On 6/8/2010 6:33 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Miles Nordin wrote:
"re" == Richard Elling <richard.elling@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
re> Please don't confuse Ethernet with IP.
okay, but I'm not. seriously, if you'll look into it.
Did you misread where I said FC can exert back-pressure? I was
contrasting with Ethernet.
You're really confused, though I'm sure you're going to deny it.
I don't think so. I think that it is time to reset and reboot
yourself on the technology curve. FC semantics have been ported onto
ethernet. This is not your grandmother's ethernet but it is capable
of supporting both FCoE and normal IP traffic. The FCoE gets
per-stream QOS similar to what you are used to from Fibre Channel.
Quite naturally, you get to pay a lot more for the new equipment and
you have the opportunity to discard the equipment you bought already.
Richard is not out in the weeds although there are probably plenty of
weeds growing at the ranch.
Well, you saying we might want to put certain folks out to pasture?
That said, I had a good look at FCoE about a year ago, and, unlike ATAoE
which effectively ran over standard managed or smart switched, FCoE
required specialized switch hardware that was non-trivially expensive.
That said, it did seem to be a mature protocol implementation, so it was
a viable option once the hardware price came down (and we had wider,
better software implementations).
Also, FCoE really doesn't seem to play well with regular IP on the same
link, so you really should dedicate a link (not necessarily a switch) to
FCoE, and pipe your IP traffic via another link. It is NOT iSCSI.
Java System Support
Santa Clara, CA
zfs-discuss mailing list