|
AOE has lower overhead than iSCSI because it's done at Layer 2 instead of Layer 3. There's not IP protocol, no routing, etc., to worry about in AOE, which results in lower latencies and faster throughput.
In my experience, however, this is not a significant enough difference to push me to AOE. Furthermore, I've had occasion to use iSCSI in a fashion where having it "routeable" was quite useful and I would have be severely hampered had I been using AOE. Also, the amount of iSCSI software and hardware out there, and the maturity of iSCSI seems like another benefit over AOE. I'm not saying AOE is bad or the wrong option, just that iSCSI is much more widely accepted across the data storage industry, so you're more likely to find vendors that support it, build stuff for it, and/or write software compatible with it.
My two cents...
-Nick
>>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 10:19 AM, "Joseph L. Casale" <JCasale@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>I've been investigating several options for implementing AoE on a small
>farm.
Although no help to your question, I have followed AoE and iSCSI and wonder
what advantage AoE has over iSCSI if any and why you wouldn't use iSCSI?
Just curious...
jlc
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If this email is not intended for you, or you are not responsible for the delivery of this message to the intended recipient, please note that this message may contain SEAKR Engineering (SEAKR) Privileged/Proprietary Information. In such a case, you are strictly prohibited from downloading, photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this message, its contents or attachments in any way. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this e-mail and delete the message from your mailbox. Information contained in this message that does not relate to the business of SEAKR is neither endorsed by nor attributable to SEAKR.
|
