How does hyper-converged differ from converged?
Is one better than the other? When would one choose converged, rather than hyper-converged?
Are there pros and cons to each type of solution?
Hyper-converged is typically an "all in one box/rack" solution. It consists of compute, storage & network resources all tied together physically (and through software).
Hyper-converged for a pro - is a complete solution. You don't have to architect it. All you have to know is how much "power" you need (what you want to do with it). While with converged infrastructure (which can still be 'software defined') you have to match and configure the components to work together.
More often then not converged infrastructure is cheaper. You might already have the storage and networking resources, for example. And manufacturers put a premium on packaging the solution together.
Hyperconverged is a system cluster of at minimum 3 nodes. The system mirrors datas between nodes and runs virtual machines.
Converged systems is anything between the classic server and hyperconverged platform. This converged concept was useful in waiting for hyperconverged development and should disappear in a near future.
converged infrastructure still incorporates hardware, running the technology natively on hardware. On the other hand, hype convergence is fully software-defined and completely integrated
Oh, you cant geht Tod of Hardware in and way.
But it is true That hci is a Software defined approach which has the advantage of delivering new features without new hardware.
Another thing that destinguishes hyperconerged Solutions from converged ones is the scale-out nature: simple add more nodes to the system to support new workloads without losing Performance because you add all types at once (compute, storage and networking).