Boston Metro-West Tweetup Framingham, MA Feb 10
Corporate Event Providence, RI Feb 11
Microsoft MVP Summit 2010 Seattle, WA Feb 15
HP Blade Tech Day Houston, TX Feb 25
Tech Field Day Boston Boston, MA Apr 8
  • Hi Stephen,

    Have you seen any research done to compare how FCoE fares against iSCSI over long distances (100s of kms/miles)? It is absolutely possible today to get a long distance Ethernet service, so the question is not an empty interest.

    Also, while FCoE does require 10GE UNI, does it also require full 10GE connectivity in between (I would expect not)?

    Thanks :)
  • Despite what Wikipedia says, I don't know of any reason that FCoE will not work over any old Ethernet link, provided you can physically cable it up through an appropriate switch. So you ought to be able to configure a Cisco Nexus to have a 10 GbE FCoE port and a crazy Ethernet/WAN port in the same VLAN, and it should work. But this is definitely not what the manufacturers intend. Similarly, it ought to be possibly to rig up a software initiator that allows any Ethernet NIC to be a FCoE HBA (just like the iSCSI software initiators) and use the protocol on your DLink desktop switch.

    But I will eat my hat if any vendor ever supports any configuration like this. This is an enterprise protocol through and through, and the vendors intend to make big money on it, not have it be commoditized like iSCSI.

    I imagine we will see FCoE MAN and WAN, but only through special hardware and in special vendor-approved circumstances. And of course, iSCSI works pretty well over WAN links right now...
  • Thanks for that. From what you say, is it safe to make an assumption that no comparison data yet exists for FCoE vs iSCSI over long distance?

    Also, from my limited understanding, I would expect that main usage for iSCSI over WAN links would be asynchronous replication, rather than primary storage attachment, is this so?
  • You are correct. I know of no one who has tried FCoE over WAN links, and iSCSI is often used for replication (by the arrays themselves) but not often for wide-area connectivity. Storage isn't all that forgiving to slowdowns and outages, after all...
  • Good, at least this means I'm on the right track of thinking. :)

    Thanks again :)
  • I didn't actually forget that iSCSI can run a 10GbE speeds; obviously it can run at the speed of the underlying network. I've run iSCSI over wireless before (I'm nuts)!

    I think iSCSI will survive quite happily in it's market sector; I think FCoE will probably end up dominating in the Enterprise Data Centre as the protocol of choice for block but I'm not expecting it to be huge in the SMB market.

    I think FCoE will happen fairly quickly in the DC tho'; especially in the form of top of rack solutions. But iSCSI fatally wounded, not a chance at the moment.
  • And I forgot, http://www.open-fcoe.org if you want to play with a software initiator. I've not done so myself but I might have a go (told you, I'm nuts).
  • I'm just as nuts! The first thing I did when I got one of the prototype LeftHand arrays way back when was to plug it into a Linksys router and mount a LUN over Wi-Fi! :-)
  • Gilles Chekroun
    One main difference between iSCSI and FCoE is the fact that FCoE still relies on FCP and so is seamless to FC networks. SAN administrators really like it because nothing is changed in the management tools for SAN zoning, multipathing etc...
    FCoE is still FC while iSCSI is NOT.

    makes a big difference and in my opinion on of the main reason iSCSI has such a small market compared to FC

    Gilles
  • iSCSI is targeting on small business while FCoE and Fibre Cnannel targeting on Enterprise.

    You can see FcoE and iSCSI implementation examples at http://fcoe.ru
blog comments powered by Disqus
Improve the web with Nofollow Reciprocity.
  • Vimeo Videos