strategy:

For file storage: HPE GreenLake for File Storage directly uses VAST Data’s DASE software running on HPE Alletra MP hardware. HPE essentially resells VAST’s architecture under HPE branding with HPE hardware. The partnership avoids building file storage software but creates dependency on VAST as a vendor component.

For block storage: HPE Alletra MP B10000 and X10000 implement their own disaggregated architecture without VAST’s software. HPE controls both hardware and software, avoiding VAST IP entanglement.

For enterprise capabilities: HPE integrates third-party components—vector databases, event brokers, data services—rather than building everything in-house like VAST does.

Why This Strategy Makes Sense

Avoiding litigation: VAST controls the concept of disaggregated storage for AI. Any organization building similar architecture could face patent claims. HPE’s differentiated approach (separate block storage, VAST partnership for file) creates plausible alternatives.

Speed to market: Instead of building a complete AI storage stack from scratch, HPE ships Alletra MP with VAST partnership and third-party components.

Technology flexibility: By not committing entirely to one architecture, HPE can adapt as the market evolves. If disaggregated proves less important than initially thought, HPE isn’t fully invested.

Maintaining relationships: HPE’s approach acknowledges VAST’s technology leadership while avoiding complete dependency.

What HPE Risks

However, HPE’s multi-component approach creates its own operational challenges—potentially as complex as VAST’s but without the integrated expertise.

HPE GreenLake for File with VAST software is clever: it lets customers adopt VAST’s architecture through HPE’s sales motion without NetApp, Dell, or Pure Storage having built equivalent systems. HPE avoids building disaggregated software (expensive) and gets Alletra MP hardware into deployments.

But this creates a subtle problem: customers get VAST’s operational complexity through HPE’s support organization. HPE engineers need to understand VAST’s three-tier protection, metadata asymmetries, and proprietary LDEC algorithms. HPE’s support team becomes distributors of VAST expertise without being VAST.

The Underlying Strategic Question

Disaggregated storage is technically valuable for specific use cases:

But it’s not universally better. Many organizations prefer integrated systems where one vendor is responsible for everything. The operational burden of managing failures across disaggregated systems is higher, not lower. You gain flexibility at the cost of complexity.

HPE’s bet: they can capture disaggregated storage customers by offering multiple architectures (VAST partnership for file, HPE-built for block) while larger customers stick with integrated Alletra platforms.

The Intellectual Property Implication

Notably, HPE’s approach signals something about the VAST IP landscape. If VAST’s disaggregated architecture patents are strong, HPE would avoid building competing systems. Instead, HPE builds Alletra MP B10000 block storage with disaggregated properties—suggesting VAST’s IP might be narrower than the hype suggests, or HPE concluded the risk was worth the market opportunity.

Compare this to NetApp, Dell, and Pure Storage, which have not yet announced disaggregated block storage systems. Either they’re waiting, they view disaggregated as VAST’s domain, or they’re building but haven’t announced.

HPE’s willingness to implement disaggregated block storage independently suggests one of three things:

  1. VAST’s patents don’t cover block storage disaggregation
  2. VAST’s patents are narrow enough to design around
  3. HPE decided the patent risk was worth the market advantage

None are reassuring for VAST’s long-term IP moat.

Implementation Reality

HPE’s December 2025 announcement that Alletra MP B10000 now supports 4-node switchless configurations (up from 2 nodes) appears designed to simplify small deployments. Switchless configurations reduce network infrastructure complexity—a practical consideration for entry-level disaggregated systems.

This is pragmatic engineering. But it also suggests HPE is finding disaggregated architecture’s operational complexity a barrier to adoption in smaller environments. Switchless removes one complexity dimension but creates others (node interconnect bandwidth limits).

Market Implications

HPE’s strategy reveals several market realities:

  1. Disaggregated is not a universal solution. HPE is targeting specific customer segments (large, performance-capacity uncoupled, VAST-knowledgeable) rather than positioning disaggregated as the future for all storage.

  2. VAST partnership for file suggests file storage is the harder problem. HPE chose to partner with VAST for file while building block independently. This signals file storage’s additional complexity (namespace management, metadata consistency, access protocols) justifies outsourcing to VAST.

  3. Third-party component integration is becoming standard. HPE’s integration of vector databases, event brokers, and other services suggests the future is heterogeneous stacks rather than monolithic systems.

  4. IP risks are material. HPE’s careful architecture avoidance and partnership choice imply VAST’s patent portfolio is substantial.

Conclusion

HPE’s Alletra MP strategy is clever: adopt disaggregated concepts without full VAST dependency, differentiate through hardware and integration, provide customers with options between integrated Alletra MP and disaggregated GreenLake with VAST.

But the complexity remains. VAST customers get VAST’s operational burden. GreenLake customers get VAST’s complexity through HPE’s support. Alletra MP block customers get HPE’s newly implemented disaggregated complexity.

None of these are simpler than single-vendor integrated systems. They’re different—offering flexibility at cost of operational burden.

The success of HPE’s strategy depends on whether customers actually want that trade-off. If they do, HPE has positioned itself between VAST (aggressive IP stance, full integration) and Pure/NetApp (conservative, integrated platforms).

If customers prioritize operational simplicity, HPE’s multiple architectures create selection paralysis rather than advantage.