RE: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI
"John Hufferd" <jhufferd@Brocade.COM> Thu, 26 April 2007 00:42 UTC
Return-path: <ips-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hgs42-000180-55; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:42:26 -0400
Received: from ips by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Hgs40-00017v-E0 for ips-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:42:24 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hgs40-00017n-3o for ips@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:42:24 -0400
Received: from mail.brocade.com ([66.243.153.242] helo=mx10.brocade.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hgs3y-0004qP-PW for ips@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:42:24 -0400
Received: from mailhost.brocade.com (HELO discus.brocade.com) ([192.168.126.240]) by mx10.brocade.com with ESMTP; 25 Apr 2007 17:42:22 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,452,1170662400"; d="gif'147?scan'147,208,217,147"; a="9519139:sNHT57011815"
Received: from HQ-EXCHFE-2.corp.brocade.com (hq-vipexchfe-2.brocade.com [192.168.126.214]) by discus.brocade.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E5CF23836B; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:41:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hq-exch-1.corp.brocade.com ([10.3.8.21]) by HQ-EXCHFE-2.corp.brocade.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:42:21 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: RE: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:42:20 -0700
Message-ID: <39BA3BC178B4394DB184389E88A97F8C022C5C6C@hq-exch-1.corp.brocade.com>
In-Reply-To: <006001c7876e$12cc26f0$05faa8c0@ivivity.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI
Thread-Index: AceHbhab+EXeFVfgQWiH7jzYWydYaAAKX7IQ
From: John Hufferd <jhufferd@Brocade.COM>
To: Eddy Quicksall <Quicksall_iSCSI@Bellsouth.net>, Julian Satran <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Apr 2007 00:42:21.0806 (UTC) FILETIME=[C03A10E0:01C7879B]
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 1459dca363a7eac530b0f3f218abff0f
Cc: ips@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ips@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Storage <ips.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips>, <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ips@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips>, <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0678873095=="
Errors-To: ips-bounces@ietf.org
Eddy, The pause that is being analyzed as part of a Data Center Ethernet is NOT the total stuff that is being handled. The proposal that is being worked on is called PPP (Per Priority Pause - which probably should be called Per Class Pause). The purpose of this is to use it as a flow control alternative to a credit based approach which seems to be "not going to happen" in the 802.1 committee. This is a pause by class or priority instead of the current Pause that effects every thing on the link. However, this is only a part of the total solution. Another committee is working on the Congestion issues, however, a number of vendors, after looking at all the issues believe that we need more than just the various congestion management approaches that are being examined. Therefore, many vendor think that adding a flow control such as PPP can be part of the total solution to providing management of congestion, at least for some of the higher priorities (classes). That being said let me say, that FCoE is not to be considered a replacement for iSCSI. It is just another tool for providing storage to the application. One approach does not fit all needs. Fibre Channel is important to the Enterprise Market. They are not going to rip out and replace their current FC infrastructure and replace it with an all iSCSI or all FCoE network. So FC is going to be with us. I do not understand why folks are going so hyper over the FC frames being transported on a special Data Center Ethernet link instead of a FC physical Link. It is still FC, and we have that today. Many servers are asking for an evolutionary way to combine their Networking connections from the Server. The customers I have dealt with do NOT want to rip out FC, they want to provide a single Link for transport of all networking needs, including storage, exiting their servers. One needs to understand: this is still FC. But now the needs of a single connection type can be phased in one Host system at a time, and at some other time even the storage can be connected via FCoE. However, there does not seem to be a compelling argument for the use of FCoE to storage, at least not as compelling as the Server side. But some vendors will probably offer an FCoE connected storage controller. This however, has little need for link consolidation, and FC will continue to operate very well and I expect that even is FCoE is accepted at the server side, most storage controller will remain FC. iSCSI still has an important place in the enterprise, but one approach (FC, iSCSI, or FCoE) does not fit all. . . . John L Hufferd Sr. Executive Director of Technology jhufferd@brocade.com <mailto:jhufferd@brocade.com> Office Phone: (408) 333-5244; eFAX: (408) 904-4688 Alt Office Phone: (408) 997-6136; Cell: (408) 627-9606 ________________________________ From: Eddy Quicksall [mailto:Quicksall_iSCSI@Bellsouth.