17 Jan
2017
17 Jan
'17
12:45 a.m.
Beware of SCSI folks who think they can design data network protocols.
Brantley
coraid.com
On Jan 16, 2017, at 6:41 PM, Tim Bradshaw
<tfb(a)tfeb.org> wrote:
Less than ten years ago I wrote a big rant at people where I worked about fibre channel:
all our machines had two entirely different networks attached to them: one built on
ethernet which was at that point all Gb on new machines and 10Gb on some (I don't
think that 10Gb switches were really available yet though) & where you could stuff a
machine with interfaces for the cost of a good meal, and where everything just talked to
everything else ... and one built on fibre channel which might have been 2Gb, where an
interface cost as much as a car, and where interoperability involved weeks pissing around
with firmware in the cards, and sometimes just buying new ones. Fibre channel was just
laughably worse than ethernet.
No one listened, of course, because my political skills are akin to those of a goat, and
fibre channel is *storage* which is completely different than networking, somehow.
Perhaps people still use fibre channel.
On 16 Jan 2017, at 16:44, Larry McVoy
<lm(a)mcvoy.com> wrote:
I held up the two cards, disclosed the cost, and said "this ATM card is
always going to be expensive but the ethernet card is gonna be $10 in
a year or two. Why? Volume. Every computer has ethernet, it's gonna
do nothing but get cheaper. And you're gonna see ethernet over fiber,
long haul, you're going to see 100 Mbit, gigabit ethernet, and it's
going to be cheap. ATM is going nowhere."