Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
By: Herby .Sz.
I believe the next 2 years will be very important to the future of FCoE adoption. Though devices like Violin Memory’s V6000 can prove their strengths a lot better via protocols like FCoE (compared to...
View ArticleClik here to view.
By: Erik Smith
Hi J, for me, the most important statement in the entire article was: “Generally speaking, the latency for 10GbE switches is measured in microseconds, while storage latencies are generally measured in...
View ArticleClik here to view.
By: Sunshine Posts (weekly) | Sunshine on the Gulf
[...] Cisco Blog » Blog Archive » FCoE ‘versus’ iSCSI – The Mystery is Solve… [...] 0 likes
View ArticleClik here to view.
By: Brad Hedlund
Demartek’s write-up is short on details. We don’t know if iSCSI was using DCB, or just plain TCP/IP flow control. We don’t know if the iSCSI host adapter was configured for all supported iSCSI and TCP...
View ArticleClik here to view.
By: J Metz
I can answer some of those questions. First, this was not lossless iSCSI, but regular TCP/IP iSCSI with full TCP offload. Second, since that offload was done on the CNA, and not on the CPU, it seemed...
View ArticleClik here to view.
By: Brad Hedlund
Thanks for the additional details, J. If you are comparing three protocols that are each capable of utilizing lossless forwarding in the network, providing that same service to all three protocols...
View ArticleClik here to view.
By: Erik Smith
Given the latencies involved (milliseconds instead of microseconds), even if they used flash drives for all three protocols instead of 10k and 15k drives, they probably still wouldn’t be measuring...
View ArticleClik here to view.
By: Lorenzo
What about AoE? It is cheap, fast and simple and it’s not requiring any change on the hardware site. 0 likes
View ArticleClik here to view.
By: J Metz
Hi Lorenzo. Thanks for reading. AoE was not part of our exploratory testing parameters. 0 likes
View Article