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 12:15 PM To: Eddy Quicksall; Julian Satran Cc: ips@ietf.org; John Hufferd Subject: Re: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Further, I think PAUSE is only for point-to-point and I think that is too restrictive. Eddy ----- Original Message ----- From: Eddy Quicksall <mailto:Quicksall_iSCSI@Bellsouth.net> To: Julian Satran <mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com> Cc: ips@ietf.org ; John Hufferd <mailto:jhufferd@Brocade.COM> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:55 PM Subject: Re: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI If it was not obvious in my wording, I meant to agree with you on your observations. Eddy ----- Original Message ----- From: Julian Satran <mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com> To: Eddy Quicksall <mailto:Quicksall_iSCSI@Bellsouth.net> Cc: ips@ietf.org ; John Hufferd <mailto:jhufferd@Brocade.COM> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:52 AM Subject: Re: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Sorry Eddy by sizable I meant even at the size of a modern data center. Julo "Eddy Quicksall" <Quicksall_iSCSI@Bellsouth.net> 25/04/07 11:08 To Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL cc ips@ietf.org, John Hufferd <jhufferd@Brocade.COM> Subject Re: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI I basically said that in the summery line by saying "it will not route on the "global" scale like TCP/IP would". ----- Original Message ----- From: Julian Satran <mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com> To: Eddy Quicksall <mailto:Quicksall_iSCSI@Bellsouth.net> Cc: ips@ietf.org ; John Hufferd <mailto:jhufferd@Brocade.COM> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:04 AM Subject: Re: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Eddy, That is oversimplified and ignore the drop rate assumption and error rate assumptions made in FCP(FCP has no transport layer). To get to it on a sizable network requires more than PAUSE. Julo "Eddy Quicksall" <Quicksall_iSCSI@Bellsouth.net <mailto:Quicksall_iSCSI@Bellsouth.net> > 25/04/07 10:07 To "John Hufferd" <jhufferd@Brocade.COM <mailto:jhufferd@Brocade.COM> >, Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL <mailto:Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL> cc <ips@ietf.org <mailto:ips@ietf.org> > Subject Re: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Basically, it is sending FC frames over Ethernet. This localizes the traffic unless you route based on MAC addresses. So you send 2146 bytes of FC frame plus 18 bytes of Ethernet overhead as FCoE "standard" packet. 18 bytes of Ethernet gets stripped and you have straight FC frame that can go through any FC network. Now you can have 10G Ethernet pipes into existing FC SANs. Limited market potential as far as I can see. The key argument is it much easier to implement than iSCSI and also has less overhead and uses all the benefits of FC. End to End credits are simulated using PAUSE command on Ethernet and MAC addresses are mapped into WWNs. Biggest knock is that it will not route on the "global" scale like TCP/IP would. Eddy
_______________________________________________ Ips mailing list Ips@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips
- Re: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Eddy Quicksall
- [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Julian Satran
- Re: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Julian Satran
- Re: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Eddy Quicksall
- Re: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Julian Satran
- Re: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Eddy Quicksall
- Re: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Julian Satran
- Re: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Eddy Quicksall
- RE: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI John Hufferd
- RE: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Sandars, Ken
- RE: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI John Hufferd
- RE: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Robert Snively
- Re: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Silvano Gai
- Re: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Julian Satran
- RE: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Silvano Gai
- RE: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI brown_David1
- RE: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Julian Satran
- RE: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Silvano Gai
- RE: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Frank D'Agostino (fdagosti)
- Re: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Eddy Quicksall
- RE: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI John Hufferd
- RE: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI John Hufferd
- RE: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Michael Krause
- RE: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Silvano Gai
- Re: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Eddy Quicksall
- RE: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Julian Satran
- RE: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Silvano Gai
- RE: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Larry Boucher
- RE: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Julian Satran
- RE: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Michael Krause
- RE: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Michael Krause
- RE: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Julian Satran
- RE: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI Nicholas A. Bellinger