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

[Luke Crawford <lsc@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006, Tom Mornini wrote:
> > 16 port 1G fibre-channel brocades go for around $100.  how much are the 16 
> > port cisco gig switches?
> Why do you insist on comparing used fiber channel equipment to new Gigabit?
I don't.  I'm comparing used/used, as that is what I use.   I am comparing 
used/server-grade to used/server-grade, not consumer grade.
> You can absolutely get 16 port gigabit switches for $100.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/kyrmp
do you really run netgear in production?  Find me a used 16 port 
server-grade gigE switch from a reputable manufacturer for under $500.
Netgear is not a reputable manufacturer of server-grade equipment.
Same goes for Linksys.  I had some rackmount linksys 8-port unmanaged gig 
switches ($400/each new)  in production about two years ago at one place 
I worked;  I'm not going to put myself through that again.

> Of course, with fiber channel, you need to add in the expense of fiber 
> channel
> HBAs as well, and those are more than gigabit ethernet HBAs as well, and many
> modern motherboards have dual and even quad gigabit ports onboard at no extra
> cost.
1G 64-bit PCI-X FC HBAs cost me arund $10/each, when bought used and in 
quantity (qlogic qla2200)
> Additionally, in a used marketplace, the price paid reflects the market's
> judgement on the worth of the item in question. If used ethernet switches
> did cost more than used fiber channel switches, it's because people found
> them worth more.
In a rational market, yes.  However, if you have consumers assuming that 
'more expensive is automatically better'  (and we have many)  the market 
quickly becomes irrational.
Also, right now used fibre is under priced because new fibre is so 
redicioulously overpriced.  Few of the "cheap" crowd has gotten a chance 
to work on fibre-channel equipment, and the corporate crowd that does 
know about fibre-channel isn't interested in the used market.
So you could say that the cost is an educational one, and you would have a 
point;   FC layer 1 and 2 is quite different from Ethernet layer1 and 2, 
and knowlege of ethernet layer 1 and 2 is quite applicable to the 
networking realm (where Ethernet will likely be the standard for some 
time.)
For me this learning cost is quite a bit lower, as I have alrealdy 
invested a lot in learning about the SCSI protocol, and most of that 
knowledge carries over to fibre-channel.

> I, for one, have no interest in going down the fiber channel road. It had
> its place, and still does at the high end for those who can afford it, but
> it's pretty clear that an investment in fiber channel is an investment in
> the past, IMHO.
You are probably going to need to buy new infrastructure when 10G ethernet 
comes out, yes.  but the same can be said for 1G ethernet.  I can't buy 
tomarows product's today.  My point is if I buy yesterday's fibre, I beat 
today's ethernet, both on price and performance, if the primary costs we 
are worried about are equipment costs and not training costs.
The cost is in learning fibre channel vs using existing Ethernet 
knowledge;  You are going to have to know ethernet either way,  and it's 
fairly clear that Ethernet is here to stay; wheras fibre may or may not.
For me, equipment is a large part of my operating budget, and my existing 
investment in SCSI knowlege makes fibre knowledge fairly easy to obtain, 
so fibre makes a lot more sense than Ethernet for storage.
If you are in an environment where training was your biggest expense, or 
where you needed to use new parts, the equation is quite different. 
"enterprise storage" market is quite irrational.
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users