ISCSI vs. FC performance A closer look
Filed in archive NAS , SAN , Technology on February 1, 2006
ISCSI vs. FC performance: A closer look:
What weighs more: one pound of bricks or one pound of Feathers? Which is faster: 2 Gb FC or 1 Gb Ethernet? Hint: Both questions have the same answer.
A very interesting post from Tony Asaro. I haven't yet had any experience with iSCSI, so I'm really not in a position to have much of an opinion. My git tells me that iSCSI will inherently have more latency than fibre - simply because you're passing a disk control protocol over a networking protocol, rather than over the bare metal/silicon.
Of course, I'm open to be proven wrong - and quite look forward to playing with this tech at some point...
Permalink: ISCSI vs. FC performance A closer look
Tags: iscsi performance
Trackback: http://www.creative-weblogging.com/publish/mt-tb.pl/
Addthis
Ask
Blinklist
del.icio.us
Digg
Fark
Facebook
Google
Lycos
Ma.gnolia
Mr Wong
Netscape
Netvousz
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Slashdot
Tailrank
Technorati
Wink
Yahoo
Vote for ISCSI vs. FC performance A closer look:
|
Rating: 6.40 out of 5 vote(s) cast.
|
Response from:
Tim Ingersoll
(09/11/07 4:03am)
I am having trouble with article as well. First, using TOE capability is limited to a Windows OS and not available for Linux. Must customer's looking to deploy FC and now using 4 GB HBA's not 2 GB as compared in the article. Next there is no discuss with the affect of all TCP/IP traffic on the customer's existing IP switches or the fact that FC protocol can run at wire speed vs. TCP with 30% utilization is about all the network traffic that can be tolorated without a great deal of resends.
| RSS |  See all blog subscribe options |
 What is RSS? | |
| Yahoo! |
|
| Addthis |
|
| Bloglines |
|
| Follow us on Twitter! |
