Comments on: Where Is Microsoft’s FCoE Support?

By: I agree

I agree — Mon, 10 May 2010 00:25:58 +0000

right on @sfoskett

By: Bill Plein

Bill Plein — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 03:45:42 +0000

Actually, I never thought about the possibility of a software-only initiator (ala iSCSI). That's actually an intriguing way for them to influence the technology without playing favorites. I can see you point.

By: sfoskett

sfoskett — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 19:04:35 +0000

I simply want Microsoft to be an active participant in the FCoE ramp-up. I think their help will ease adoption pain and would be good for them in the long run.

As for the "why" question, I do see the point that Windows does not *need* any special Microsoft-created FCoE support. But neither did iSCSI, TCP/IP, Wi-Fi, etc. Microsoft could have left all of this to the ISVs and OEMs. But that was a disaster! Remember the bad old days of 802.11 drivers? PPP software? Assuming FCoE becomes popular, I don't want it to look like that...

Finally, there is the question of a software initiator. Although again Microsoft doesn't need one, it would be nice if they created one. The iSCSI initiator is a major positive from Redmond, and other operating systems have FCoE support now. Linux, for example, has Open-FCoE in the kernel (as of 2.6.29). Again, Microsoft doesn't need to do this but would benefit if they did.

Thanks for the comment, Bill!

By: John Obeto

John Obeto — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 23:40:26 +0000

Excellent points, Stephen.

However, I remember reading one of Greg Ferro's posts (http://bit.ly/aOSSto) recently from last year, where he laid out a case against FCoE.

If his assumptions are correct, and when the datacenter inevitably converges, would FCoE still be a player?

Should Microsoft deploy resources to create products for FC0E if it is, in fact, an interim step?

By: Bill Plein

Bill Plein — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 11:30:35 +0000

Stephen-

I had a chance to work with FCoE prior to the release of GA hardware from Cisco, Emulex and QLogic. I'm an advocate of the technology, so don't take my statements as against FCoE.

From an OS perspective, FCoE is no different than FC. A storage controller (HBA, CNA) connects to a storage target over a SCSI protocol.

But FCoE does require a CNA, so it's more like FC (from Microsoft's perspective) than iSCSI, which requires only a software initiator.

Anyhow, my perspective is from the technical side: If FCoE is no different than traditional FC from the OS perspective, why should MS take proactive position on it at all?

MS created an iSCSI initiator because other operating systems had free/included initiators. Certainly a software solution plays to their hand, but I'm confident that they were simply enabling solutions competitive to similar Linux and other OS solutions that were free or included in the base operating systems.

MS is not in the business of manufacturing HBAs or CNAs. Why should they be treating FCoE with preference over any other connectivity option?

Maybe I am missing something with my recent move from the world of network-connected SAN arrays to internal PCIe connected NAND Flash storage. Is there something from an OS perspective that MS can do to manage/support FCoE over and above what the CNA vendors can provide? Or are you simply stating that they should support the FCoE transition from a programatic/marketing perspective? There isn't a SCSI logo vs. FC logo vs. iSCI logo, an FCoE logo would stand out like a sore thumb, IMO.

Counter arguments welcome, willing to listen!

By: sfoskett

sfoskett — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 20:01:05 +0000

Thanks for the quick FCoE responses, Stu!
- I don't know who attended what meetings or what they did. I appreciate the info and am glad Microsoft is present!
- That newsletter is from June '08 and was superseded by the March 10, '09 announcement of logo support. We need word more than once a YEAR.
- VMware should be applauded for their iSCSI work, especially in ESX 4. This is all the more reason Microsoft should work hard to lead here – any Windows Server work benefits Hyper-V!
- Funny you should ask about the logo – I'll cover that another time. Hint: It's official!

By: stu

stu — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:51:15 +0000

Good thoughts Stephen, let me add a couple of points:
- Microsoft did attend some of the T11 FC-BB-5 meetings (Bob Griswold can be found in the attendance logs)
- See this MS Logo Program newsletter http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/whql/resources/ne... for their "official position"
- The CNA adapter vendors and storage vendors are supporting Windows environments (really to the OS, it just looks like the same certified FC HBA), but I agree with your point that Microsoft should embrace the solution.
- VMware was also a big participant in the iSCSI revolution & VMware also supports FCoE, so any perceived lack of flexibility from Microsoft has the potential to drive people to put their Windows in an ESX VM
- What in the world is that logo??