Subject: Re: SCSI network
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Kenneth D. Merry <email@example.com>
Date: 10/01/1999 10:43:27
Matthew Jacob wrote...
> > Matthew Jacob wrote...
> > >
> > > The actual sensible way to do this is IP encapsulation over FibreChannel
> > > SCSI. An IP stack for Fibre Channel is a big pain in the ass. Target Mode
> > > for Fibre Channel is pretty easy. In fact, I'm about half ported for this
> > > into this sillyass Qlogic driver. You get a very large address space,
> > > don't have to worry about ID conflicts, and while it isn't as cheap as
> > > parallel SCSI, it isn't all *that* expensive and you get 1024Gbit
> > > transport with a 2k framesize (but no particular reason why can't layer
> > > arbitrary MTUs on top of that).
> > Although with Jumbo-frame capable GigE adapters available for $300, IP over
> > fibre channel may not be worth the hassle.
> Agreed- but it's not quite fair to state that it's 300$- it is 300$ *plus*
> per-port costs for a Gig Hub, right?
Right, if you have more than two machines. With just two machines, $600
plus a piece of fiber (soon to be Cat-5 cable) will do the trick.
> The only reason for doing IP over FC is if you already have a SAN for
> FC-SCSI in place, and if that is the case, there's no particularly great
> reason to use the FC-IP ULP because of the addeded software nonsense for
Right. I was thinking primarily of situations where there isn't already a
FC network in place.
IMO, unless there's an overriding need (i.e. equipment already installed or
some other reason), it would be better to go with a Gigabit Ethernet
network than FC.