 




<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Do 10Gbit iSCSI and 8Gbit FC change how you think about your strategy for managing your data in the future?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/do-10gbit-iscsi-and-8gbit-fc-change-how-you-think-about-this-and-your-strategy-for-managing-your-data-in-the-future/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/do-10gbit-iscsi-and-8gbit-fc-change-how-you-think-about-this-and-your-strategy-for-managing-your-data-in-the-future/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 03:14:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: davegraham</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/do-10gbit-iscsi-and-8gbit-fc-change-how-you-think-about-this-and-your-strategy-for-managing-your-data-in-the-future/#comment-57614</link>
		<dc:creator>davegraham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 19:16:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-57614</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@Eric42,

the price premium of 8Gb over 4Gb is about 10%...that&#039;s quite different than the jump between GigE and 10Gbe (about 25-30%).

cheers,

Dave Graham]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Eric42,</p>
<p>the price premium of 8Gb over 4Gb is about 10%&#8230;that&#8217;s quite different than the jump between GigE and 10Gbe (about 25-30%).</p>
<p>cheers,</p>
<p>Dave Graham</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: davegraham</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/do-10gbit-iscsi-and-8gbit-fc-change-how-you-think-about-this-and-your-strategy-for-managing-your-data-in-the-future/#comment-57613</link>
		<dc:creator>davegraham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 19:14:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-57613</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;ll take it a step further and say that based on my work with customers, 2Gb FC links are just now starting to become saturated.  GigE, however, is something that would absolutely benefit from the change to 10Gbe.  Get rid of latency issues and really poor TCP/IP overhead issues and you&#039;ve got a very decent pipe that can maintain your infrastructure (Core) for quite a few years.

cheers,

Dave Graham]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ll take it a step further and say that based on my work with customers, 2Gb FC links are just now starting to become saturated.  GigE, however, is something that would absolutely benefit from the change to 10Gbe.  Get rid of latency issues and really poor TCP/IP overhead issues and you&#8217;ve got a very decent pipe that can maintain your infrastructure (Core) for quite a few years.</p>
<p>cheers,</p>
<p>Dave Graham</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: opensystemsstorageguy</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/do-10gbit-iscsi-and-8gbit-fc-change-how-you-think-about-this-and-your-strategy-for-managing-your-data-in-the-future/#comment-56356</link>
		<dc:creator>opensystemsstorageguy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:30:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-56356</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Actually, the bottleneck in a virtualized environment&#039;s storage stack is more likely to be the physical disk, not the bandwidth between the virtual workloads and the disks. 

One application that obviously benefits from this throughput I forgot to mention is backups- tape libraries and vtl are both capable of eating up a large amount of an 8Gb FC pipe.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, the bottleneck in a virtualized environment&#8217;s storage stack is more likely to be the physical disk, not the bandwidth between the virtual workloads and the disks. </p>
<p>One application that obviously benefits from this throughput I forgot to mention is backups- tape libraries and vtl are both capable of eating up a large amount of an 8Gb FC pipe.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: eric42</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/do-10gbit-iscsi-and-8gbit-fc-change-how-you-think-about-this-and-your-strategy-for-managing-your-data-in-the-future/#comment-56325</link>
		<dc:creator>eric42</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:47:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-56325</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Many users find themselves in your position: FC4 is working well for them, their FC4 pipes still have alot of headroom, and today&#039;s price premium for FC8 doesn&#039;t make sense at this point in time. As opensystemstorageguy pointed out, unless you have a lot of sequential IO (or just many truly large transactional applications), there may not be a compelling reason to pay the price for FC8 at this point in time.

Currently, the industry is in the middle of the FC8 transition. And, where the FC2-to-FC4 transition was practically cost point replacement, the optics on FC8 are still at a premium above FC4. Also, most storage arrays do not yet support FC8 or 10Gb iSCSI targets, so many customers don&#039;t see the need to deploy FC8 or 10Gb iSCSI infrastructure just yet.

One area where users can find a benefit in deploying FC8 or 10Gb iSCSI is in virtualized environments, where a large number of large VMs are running on a single physical server. The larger pipes of FC8 and 10Gb iSCSI can help get the IO off the server. Switches can then direct IO to different storage arrays.

-eric @ dell]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Many users find themselves in your position: FC4 is working well for them, their FC4 pipes still have alot of headroom, and today&#8217;s price premium for FC8 doesn&#8217;t make sense at this point in time. As opensystemstorageguy pointed out, unless you have a lot of sequential IO (or just many truly large transactional applications), there may not be a compelling reason to pay the price for FC8 at this point in time.</p>
<p>Currently, the industry is in the middle of the FC8 transition. And, where the FC2-to-FC4 transition was practically cost point replacement, the optics on FC8 are still at a premium above FC4. Also, most storage arrays do not yet support FC8 or 10Gb iSCSI targets, so many customers don&#8217;t see the need to deploy FC8 or 10Gb iSCSI infrastructure just yet.</p>
<p>One area where users can find a benefit in deploying FC8 or 10Gb iSCSI is in virtualized environments, where a large number of large VMs are running on a single physical server. The larger pipes of FC8 and 10Gb iSCSI can help get the IO off the server. Switches can then direct IO to different storage arrays.</p>
<p>-eric @ dell</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jimmyit</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/do-10gbit-iscsi-and-8gbit-fc-change-how-you-think-about-this-and-your-strategy-for-managing-your-data-in-the-future/#comment-56224</link>
		<dc:creator>jimmyit</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:00:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-56224</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I agree with the opensystemstorageguy . For my somewhat small company i haven&#039;t changed any strategy yet. I am sure something new will be out in a few years.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with the opensystemstorageguy . For my somewhat small company i haven&#8217;t changed any strategy yet. I am sure something new will be out in a few years.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using memcached
Database Caching 6/9 queries in 0.012 seconds using memcached
Object Caching 324/327 objects using memcached

Served from: itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com @ 2013-05-19 19:13:20 -->