Re: [Xen-users] Network based storage - NBD/AoE/iSCSI other?

[Luke Crawford <lsc@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006, Thomas Harold wrote:
> > My main point was that compared to a 1GB Ethernet 'dedicated to storage' 
> > network, a 1GB FC network is cheaper and faster;   I believe this to be 
> > true even if your end disks are SATA.  (but like I said, I might be wrong 
> > on that part;  I'm not really familiar with pricing for network-attached 
> > IDE arrays; I can't afford gigabit Ethernet equipment of a quality I'd like 
> > to maintain, and I use 10 or 15K scsi/FC for everything that matters 
> > anyhow.)
> For a small business, you can probably setup a small SAN for not that much. 
> 16/24 port "smart" gigabit switches that support VLANs, trunking, jumbo 
> frames can be had for under $500.  Put two of those together and you have a 
> fault-tolerant SAN fabric.  Dual-port server gigabit NICs for $180 each to 
> connect to the SAN switch fabric.  Do some bonding of multiple dual/quad port 
> NICs for bandwidth / fault-tolerance on the SAN unit.
16 port 1G fibre-channel brocades go for around $100.  how much are the 16 
port cisco gig switches?
> That's probably the biggest argument for iSCSI/AoE vs FC.  You can get 
> started for under $10k, prove that it works, then decide where you want to 
> spend more money on additional performance while reusing the old equipment to 
> spruce up other sections of your network.
my point is that the iscsi/AoE solution is more expensive, for less 
performance when compared to a FC solution.  you can recoup some of that 
by reusing the switches later, but it's still more expensive.
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users